alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Northern Technologies International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew C. Wolsfeld, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

|   | (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. |

 

|                            |   | Chief Financial Officer   (principal financial officer and principal accounting officer) |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |   |                                                                                     |
| Matthew   C. Wolsfeld, CPA |   |                                                                                     |

Lino Lakes, Minnesota January 14, 2005
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

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

ORDER/WATERS (No. CR05-5828FDB) - 1 (206) 553-7970

Judge Franklin D. Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-5828FDB

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER TO SEAL

)

BRIANA WATERS, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

The Court having considered the Government’s Motion to Seal, requesting that the

Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Bar Testimony of Jennifer Kolar and

Lacey Phillabaum in this case be sealed,

It is hereby ORDERED that Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to

Bar Testimony of Jennifer Kolar and Lacey Phillabaum be and remain sealed until further

order of this Court.

DATED this 26th day of April, 2007. A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/Mark Bartlett 

MARK BARTLETT

First Assistant United States Attorney

s/Andrew C. Friedman 

ANDREW C. FRIEDMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 107 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 1
No. 59836.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 265932-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

When this case was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff. An examination of the official papers disclosed that the item in question was assessed at the rate of 35 percent under paragraph *4011513, as modified, as claimed. The protest was dismissed, the court holding that the protest presented no cause of action.
# Official Journal L 223/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 223 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6529 August 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 223

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6529 August 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1433 of 26 August 2022 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2022) 6192)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1433 of 26 August 2022 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2022) 6192)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2022) 6192)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 61624.

#### American Almond Products Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 306030-K (A) (New York).

*474Opinion by

Donl'on, J.

Plaintiff having raised no objection and following *The Best Foods, Inc.*v. *United States (37*Cust. Ct. 1, C. D. 1791), the motion was granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P. (the  "Partnership")  for the quarter ended  September 30,
2006 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2003,  I,  Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
March 6, 2007
Case No. 6,543.

#### HITNER v. SUCKLEY.

[2 Wash. C. C. 465.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1810.

Injunction to Stay Waste —Service upon Attorney.

Rule to show cause why an injunction to stay waste should not be granted, and why service of the subpoena upon the attorney of the' defendant, in a suit depending against the defendant for slandering his title to the land mentioned in the bill, should not be considered as a service on Suckley. If a judgment at law be obtained, the service of a subpoena on the attorney of the plaintiff, he being absent from the state, will be deemed good, where the subject in controversy is the same with the matter in the suit for which the judgment was rendered.

[Cited in Eckert v. Bauert, Case No. 4,266; Ward v. Seabry, Id. 17,161; Sawyer v. Gill, Id. 12,399; Segee v. Thomas, Id. 12,-633; Kamm v. Stark, Id. 7,604; Crellin v. Ely, 13 Fed. 423.)

Rule to show cause why an injunction to stay waste should not be granted, and why service of the subpoena, upon the attorney of the defendant, in a suit depending against the plaintiff, for slandering his title to the lands in the bill mentioned, should not be considered as a service on Suckley. The case was, that one Broom, being indebted to Hitner, executed a mortgage to him for securing the same, on a certain tract of land the subject of this injunction. Suckley, .being a creditor of Broom, obtained a judgment against him; and the same land was taken in execution, sold by the marshal, and purchased by Suckley. The bill charges, that the defendant has committed, and threatens to continue committing, waste on this land, which will be rendered insufficient to discharge the debt due to the complainant. The defendant in equity, is plaintiff at law, in the action against the complainant, for slandering the defendant’s title to this land, and the question was, whether service of the subpoena on the defendant’s attorney in that cause, ought to be considered as a service on the defendant? The complainant’s counsel cited 1 P. Wms. 523; 1 Har. Ch. Prae. 162, 20S.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

BY THE COURT.

If a judgment at law bp obtained by one person against another, and an injunction be applied for, the court will consider a service of the subpoena upon the attorney of the plaintiff at law, to be sufficient, if his client live out of the state. But the action at law by the defendant against the complainant, for slandering his title, la totally unconnected with the subject of controversy presented by this bill; and the court cannot consider the defendant’s attorney in that action, as representing him in this case. The motion for the injunction was with*250drawn, on the counsel for the defendant promising to advise his client not to commit waste;.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 52

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative

to limiting the terms of Senators and Representatives.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 11, 1998

Mr. MURKOWSKI introduced the following joint resolution; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relative to limiting the terms of Senators and

Representatives.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

8 ‘‘ARTICLE—

9 ‘‘SECTION 1. A person may not serve as a Senator

10 for more than 2 terms. If a person has served or is serving
2

•SJ 52 IS

1 as a Senator on the date of ratification of this article, that

2 person may serve only 1 more term.

