alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of China Water Group, Inc.
(the “Company”) certifies that:




1.           The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended June 30,
2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and




2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  June
      16, 2008
                    /s/ Wenge FangWenge
      Fang, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
              INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUAZON CORP.
              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,
              2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
              TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,889
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,889
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,991
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,847,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,889
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,085
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,285)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,285)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,285)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
#### § 95.589 [Reserved]
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. C. Dudley WILSON’S ESTATE, Deceased, the Trenton Banking Company, Executor, Respondent.

No. 10351.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Feb. 20, 1951.

Decided Feb. 26, 1951.

Edward J. P. Zimmerman, Washington, D. C. (Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, A. F. Prescott, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., on the brief), for petitioner.

James O. Wynn, New York City (W. Arthur Campbell, George G. Blattmachr, G. Harold Blattmachr, New York City, on the brief), for respondent.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented by this case is whether two trusts created by the decedent in 1937 for the benefit of his children were subject to estate tax upon his death in 1945 because he retained the power to terminate the trusts. For the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Judge Mur-dock for the Tax Court in banc, 13 T.C. 869, we are satisfied that the trusts were not subject to the decedent’s power to terminate them. The Tax Court, therefore, rightly held that they were not subject to the estate tax.

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.
****Coastal Engineering News**
Coastal EngineeringWaterways Experiment Station
--------- Dec 1995 --- Mar 1996  Jun 1996  Sep 1996  Jan 1997  Apr 1997 July 1997Oct 1997Jan 1998July 1998Dec 1998Apr 1999Dec 1999 - PDFHTML
Coastal and Hydraulic NewsNovember 2000 - PDFMay 2001 - PDFNote: 45 pages in length

**News Item - May 2000**
**Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Reorganizes**

**News Item - July 1999**
**International Patent**

**News Item - March 1999**
International Activities

**News Items - October 1998**
Partnering Workshop a Success
CHL Enters TAA to Study Canals in South America
CHL to Conduct Breakwater Studies for Mexico
CHL Finalizing CRDA With South American University
Agreement With Thailand
CHL Researchers Receive National Awards
CHL Completes Bosnia Efforts
Coastal Engineering Education Program (CEEP)
New Information on CHL Web Page

**News Items - April 1998**
CHL Gets 3 of 6 Army R&D; Awards Received By Corps
WES and SAD Sign SHOALS MOA With Navy
Contaminated Dredged Material Disposal in Borrow Pit
Workshop on Models For Filling/Emptying Locks
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Models Merged
CHL Studies Dredged Material Dispersion on Sea Grasses
Vessel-Generated Current Model HIVEL2D Available
WES Sponsors Latin American Water Resources Sessions

President of Paraguay Visits WES$300 Million Saved !!Just $150 Million Saved !!CHL Engineer Wins International AwardWES Signs Patent LicenseStudy Allows Project to Proceed
DOER InitiatedGroundwater Modeling SupportRiver and Stream CenterRIBSSava River Team
Laboratory MergerCERB Proceedings on InternetWES/Mobile Joint Technical Center of ExpertiseHurricane Fran Support

Coastal EngineeringWaterways Experiment Station
Questions and comments should be directed to webmaster@cerc.wes.army.mil
Last updated 27 July 2001.

**
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of NetFabric Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vasan Thatham,
      Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




