alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report of Wellesley Capital Management Corp., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Adelstein, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting 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 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 results of operations of the Company.  Date: August 20, 2012  /s/ Steven Adelstein Steven Adelstein Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
Order entered June 12, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00598
- CR No. 05
- 14
- 00626
- CR No. 05
- 14
- 00627
- CR EX PARTE ANTONIO HER RERA On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No s . F11
- 42288
- U, F11
- 42289
- U, F11
- 42290
- U 

### O RDER The Court has received appellant’s notices of appeal from the trial court’s order denying his challenge to the conditions of his pretrial bonds. Because it was unclear whether appellant’s challeng e to the conditions was brought in the trial court as a motion or a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, the Court sent the parties a letter questioning our jurisdiction over the appeals. Appellant responded that we have jurisdiction because he did file a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, and the trial court’s May 7, 2014 order denying the relief is the order from which the appeals are taken. The State did not respond. The Court has not yet received the clerk’s records, so the ul timate issue of jurisdiction is deferred to the submissions panel.
We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s records in these appeals by JUNE 23, 2014 . The clerk’s records shall contain copies of the indictment, the bondconditions, al l documents related to appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the trial

court’s certifications of appellant’s right to appeal. The Court has received the reporter’s record from a March 19, 2014 hearing on the issue of appellant’s bond conditio ns, but no record from May 7, 2014. Accordingly, we ORDER Peri Wood, official court reporter of the 291st Judicial District Court, to file, by JUNE 23, 2014 , either the reporter’s record of the May 7, 2014 hearing or written verification that no hearing w as conducted on May 7, 2014.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief by JULY 11, 2014 . We ORDER the State to file its brief by JULY 29, 2014 . If any party does not file its brief by the date specified, the appeal will be submitted without that party’s brief

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 31.1. The appeal will be submitted without oral argument on August 18, 2014 to a panel consisting of Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang

- Miers.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the
Hono rable Jennifer Balido, Presiding Judge, 291st Judicial District Court; Peri Wood, official court reporter, 291st Judicial District Court; Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### MEYER et al. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

(District Court, S. D. New York.

October 20, 1903.)

1. Wharves—Injury of Boat from Storm—Inevitable Accident.

The injury of a barge while moored to a pier during a gale of unusual severity, which caused injury to many other vessels at the same place, *held*to have been due to inevitable accident, for which the owner of the wharf was not responsible.

In Admiralty.

Martin A. Ryan, for libellants.

Robinson, Biddle & Ward, for respondent.

ADAMS, District Judge.

This action was brought to recover the damages, amounting to $112.64, suffered by the libellants, through their barge, the John H. Meyer, Jr., being injured at South Amboy, on the 23rd and 24th of November, 1901. The boat first lay at the respondent’s wharf, known, as the Old Steamboat Pier, and the libellants allege negligence on the respondent’s part in causing her to be moved by the tug Winnie, to the New Steamboat Pier, which it is alleged was an unsafe and dangerous berth, and placed on the outside of a number of boats there.

The respondent denies the moving by it and it appears that the Winnie was not at South Amboy at the time. The respondent alleges that the mooring wharf was ordinarily safe and that the injured boat, with a number of others, while lying there, was damaged by stress of weather and by reason of an extraordinary storm.

It is shown by the evidence that the storm was a north east gale, of quite unusual severity, which was attended by rain and a very high tide. The effect upon the boats at South Amboy was disastrous generally and many suffered much more seriously than the libellants’ boat. The defence of inevitable accident is clearly established and affords a complete exoneration of the respondent, especially as the evidence *429shows that this was the only case of such an accident happening in a period of about ten years, during which the wharf in question had been constantly used as a mooring place.

Libel dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2134
KENT J. ASHTON, Petitioner, versus FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; CITY OF CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents.
No. 01-1562
KENT J. ASHTON, Petitioner, versus FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; CITY OF CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the Federal Aviation Administration. (16-99-09, 16-00-01) Submitted: September 13, 2001 Decided: September 20, 20012 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kent J. Ashton, Petitioner Pro Se. Kenneth P. Quinn, Frank San Martin, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C.; Anthony Alan Yang, Michael Jay Singer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Keith J. Merritt, David Betts Hamilton, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated proceedings, Kent J. Ashton filed twopetitions for review of final agency decisions issued by the Associate Administrator for Airports for the Federal Aviation Administration. We have reviewed Ashton’s arguments, the record, and the orders issued by the Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, and the Associate Administrator and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. We deny motions to strike informal briefs and grant Ashton’s motion to file a corrected informal brief. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITIONS DENIED
From: myshakleelady@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:53:42 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Sheila Maguhn

Orange Park, FL 32065
From: viflagella@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:42:35 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Viola Flagella

Cambridge Springs, PA 16403
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GALE NORTON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1835JLR

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable

James L. Robart:

The Honorable James L. Robart recuses himself and the case is reassigned in

rotation to the Honorable James P. Donohue. All future pleadings shall bear the cause

number C05-1835JPD.

