alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C ORRECTED ORDER ISSUED : March 7, 2013

NOTE: This order is nonpre c e dential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

WENDY W. GHANNAM,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

, Respondent.

______________________

2013

- 3050

______________________

Petition for review from the Mer it Systems Protection

Board in case no . DC0841120179

- I

- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

The Office of Personnel Management moves to reca ption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board

(“Board”) as the respondent.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is desi gnated as the respondent when the Board's decision co ncerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The

employing agency is designated as the respondent when the Case: 13-3050 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2013WENDY GHANNAM v. MSPB 2

Board reaches the merits of the und erlying case. Here, the

Board dismissed Wendy Ghannam’s petition for lack of

jurisdiction. Thus, the Board is the proper respondent in

this petition for review.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The motion is granted. The revised official caption is

reflected above

. The respondent should calculate its brief

due date from the date of filing of this order.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s25 Case: 13-3050 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 03/07/2013
EXHIBIT 32

Section 1350 Certifications



STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of China Biologic Products, Inc.  This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Biologic Products, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.



The undersigned certify that such 10-K Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-K Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China Biologic Products, Inc. as of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.



This Certification is executed as of March
28, 2008

|By:    /s/ Stanley Wong
-----------------------------------------
Stanley Wong
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By:     /s/ Chao Ming Zhao
-----------------------------------------
Chao Ming Zhao
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Biologic Products, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-502 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Acquisition and Cross-Servicing 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MOZAMBIQUE 

Signed at Maputo May 2, 2007 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
MOZAMBIQUE 

Defense: Acquisition and Cross-Servicing 

 Agreement signed at Maputo May 2, 2007; 

 Entered into force May 2, 2007. 

 With annexes.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No. 333-139127, No. 333-152951 and No. 333-168787) pertaining to the 2008 Performance Incentive Plan of Willdan Group, Inc. of our
report dated March 29, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Willdan Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2010 and for the year then ended included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Los
Angeles, California
March 29, 2011

---



QuickLinks
§ 158.403 Circumstances in which a State is conducting audits of issuers. ( a ) If a State conducts an audit of an issuer's MLR reporting and rebate obligations, HHS may, in the exercise of its discretion, accept the findings of that audit if HHS determines the following: ( 1 ) The laws of the State permit public release of the findings of audits of issuers;
( 2 ) The State's audit reports on the validity of the data regarding expenses and premiums that the issuer reported to the Secretary, including the appropriateness of the allocations of expenses used in such reporting and whether the activities associated with the issuer's reported expenditures for quality improving activities meet the definition of such activities;
( 3 ) The State's audit reports on the accuracy of rebate calculations and the timeliness and accuracy of rebate payments;
( 4 ) The State submits final audit reports to HHS within 30 days of finalization; and
( 5 ) The State submits preliminary or draft audit reports to HHS within 6 months of the completion of audit field work unless they have already been finalized and reported under paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
( b ) If HHS accepts an audit conducted by a State, and if the issuer makes additional rebate payments as a result of the audit, then HHS shall accept those payments as satisfying the issuer's obligation to pay rebates pursuant to this part.
Exhibit 4.39
 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
 th th
  Vedanta Aluminium Limited
  Sterlite Industries (I) Limited
  1. Deletion of clause:
 Clause no 4 relating to Redemption Date shall stands deleted
 2. Replacement of existing Clause 5 Option to Convert with the following Clause 4:
 4.Subscribers Option to Convert:i) The subscriber shall have an option to convert the debenture in part or in full of
shares at such premium, as may be decided based on the fair value by any Merchant Banker/
any other expert agency in the field, at any time from the date of allotment either in full
or in part. Such option shall be exercised within a period of 5 (five) years from the date
of allotment, unless extended once for an additional period of 5 (five) years solely at the
request of the holder. On the expiry of the said period, or extended period, the debentures
shall be converted to shares as if the subscriber had provided the required notice and
exercised the option to convert.ii) Conversion Notice: The Subscriber shall be required to give 7 days clear notice in
writing to the Company for exercise of the Call option. The Company shall however be within
its right to waive the specified period and agree for shorter notice.




---



##### 



3
 th
  For VEDANTA ALUMINIUM LTD.
    
    
    For STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD./s/ Virendra Agarwal
    
    /s/ P.L. Chockalingam
    
    /s/ Sushil Gupta
    
    /s/ B. Anand(Virendra Agarwal)
    
    (P.L. Chockalingam)
    
    (Sushil Gupta)
    
    (B. Anand)Authorised Signatories
    
    Authorised SignatoriesWitness:
    
    /s/ Girish S. Agarwal
    
    /s/ L.N. TandonGirish S. Agarwal
    
    L.N. Tandon
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of GranahanMcCourt Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period endedDecember 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|            | **/s/  Barak Bar-Cohen**             |
|------------|--------------------------------------|
| ** ** | **Barak Bar-Cohen**                  |
| ** ** | **Principal Financial Officer****r** |