3 ‘‘SECTION 2. A person may not serve as a Represent4 ative for more than 3 terms. If a person has served or

5 is serving as a Representative on the date of ratification

6 of this article, that person may serve only 2 more terms.’’.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Silviano RODRIGUEZ-OSORIO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10478.

D.C. No. CR-99-00507-RLH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, *2001*
      *1*
      *.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Silviano Rodriguez-Osorio appeals the 34-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry of a deported alien. Rodriguez-Osorio contends that in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court erred in imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) based upon a prior felony which the indictment did not allege, to which he did not admit, and which was not submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He also contends that *Apprendi*renders inapplicable *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense), because he did not admit to an aggravated felony at his plea hearing. His arguments are foreclosed by this court’s recent decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *as amended*(Feb. 8, 2001). *United States v. Castillo-Rivera,*244 F.3d 1020, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2001).

The sentence is AFFIRMED. This matter is REMANDED to the district court with directions to correct the judgment of conviction to exclude the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), consistent with *United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.2000). *United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (2000).

AFFIRMED.

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rudolph Eston NESSELRODT, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-6440.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 20, 2005.

Decided Aug. 10, 2005.

Rudolph Eston Nesselrodt, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Rudolph Eston Nesselrodt seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying in part his subsequent motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Nesselrodt has not made the requisite show*146ing. Accordingly, we deny Nesselrodt’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
# Official Journal L 343/24 D

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 343 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4824 December 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 343

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4824 December 2005

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 of 15 December 2005 publishing, for 2006, the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 of 15 December 2005 publishing, for 2006, the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Before the First Division,

May 18, 1967

(Note : The following protests were decided by a special first division consisting of Oliver, Watson, and Rao, Judges.)

No. P67/169.

No. P67/170.

No. P67/171.

#### Castelazo & Associates and Monroe Fabricators et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/10310, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Castelazo & Associates and Famous Jobbing Co., Inc., et. al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/10956, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Seaway Importing Co. *v.*United States,

protest 65/6815 (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue herein is the specific issue in *United States*v. *Weather-Bite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:06-cv-00345-JLR Document 17 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 11053)

#### United States *v.*Maher & Company

Entry No. 13489.

(Decided August 9, 1965)

*Jolm W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for tlie plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Nichols, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is before me on the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between tbe parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court as follows:

> (1) That tbe involved merchandise, consisting of Corfi Sisal Twine, was entered on or after tbe effective date of tbe Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927, 84th Congress, T.D. 54165) and is not identified on tbe Mnal List published by tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521).

> (2) That on or about tbe date of exportation, tbe price at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered in tbe principal markets of the *571country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, said price including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was $21.50 per 100 pounds, less ocean freight and insurance charges of $245.59 and $13.08, respectively, net packed.

> (3) The appeal may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On tlie agreed facts, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, ns ¡amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956,70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that said value is $21.50 per 100 pounds, less ocean freight and insurance charges of $245.59 and $13.08, respectively, net packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-157129 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 28, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements of China Distance Education Holdings Limited, its subsidiaries, its variable
interest entity and the subsidiaries of its variable interest entity (collectively, the Group) and the effectiveness of the Groups internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of China
Distance Education Holdings Limited for the year ended September 30, 2011.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd,  
|Beijing, the Peoples Republic of China
|                                       
|February 28, 2012
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

ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ROBIN JERMYN,

 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

 Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-542-RSL

 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

 MOTION FOR EQUAL ACCESS TO 

 JUSTICE ACT FEES

Plaintiff filed a motion for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Dkt. 21.) Plaintiff seeks

$6,533.63 in attorney’s fees and $41.82 in expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28

U.S.C. § 2412, and costs in the amount of $60.25 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Defendant does not

object to plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. 23.) Having considered the motion and the accompanying documents,

the Court finds plaintiff’s request reasonable. 

It is therefore ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Equal Access to Justice Act Fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel

is hereby awarded the attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses requested.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00542-RSL Document 24 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER – 2

(2) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.

DATED this 4th day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Recommended for entry this

3rd day of January, 2007

S/MARY ALICE THEILER

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00542-RSL Document 24 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Roderick de Greef, Chief Financial Officer of Cardiac Science, Inc. (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-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (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 780(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: May 10, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    RODERICK DE GREEF                 
|                   |  |  |  |                                          
|                   |  |  |  | Roderick de Greef Chief Financial Officer