alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of
ATEL Capital Equipment Fund VIII, LLC (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: July 23, 2007



|                                                                                      |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                |  | 
|Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                    |  | 
|Executive Vice President of Managing Member Principal Financial Officer of Registrant |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1631.15 Capital improvements. ( a ) As required by 45 CFR 1630.6 and 1631.3, a recipient must obtain LSC's prior written approval before using more than $25,000 LSC funds to make capital improvements to real estate.
( b ) The written request must include: ( 1 ) A statement of need;
( 2 ) A brief description of the nature of the work to be done, the name of the sources performing the work, and the total expected cost of the improvement; and
( 3 ) Documentation showing that the recipient followed its procurement policies and procedures in competing, selecting, and awarding contracts to perform the work.
( c ) A recipient must maintain supporting documentation to accurately identify and account for any use of LSC funds to make capital improvements to real estate owned by the recipient.
# CongressionalCandidate Table 8d
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 61478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8733]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Electronic Health 
Record Workgroup Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the eleventh meeting the American Health 
Information Community Electronic Health Record Workgroup in accordance 
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., 
App.).

DATES: November 7, 2006, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a 
Federal building).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http://www/hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/ehr_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The workgroup discussion will include a 
discussion of critical components as well as other topics relating to 
an electronic health record.
    The meeting will be available via Web cast at http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/ehr_instruct.html.

    Dated: October 12, 2006.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 06-8733 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
#### Eliza Landau, Appellant, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.

*Landau,*v. *N. 7. O.*c6 *U. R. R. R. Go.,*115 App. Div. 921, affirmed.

(Argued January 27, 1909;

decided February 9, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 27, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received through defendant’s negligence.

*D. F. Searle*and *Ward J. Cagwin*for appellant.

*Charles T. Titus*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, CIl, Gray, Haight, Werner,Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATEOF MONTANA No. 99-677
SOMONT OIL COMPANY, INC., a Montana corporation, Plaintiffand Appellant,

A & G DRILLING, INC., CAVALIER PETROLEUM, INC.,A.G. WALLS aMaJOE WALLS, JOHN WALLS, and STEWARTHOWELL all d/b/a C-WJOINTVENTURE, aMaCAVALIER-WALLS JOINT VENTURE, Defendants, Respondents, and Cross-Appellants. By letter, Robert J. Michels (Michels) has requested leaveto file a briefamicus curiae in the instant appeal. We deem Michels' letter a motion pursuant to Rule 

### 24, M.R.App.P.,
1 and further deem that his statement that he desires to "present a mineral owner's point of view on this matter" meets the requirements ofRule 

### 24 that the applicant's motion identify the interest of the applicant and state the reasons why the brief is desirable. We observe, however, that Michels' motion is submitted on the stationery of the Northeast Montana Land and Mineral Owners Association, Inc. and is signed by Michels as President of that corporation. As a result, we caution that if the brief amicus curiae is to be submitted as the brief ofthe corporation rather than Michels, personally, it must be prepared, filed and served by an attorney admitted to practice law in the Stateof Montana. THEREFORE,IT 

### IS ORDERED that Michels' motion for leave to file a brief arniczrs curiae is GRANTEDand said brief shall beprepared, filed and served on orbefore March 23,2000. The Clerk is directed to mail a true copy of this Order to Michels, personally, and to counsel ofrecord forthe 

### DATED fhisz#amary, 2000.

Justices Justice James C. Nelson did not participate.
Exhibit 33.2
                                  ------------





          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA



The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.
(collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of
compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii),
(iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o  The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o  The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o  As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



                                      1
<PAGE>


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.



      The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007



                                      2
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of the Chief Executive Officer 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 MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George M. Lee, Executive Vice Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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; and2.

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






Date: May 11, 2011
By:
/s/ George M. LeeGeorge M. LeeExecutive Vice Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32(a)

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alberto-Culver Company (the company) for the
period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, V. James Marino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    V. James Marino               
|President and Chief Executive Officer

December 12, 2006
Exhibit 32.1  Certificate 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 Annual Report of Timberjack Sporting Supplies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted D. Campbell II, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  a.The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and  b.The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.  Dated: November 12, 2008By:/s/ Ted D. Campbell IITed D. Campbell II
President
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Accounting Officer
Sole Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY – WASHINGTON: The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services program has issued a Decision and Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Bird Damage Management in Washington Environmental Assessment 

(EA). The EA evaluated potential impacts to the human environment from the implementation of a bird 

damage management program in Washington to address damage and threats of damage caused by birds. 

The proposed action in the EA evaluated an integrated management approach to reduce damage to 

property, agricultural and natural resources, and threats to public safety caused by birds where a need 

exists and a request is received. The EA identified and analyzed the potential environmental effects of 

conducting alternative strategies for reducing bird damage in the State. The analyses contained in the EA 

and the Decision concluded that the proposed action alternative would not have a significant impact upon 

the quality of the human environment. The Decision and FONSI were signed on November 14, 2011 

selecting the proposed action alternative.

PUBLIC NOTICED UNTIL JANUARY 7, 2012

Interested parties may obtain a copy of the Decision/FONSI by clicking on the following link:

Washington Bird Damage Management EA FONSI

Or by contacting: 

State Director

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services

720 O’Leary Street, NW

Olympia, WA 98502

Tel: (360) 753-9884 

FAX: (360) 753-9466

Interested parties may also obtain a copy of the Final EA by clicking on the following link:

Washington Bird Damage Management EA
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130593 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130593 COA: 267310 Oakland CC: 2004-197373-FH WILLIAM JOSEPH WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

l0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
JOSEPH LUIS LEVIN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 0350

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed May 3, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Nassau County

. Robert M. Foster , Judge

.