April 2, 2007

----
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Burl Brittsin 

County Auditor 

an Patrialo County 

Sinton, Texnr 

-- eupplemental 

. require minirs beiore will ooniOF that eirport bp 

rield r0r belanoe 0r 

Nery oeaaem to use ror tr$.nout in opinion no, O-5330, our opinla8 that aountler have no etatutiory auutea, 

e 1269h, Vernon’s ¬ated Civil. statto lease land rrom inbiribualr Ior airport pur~08ear 

Artiole 52l+80 Vernon’8 :sn?tated Civil statutee 

authorize8 the aoguiaitfon or land by oounties by Lease on b 

for the us8 0r the pederal ~overnm3nt; 0na not for their okm 
nonorable aurl Drlttaiai Pace 2 

uee or ror the operation or a oommerolal airport. :lhen 

laml 18 leered under authority or Artlole 52480, the authorized Lear6 term la that perlOd the yederal Government 

omtraota to use the wa. xoreover, Artiole 1269h, Pernon’1 Annotated Girl1 atatutee, authorizer the operation 

of an airport by oountler only when the land ir aoquired 

by purohaae or aondePnation in. the mums- there set forth, 

Oountler may aot through their oomnlarlonera* 

aourta only in the turtheranoe or oounty bualnese (Artlale 

V, seotlon 18, Constitution at Texas) and then their authority la rtrlotly llmltob to thoeo powerr sxpreisrlp or 

Lnplledlg aonrerrea by law, Ccwdrrloaerr~ court VI. 

::aUaoe, 15 3.w. (2d) 535) 11 Texar Jurlr 

56);. Other than the etatutes enumereted 

rudBnoe, page 

% oplnlone 

o-4972, O-5330, and t&la supplement, we hare round none 

bearing upon the problem. 

::Ie thererore aarlee you that lg our oplnlon 

your oounty 18 not authorlzea to operate, a oommgrolal airport on land.leaaeb trofi an lndlvldual for the use oi the 

ITederal Gorernment when the Gorarnment Olare8 to use suah, 

land; and that the authorized lea68 term under Artiole 

5a8e, Yernon'e Annotated Girl1 Statutea, 11 that period 

the Goternment oontraote to use the land. 

fib regret that inadvertent4 we railed to enalose a oopy or our oplnlon number O-4972 whloh you will 

tlnd herewith. 

Very truly your8
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q/A OF GOLDLEAF FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2006**

The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the undersigned’s best knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for Goldleaf Financial Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”):

|   | (a)    | 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 Issuer. |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

          This Certification is executed as of March 28, 2007.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|   | /s/ G. Lynn   Boggs       |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                           |
|   | G. Lynn   Boggs           |
|   | Chief   Executive Officer |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1674 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1674

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the National Consumer Cooperative Bank Act to allow for the 
   treatment of the nonprofit corporation affiliate of the Bank as a 
    community development financial institution for purposes of the 
 Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Consumer Cooperative Bank 
Act Amendments of 2009''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK AFFILIATE AS COMMUNITY 
              DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.

    Section 211 of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank Act (12 
U.S.C. 3051) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
    ``(e) Treatment as Community Development Financial Institution.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the nonprofit corporation 
established under this section shall be deemed to be a community 
development financial institution for purposes of the Community 
Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, unless, 
after the date of the enactment of the National Consumer Cooperative 
Bank Act Amendments of 2009, the Bank, or any affiliate (as defined in 
section 103(3) of the Community Development Banking and Financial 
Institutions Act of 1994) of the Bank, participates in depository 
institution incentives under section 114 of the Community Development 
Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 16, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Town of Barre *vs.*George Jerry.

January Term, 1896.

Present: Ross, C. J., Taft, Rowell, Tyler, Munson and Thompson, JJ.

A town recovering a forfeiture under R. L. 3132 (V. S. 3513) for wanton injury to a highway is entitled to full costs, although the penalty be less than, five dollars.

R. Iv. 1444 (V. S. 1686) and R. L. 1445 (V. S. 1687) considered.

Action for penalty under R. L. 3132 (V. S. 3513). Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1895, Washington County, Start, J., presiding. Verdict, one dollar.

Judgment thereon with full costs. The defendant excepted.

The action was commenced before a justice of the peace and came to the County Court on appeal by the plaintiff.

*Tohn G. Wing*for the defendant.

*64The plaintiff, having recovered only nominal damages can recover only five dollars of costs. R. L. 1444 and 1445 (,Y. S. 1686 and 1687) *Engrem*v. *Myers,*54 Yt. 628.

It is only by force of the statute that costs are ever allowed. *Tyler*v. *Frost,*48 Yt. 486; *Munger*v. Verder, 59 Yt. 386.

*John W. Gordon*and *George W. W^ng*for the plaintiff.

This proceeding is of the nature of a criminal prosecution. The offense is against the public. The limitation upon costs applies only to civil actions.

Munson, J.

This is an' action founded on R. L. 3132, (V. S. 3513); which provides that one who wantonly or illegally injures a highway, in any of the ways therein specified, shall forfeit to the town, to be expended in repairing highways, not more than thirty dollars, to be recovered by the selectmen, in an action in the name of the town, with costs. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for one dollar, and the court allowed full costs. To this allowance the defendant excepted.

R. L. 1444 (V. S. 1686) restricts costs in actions tried before a justice to five dollars, when the amount recovered does not exceed that sum; and R. L. 1445, (V. S. 1687) provides that when the plaintiff appeals the county court shall be governed by the same rule. The plaintiff would have recovered the restricted costs allowed by this general provision, if nothing had been said about costs in R. L. 3132 (V. S. 3515); so no effect will be given to the words “with costs” contained in that section, unless they arc held to carry full costs. The general provision was enacted as early as 1822, and the section last cited, the substance of which had been before enacted and repealed, dates from the revision of 1839. There is nothing to indicate that the allowance of costs by this section was intended as a mere repetition, and the rule which requires that some force be given to a further legislative expression must be applied.

*Jiidgment affirmed.*
RESPONSE TO AUDIT FINDINGS: HALL FOR CONGRESS (January 1, 2015- December 31, 2016):

Finding 1: Receipt of Contributions in Excess of the Limit

While it is true that committee at the time of receipt of contributions did not do presumptive
redesignation letters for all contributions received, the committee and the Treasurer were pro-active
in verifying upon contribution receipts if contributions were from Federally Permissable Funds and
from allowable sources. No contribution was deposited into the committee account without having
discussed with Professional Fundraising Firm that contributions were from Federally Permissable
Funds and from allowable sources. We reviewed regulations with Fundraisers as they were hired, and
instructed volunteer fundraisers re: rules & regulations. Fundraisers were required to contact the
contributors to verify information for each and every contribution that was questionable. Later,
Audit Staff identified those when they conducted audit and many others where they had questions.
After ascertaining that committee did not have presumptive redesignation letters for those identified,
committee and fundraisers obtained such letters for the vast majority of those in question.

Finding 2: Use of General Election Contributions for Primary Expenditures

The candidates in the election in 2016 knew they would be facing each other in both a Primary
Election and General Election from the start of the campaigns after filing closed. Many decisions were
made to order Stationery for what was expected to be very costly and very contested elections for
both elections, for signs that were placed throughout the district, for literature that was to be used for
the whole campaign, both Primary and General. Offices were opened and set-up with equipment and
supplies also knowing that there would be two elections. The cost of those expenditures to pay for
the Stationery, the signs, the literature, the equipment and the supplies in the setting up of those
offices were for sums greater than the amount identified by Audit Staff/or at least equal to the
amount in question.
§ 286.220 What happens if a Tribe fails to meet TANF requirements? ( a ) If we determine that a Tribe is subject to a penalty, we will notify the Tribe in writing. This notice will: ( 1 ) Specify what penalty provision(s) are in issue;
( 2 ) Specify the amount of the penalty;
( 3 ) Specify the reason for our determination;
( 4 ) Explain how and when the Tribe may submit a reasonable cause justification under § 286.225 and/or a corrective compliance plan under § 286.230(d) for those penalties for which reasonable cause and/or corrective compliance plan apply; and
( 5 ) Invite the Tribe to present its arguments if it believes that the data or method we used were in error or were insufficient, or that the Tribe's actions, in the absence of Federal regulations, were based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
( b ) Within 60 days of receipt of our written notification, the Tribe may submit a written response to us that: ( 1 ) Demonstrates that our determination is incorrect because our data or the method we used in determining the penalty was in error or was insufficient, or that the Tribe acted prior to June 19, 2000, on a reasonable interpretation of the statute;
( 2 ) Demonstrates that the Tribe had reasonable cause for failing to meet the requirement(s); and/or
( 3 ) Provides a corrective compliance plan as discussed in § 286.230.
( c ) If we find that the Tribe was correct and that a penalty was improperly determined, or find that a Tribe had reasonable cause for failing to meet a requirement, we will not impose the related penalty and so notify the Tribe in writing within two weeks of such a determination.
( d ) If we determine that the Tribe has not demonstrated that our original determination was incorrect or that it had reasonable cause, we will notify the Tribe of our decision in writing.
( e ) If we request additional information from a Tribe, it must provide the information within thirty days of the date of our request.
§ 263.3 When do child care expenditures count? ( a ) State funds expended to meet the requirements of the CCDF Matching Fund (i.e., as match or MOE amounts) may also count as basic MOE expenditures up to the State's child care MOE amount that must be expended to qualify for CCDF matching funds.
( b ) Child care expenditures that have not been used to meet the requirements of the CCDF Matching Fund (i.e., as match or MOE amounts), or any other Federal child care program, may also count as basic MOE expenditures. The limit described in paragraph (a) of this section does not apply.
( c ) The child care expenditures described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be made to, or on behalf of, eligible families, as defined in § 263.2(b).