Filed and entered this 10th day of November, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

s/Mary Duett

By

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01835-RSL Document 3 Filed 11/10/2005 Page 1 of 1

Seattle Audubon Society et al v. Norton et al Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
From: notnac4@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:58:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dale Canton

Dallas, TX 75287
#### Samuel Plotkin, Public Administrator of Kings County, as Administrator of the Estate of Gustave Martinez, Deceased, *654Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 979]

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated February 2, 1994, which denied its motion (1) to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated June 4, 1992, granting the plaintiffs application to be substituted as administrator of the estate of Gustave Martinez, and (2) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as the summons and complaint were timely served, this action cannot be considered a nullity merely because the original plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue *(see, Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp.,*51 NY2d 242, 249; *Seidensticker v Huntington Hosp.,*194 AD2d 718). Although the defendant maintains that the subsequent order substituting the Public Administrator as plaintiff was obtained by fraud, we agree with the Supreme Court that the record does not support this contention. Because the defect in capacity was cured prior to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the motion was properly denied *(see, Seidensticker v Huntington Hosp., supra; Snay v ■ Cohoes Mem. Hosp.,*110 AD2d 1021, 1022). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyof the igneous rocks of Essex County, Massachusetts**
 
Report | Plates: OneTwoThree
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:704
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:
 
000957646
No. 68074.

#### American Import Co. and Wheeler & Miller et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/23055, etc. (San Francisco).

*241Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Dolat Ventures, Inc. 10-K




Exhibit 32.1


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 of Dolat Ventures Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Shmuel Dovid Hauck, 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; and





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





Dated this 16th day of June, 2010./s/ Shmuel Dovid HauckShmuel Dovid Hauck, Director and Chief Executive Officer
No. 66532.

#### M. S. Cowen Co. *v.*United States,

protest 284636-KS (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Vichai Sae TUNG, Petitioner, v. Donald A. RADCLIFFE, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent.

No. 01-15334.

D.C. No. CV 01-00111-DAE.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2001.

Decided July 13, 2001.

Before GOODWIN, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Vichai Sae Tung, a native and citizen of Thailand, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and challenges the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (“INS”) order that he report to the Honolulu INS office for termination of parole and deportation. While deportation proceedings were pending, Tung allegedly received authorization from the INS to visit his sick father in Thailand. Upon his return, the INS denied Tung entry into the United States. He was then paroled into the United States for a determination of his status. Tung filed a habeas petition to the district court in which he requested a preliminary injunction to prevent his deportation. The district court denied relief, and we affirm.

The district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Tung’s petition for habeas corpus, because Tung did not exhaust his administrative appeal. We apply the preIIRIRA exhaustion provision, which stated: “[a]n order of deportation ... shall not be reviewed by any court if the alien *694has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him as of right under the immigration laws and regulations.” 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c). Tung did not exhaust his administrative remedies because he failed to address on direct appeal to the BIA and the Ninth Circuit the various issues that he raises now — equitable estoppel, the Fleuti doctrine, whether 8 C.F.R. § 3.4 violates his due process rights, and whether the 90-day rule is mandatory.

Tung argues that the exhaustion rule should not apply here, because his failure to oppose his deportation order was caused by the Government’s sending its motion to dismiss to the wrong address; and his counsel did not receive the Government’s motion until after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had issued its order. Tung’s argument is unavailing because he fails to provide a legal basis for his failure to appeal and, therefore, to exhaust. Unlike the petitioner in *Nakaranurack v. United States,*68 F.3d 290, 294 (9th Cir.1995), Tung does not claim that he did not receive notice of the BIA’s order declaring “the initial decision of the Immigration Judge [ ] final as though no appeal had been taken” until it was too late to appeal. The late arrival of the Government’s motion does not explain why Tung did not appeal the order or why his motion to reconsider was untimely. In sum, the district court did not err in refusing a preliminary injunction, because there was no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
287
REPORTER'S CE RTIFICATE

This is to certify that the atta ched proceedings
before:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY In the Matter of:

**ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS FOR DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS**  Were held as herein appe ars and that this is the original transcript ther eof for the file of the Department, Commissio n, Board, Adminis trative Law Judge or the Agency. Further, I am neither c ounsel for or related to any party to the ab ove proceedings.



### Wendy Greene Official Reporter Dated: April 21, 2011