Joseph Luis Levin, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorne y

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 1634.3 Competition for grants and contracts. ( a ) After the effective date of this part, all grants and contracts for legal assistance awarded by the Corporation under Section 1006(a)(1)(A) of the LSC Act shall be subject to the competitive bidding process described in this part. No grant or contract for the delivery of legal assistance shall be awarded by the Corporation for any period after the effective date of this part, unless the recipient of that grant has been selected on the basis of the competitive bidding process described in this part.
( b ) The Corporation shall determine the service areas to be covered by grants or contracts and shall determine whether the population to be served will consist of all eligible clients within the service area or a specific subpopulation of eligible clients within one or more service areas.
( c ) The use of the competitive bidding process to award grant(s) or contract(s) shall not constitute a termination or denial of refunding of financial assistance to a current recipient pursuant to parts 1606 and 1625 of this chapter.
( d ) Wherever possible, the Corporation shall award no more than one grant or contract to provide legal assistance to eligible clients or a subpopulation of eligible clients within a service area. The Corporation may award more than one grant or contract to provide legal assistance to eligible clients or a subpopulation of eligible clients within a service area only when the Corporation determines that it is necessary to award more than one such grant or contract in order to ensure that all eligible clients within the service area will have access to a full range of high quality legal services in accordance with the LSC Act or other applicable law.
( e ) In no event may the Corporation award a grant or contract for a term longer than five years. The amount of funding provided annually under each such grant or contract is subject to changes in congressional appropriations or restrictions on the use of those funds by the Corporation. A reduction in a recipient's annual funding required as a result of a change in the law or a reduction in funding appropriated to the Corporation shall not be considered a termination or denial of refunding under parts 1606 or 1625 of this chapter.
§ 2105.15 What is the basic time limit for responding to a request? ( a ) Ordinarily, the Agency has 20 workdays (including the date of receipt) to determine whether to comply with a request, but unusual circumstances may allow the Agency to take longer than 20 workdays (*see* § 2105.17).
( b ) A consultation or referral under § 2105.12 does not restart the statutory time limit for responding to a request.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, David (Xiaoying) Gao, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Biologic Products, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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 report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 2, 2016



|/s/ David (Xiaoying) Gao      | 
|----------------------------- | 
|David (Xiaoying) Gao          | 
|Chief Executive Officer       | 
|(Principal Executive Officer) |
#### Mary E. Palmer *v.*Orville Lawrence, et al.

October Term, 1898,

Present: Ross, 0. J., Rowell, Tyler, Munson and Start, JJ.

Opinion filed August 31, 1899.

*Evidence*— An endorsement on a note in the handwriting of a deceased owner , being conceded to be evidence to show which of two notes a certain payment was applied on, and it not appearing that it was received in evidence for any other purpose, the objection that it was inadmissible to show on which of the two notes the payment was in fact made was, not considered.

Chancery. Foreclosure of mortgage. Caledonia County, December Term, 1899, Thompson, Chancellor. Decree for oratrix. Defendants appealed.

The case was heard on petition, answer, report of special master, and exceptions thereto. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Bates, *May & Simonds*for the oratrix.

*Dunnett dk Slack*for the defendants.

Munson, J.

In arriving at the amount of the decree, the master excluded from the computation an item of two hundred dollars, which the defendants claimed should be applied in reduction of the mortgage debt. It appears that the mortgage in suit was formerly owned by a person who died before the hearing, and that this person held at the same time another mortgage against the same debtor, which was known as the Blancher mortgage. The defendants presented the receipt of this deceased person for two hundred dollars, and claimed that the money receipted for was paid upon the mortgage in suit, while the oratrix claimed that it was paid and applied upon the Blancher mortgage. Upon this question, and in connection with evidence of handwriting and identity of payment, the master received the *15Blancher note in evidence. The defendants insist that its admission was error.

It is said in defendants’ brief that the fact that this payment was endorsed on the Blancher note was not questioned, and that the controverted point was whether it should have been endorsed there, and that consequently the endorsement must have been received as a written declaration of the deceased owner that the application was correct. But the fact of its having been so applied cannot have been conceded in advance of evidence, for the report states that the note was received in connection with evidence that the payment represented by the receipt was the payment so endorsed. So it cannot be said but that the note was offered as showing how the money represented by the receipt was in fact applied, and we do not understand the defendants to question its admissibility for that purpose. There is nothing in the report to indicate that the master received or used it for any other purpose.

*Decree affirmed, and cause remanded.*
§ 1616.3 Qualifications. A recipient shall establish qualifications for individual positions for attorneys providing legal assistance under the Act, that may include, among other relevant factors: ( a ) Academic training and performance;
( b ) The nature and extent of prior legal experience;
( c ) Knowledge and understanding of the legal problems and needs of the poor;
( d ) Prior working experience in the client community, or in other programs to aid the poor;
( e ) Ability to communicate with persons in the client community, including, in areas where significant numbers of eligible clients speak a language other than English as their principal language, ability to speak that language; and
( f ) Cultural similarity with the client community.