August 17,
      2007





/s/ Vasan
                ThathamName:
                Vasan ThathamTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      NetFabric Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by NetFabric Holdings, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
§ 216.14 Marine mammals taken before the MMPA. ( a ) Section 102(e) of the MMPA provides, in effect, that the MMPA shall not apply to any marine mammal taken prior to December 21, 1972, or to any marine mammal product, consisting of or composed in whole or in part of, any marine mammal taken before that date. This prior status of any marine mammal or marine mammal product may be established by submitting to the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service prior to, or at the time of importation, an affidavit containing the following: ( 1 ) The Affiant's name and address;
( 2 ) Identification of the Affiant;
( 3 ) A description of the marine mammals or marine mammal products which the Affiant desires to import;
( 4 ) A statement by the Affiant that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the marine mammals involved in the application were taken prior to December 21, 1972;
( 5 ) A statement by the Affiant in the following language: The foregoing is principally based on the attached exhibits which, to the best of my knowledge and belief, are complete, true and correct. I understand that this affidavit is being submitted for the purpose of inducing the Federal Government to permit the importation of—under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 through 1407) and regulations promulgated thereunder, and that any false statements may subject me to the criminal penalties of 13 U.S.C. 1001, or to penalties under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
( b ) Either one of two exhibits shall be attached to such affidavit, and will contain either: ( 1 ) Records or other available evidence showing that the product consists of or is composed in whole or in part of marine mammals taken prior to the effective date of the MMPA. Such records or other evidentiary material must include information on how, when, where, and by whom the animals were taken, what processing has taken place since taking, and the date and location of such processing; or
( 2 ) A statement from a government agency of the country of origin exercising jurisdiction over marine mammals that any and all such mammals from which the products sought to be imported were derived were taken prior to December 21, 1972.
( c ) No pre-Act marine mammal or pre-Act marine mammal product may be imported unless the requirements of this section have been fulfilled.
( d ) This section has no application to any marine mammal or marine mammal product intended to be imported pursuant to §§ 216.21, 216.31 or § 216.32.
[39 FR 1852, Jan. 15, 1974, as amended at 59 FR 50375, 50376, Oct. 3, 1994]
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 15975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05775]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request; Job Clubs Study

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor published a document in the Federal 
Register of February 26, 2013, concerning request for comments on site 
visits to job clubs. The document contained incorrect dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ben Seigel by telephone at 
202-693-6032 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at 
CFBNP@dol.gov.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of February 26, 2013, in FR Doc. 2013-
04391, on page 13086, in the second column, correct the DATES caption 
to read:

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
addressee section on or before April 27, 2013.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of March, 2013.
Irasema Garza,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor .
[FR Doc. 2013-05775 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MASMINAH MARIPIN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70655

Agency No. A097-102-276

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 26, 2016**

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Masminah Maripin, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 2 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-70655

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings. Zamanov v. 

Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies within Maripin’s testimony regarding alleged harm from 

her husband, when she last had contact with her husband, and whether she felt 

threatened by anyone other than her husband. See id. at 973 (testimony about the 

events leading to petitioner’s departure goes to the heart of the claim); AlvarezSantos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003) (inconsistency was a specific 

and cogent reason supporting the adverse credibility determination). Maripin’s

explanation, that she did not recall these incidents until her second hearing, do not 

compel the opposite result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Absent credible testimony, Maripin’s withholding of removal claim fails. See 

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Maripin’s CAT 

claim because she failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to 
3 13-70655

Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 73.6023 Distributed transmission systems. ( a ) Station licensees may operate a commonly owned group of Class A stations with contiguous predicted TV noise-limited contours (pursuant to § 73.619(c)) on a common television channel in a distributed transmission system.
( b ) A Class A TV station may be authorized to operate multiple synchronized transmitters on its assigned channel to provide service consistent with the requirements of this section. Such operation is called a distributed transmission system (DTS). Except as expressly provided in this section, Class A stations operating a DTS facility must comply with all rules in this part applicable to Class A single-transmitter stations.
( c ) For purposes of compliance with this section, a Class A station's “authorized facility” is the facility authorized for the station in a license or construction permit for non-DTS, single-transmitter-location operation. A Class A station's “authorized service area” is defined as the area within its protected contour (described by § 73.6010(c)) as determined using the authorized facility.
( d ) The protected area for each DTS transmitter is determined based on the F(50,90) field strength given in § 73.6010(c), calculated in accordance with § 73.625(b). The combined protected area of a Class A DTS station is the logical union of the protected areas of all DTS transmitters, that falls within the station's authorized service area as defined in paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) The DTS limiting area for each DTS transmitter is determined using the field strength from § 73.6010(c) and the F(50,50) curves.
( f ) An application proposing use of DTS will not be accepted for filing unless it meets all of the following conditions: ( 1 ) The combined protected area covers all of the applicant's authorized service area;
( 2 ) Each DTS transmitter's Class A DTS limiting contour falls within the authorized facility's Class A DTS limiting contour;
( 3 ) Each DTS transmitter's protected area is contiguous with at least one other DTS transmitter's protected area;
( 4 ) The “combined field strength” of all DTS transmitters in a network does not cause interference to another station in excess of the criteria specified in §§ 73.6017, 73.6018, 73.6019, and 73.6020. The combined field strength at a given location is determined by a “root-sum-square” calculation, in which the combined field strength is equal to the square root of the sum of the squared field strengths from each transmitter in the DTS network at that location; and
( 5 ) Each DTS transmitter must be located within the station's authorized service area.
( g ) All transmitters operating under a single Class A DTS license must follow the same digital broadcast television transmission standard.
[89 FR 7264, Feb. 1, 2024]
§ 80.104 Identification of radar transmissions not authorized. This section applies to all maritime radar transmitters except radar beacon stations. ( a ) Radar transmitters must not transmit station identification.
( b ) [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Ronald S. Friend, the Chief Financial Officer of Reddi Brake Supply Corporation (the ACompany@), certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and  c) presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and  Date: October 10, 2006                                                 By: /s/ Ronald S. Friend Ronald S. Friend  Chief Financial Officer
§ 5.83 Cancellation provisions. The applicant for a station in the Experimental Radio Services accepts the license with the express understanding that: ( a ) The authority to use the frequency or frequencies permitted by the license is granted upon an experimental basis only and does not confer any right to conduct an activity of a continuing nature; and
( b ) The grant is subject to change or cancellation by the Commission at any time without notice or hearing if in its discretion the need for such action arises. However, a petition for reconsideration or application for review may be filed to such Commission action.
§ 95.2193 LPRS labeling requirements. Each LPRS transmitting device must be labeled with the following statement in a conspicuous location on the device: This device may not interfere with TV reception or Federal Government radar.
( a ) Where the LPRS device is constructed in two or more sections connected by wire and marketed together, the statement specified in this section is required to be affixed only to the main control unit.
( b ) When the LPRS device is so small or for such use that it is not practicable to place the statement specified in this section on it, the statement must be placed in a prominent location in the instruction manual or pamphlet supplied to the user or, alternatively, must be placed on the container in which the device is marketed.
AFS

- 1 3

- 474

- E September 11, 2013

Exemption No. 10869

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0654

M r. Don Bintz

Applewhite Aero

2709 Cyrano Avenue

Henderson, NV 89052

Dear Mr. Bintz :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter s submitt ed July 19 and 30 , 2013 you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration

(FAA) on behalf of Applewhite Aero ( Applewhite )

, for an exemption from §§ 91.9(b) and

91.203(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . This exemp tion will

allow Applewhite to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that does not carry and

display the aircraft’s airworthiness, certification, and registration documents required under

part 91.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not p ublishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Applewhite

.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances si milar in all material respects to

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9564 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that it is unnecessary to carry and display the airworthiness, certification, and

registration documents in UASs for the oper ations described by the petitioner. The original2

intent of the subject regulation was to display the airworthiness and registration documents so

they would be easily available to FAA inspectors and passengers.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting a n exemption, I find that

—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant

of Exemption No. 9564;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9564 also

apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Applewhite Aero an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.9(b)

and 91.203(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to operate its unmanned aircraft systems

( Applewhite ) that do not carry and display the aircraft’s airworthiness, certification, and

registration documents required in part 91 , subject to the conditions and lim itations described

below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. The documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the pilot in

command of the UAS anytime the aircraft is operating.

2. Those documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be made av ailable

within 10 days to any FAA, U.S. Department of Defense, or law enforcement

official.

3. This exemption is not valid for operations outside the United States.

This exemption terminates on September 3 0 , 201 5

, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sinc erely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure