alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (a) and (b))  I, S. Emerson Lybbert, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. (the Company) certify that: (1) the quarterly report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   By:  /s/ S. Emerson Lybbert Name: S. Emerson Lybbert Title: Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Date: November 12, 2010   PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (a) and (b)  I, S. Emerson Lybbert, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. (the Company) certify that: (1) the quarterly report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    By: /s/ S. Emerson Lybbert Name: S. Emerson Lybbert Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)  Date: November 12, 2010
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Startech Environmental Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph F. Longo, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.
|   



|By:/s/ Joseph F. LongoJoseph F. LongoChairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentSeptember 15, 2008
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



---
No. 61619.

#### Red Rock Bottlers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 120501-K, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of flavoring sirup, composed of a mixture of sugar, water, flavoring, and coloring matter, in chief value of invert sugar, having a minus polariseopic reading the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Jovita Perez et al.*(44 C. C. P. A. 35, C. A. D. 633), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ae
ponceviMANING CO.

en CE MING
-
P
ie
Lecce
=
z
Ew
Pd ads 7
ee
150-

LU

ZINC, IN PARTS PER MILLION

Platteville formation

175

700 2800

cette
DODGEVILLE MINING CO.
(Shetty mineralized)

Gutoecat

Pid gt

Platteville formation

. —

LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION

175

iain
Rees ig Cee
(Stent ineratzed)

a

DEPTH, IN FEET

8

ine
us. geotOcrcaL suRV
Kee ae |

—_——-
ZING, IN PARTS PER MILLION

wees
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
‘Wel mineralized)

ame eo
So ee

Hote,
u.s.geol Sica, sum
eater ol

IRON, IN PERCENT

IRON, IN PERCENT

Boone

BULLETIN 1000 PLATE 10

‘Samples not available —>
for analysis.

125:

ws 3800,

——
1000

oocewlte Min
oe waa
Ce rnere)

fitek oe

LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION

Uff

atin
Samples nat vai

COMPARISON OF ZINC, LEAD, AND IRON CONCEN-
TRATIONS IN A SLIGHTLY-MINERALIZED AREA WITH
THOSE OF WELL-MINERALIZED AREAS.

CROW BRANC

H

369614 O—56 (In pocket) No. 4
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 ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

VARSITY GOLD, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v.

ERIC BIGHAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C06-0509RSM 

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO SEAL

This matter is before the Court for consideration of defendants’ motion to seal, Dkt. # 152. In

reviewing the motion to seal, the Court has found that the materials which defendants seek to keep under

seal represent declarations and exhibits attached to five separate motions for summary judgment, Dkt. ##

153, 155, 157, 160, and 163. The total number of pages in these motions is fifty-seven, well in excess of

the number of pages allowed for dispositive motions. 

Under Local Rule 7(e)(3), motions for summary judgment shall not exceed 24 pages in length. 

Parties may not bifurcate claims or issues simply to circumvent the page limitations as stated in the Local

Rules. Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES the five separate motions. Defendants may REFILE a

single motion for summary judgment no later than July 25, 2007, and the dispositive motion filing

deadline is hereby extended to that date. The briefing schedule and noting date for the motion shall be in

accordance with the Local Rules.

In view of this disposition of the five motions, defendants’ motion to seal (Dkt. # 152) is

Case 2:06-cv-00509-RSM Document 169 Filed 07/12/07 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

27

28 ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL - 1

DENIED as moot. The motions and declarations filed in support of the separate motions (Dkt. ## 154,

156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, and 164) shall, however, remain under seal; they no longer constitute

judicial records, and the public therefore has no interest in their disclosure. 

Dated this 12th day of July, 2007.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00509-RSM Document 169 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 64590.

#### De Witt Tool *&*Equipment Co. and Castelazo & Associates et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/3421 (B), etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of angle plates similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61507, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6278** 

WILLIAM E. SHEARRIN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:11

- cv - 00742

- HEH )

Submitted : May 30, 2012 Decided: June 7, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per c uriam opinion
.
William E. Shearrin , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William E. Shearrin see ks to appeal the district
court ’s order dismissing his habeas petition as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006); Jones v.
Braxton , 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004) . A certificate of appealability will n ot issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court has denied relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

rea sonable jurists would fin d that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds wi thout reaching the underlying constitutional claims , the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Shearrin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral3 argume nt because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
# C_2009001EN.01S00301.xml

| 6.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 1/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 1/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
Honorable Cullen B. Vance 

city A;w-p3y 

Edna, 

Dear Sir: Opinion Number O-2353 

Rer In the event the coming 

election carries and the 

proposed bonds are voted, 

what will be the status of 

the #lOO,OOO bonds previously voted? 

We are in receipt of your opinion request of recent 

date end quote from your letter as followsz 

"In 1938 the City of Edna voted bonds in the 

amount & $100,000.00 for the purpose of ooni 

strutting sn eleotric light and power generating 

and distribution system. 

"Recently it was determined that this amount 

would-be inadequate to build the system, whereupon, an election was called for May 17th for the 

purpose of voting on bonds in the amount of @50,- 

000.00, the purpose of these bonds being Identical 

with that originally voted. 

mFhe question is, in the event the coming eleotion carries and the bonds are voted, what will be 

the status of the $lOO,OOO.OO' bonds previously 

voted? 

llWith respect to the bonds first voted, nothing 

further has been done since they were voted." 

If the City of Edna votes.another bond issue of 

9150,000.00, they will have outstanding a total authorized 

bond issue of #250,000.00, as there is no law permitting the 

cancellation or revocation of an authorization once 

obtained from the electorate. 
Honorable Cullen B. Vance, page #2, O-2353 

We are enclosing a copy of our Opinion Number 

o-1339, which we believe clearly sets forth our view on 

this point. It us our understanding that both issues 

are revenue bonds issued under Artiole 1118, Vernon's 

Annotated Civil Statutes, thereby pledging the net 

revenues from said system, and further secured by a 

mortgage on the properties of said system. Article 1113, 

Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides, in part, as 

follows: 

"No part of the income of any such system 

shall~ever be used to pay any other debt, expense or obligation of such city or town, until 

the indebtedness so secured shall have been 

finally paid." 

The Supreme Court of Texas has construed this 

language to preclude cities from issuing second-mortgage 

bonds against the income of a light system until final 

payment of the indebtedness secured by the original bond 

issue. City of Houston vs. Allred, 71 S.W. (2d) 251. 

Therefore, we see that the @OO,OOO.OO issue 

previously voted would, as a matter of fact, lie dorment 

and definitely could not be issued until the $150,000.00 

debt had been fully paid. If at some future time, after 

the $150,000.00 debt has been fully discharged, the 

properly constituted officials of the city attempted to 

issue the $100,000.00 of bonds, they could not do so if 

it is conclusively shown that the purpose for which such 

bonds had been authorized had been accomplished. 

Trusting that the foregoing answers your 

question, we are 

Very truly yours 

APPROVED JUNE 15, 1940 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

s/ Gerald C. Mann s/ Claud 0. Boothman 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS By 

Claud 0. Boothman 

Assistant 

Approved Opinion Committee 

By BWB, Chairman 

COB-s/cg 

Encl.
----

List of agencies and laboratories which third countries have made responsible for completing the documents which must accompany each consignment of wine imported into the Community

(Article 29 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2001)

(2005/C 336/06)

This list cancels and replaces the list published in Official Journal of the European Union C 213 of 31 August 2005

----
No. 68534.

#### Marset, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/5246, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of certain varnish and ink pastes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Marset, Inc.,*and *W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 127, C.D. 2400), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 15.2

February 28, 2012

China Distance Education Holdings Limited (the
Company)

18th Floor, Xueyuan International Tower

1 Zhichun Road, Haidian District

Beijing 100083, Peoples Republic of China

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have acted as legal
advisors as to the laws of the Peoples Republic of China to the Company in connection with the filing by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission of an annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2011 and any amendments thereto (the Annual Report).

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name
and our opinions and views in the Annual Report. We further consent to the filing of this letter as an exhibit to the Annual Report.

In
giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Sincerely yours,



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Jingtian & Gongcheng
|Jingtian & Gongcheng
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1759
JOHN C. BOYLE, “Jack”, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusUNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR; MARTHA SANTAMARTINO, Examining Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (MC-01-27) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John C. Boyle, Appellant Pro Se. Steven E. Gordon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:John C. Boyle appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his action seeking judicial review of the decision by the Solicitor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to deny his request to depose a trademark examiner as a third-party witness. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Boyle v. United States Patent & Trademark Office , No. MC-01-27 (E.D. Va., filed May 14, 2001; entered May 16, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 247

To authorize testimony, document production, and representation of Member

and employees of the Senate in United States v. Jack L. Williams, et al.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 11, 1998

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony, document production, and representation of Member and employees of the Senate in United

States v. Jack L. Williams, et al.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Jack L. Williams,

et al., Criminal Case No. 96–0314, pending in the United

States District Court for the District of Columbia, a trial

subpoena has been served upon Galen Fountain, an employee of the Senate on the staff of the Committee on

Appropriations, and testimony may be requested from

Senator Dale Bumpers;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(2)), the Senate may direct its counsel to

represent Members and employees of the Senate with re-
2

SRES 247 ATS

spect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official responsibilities;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;

Whereas, by rule VI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no

Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave;

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That Senator Dale Bumpers, Galen Foun2 tain, and any other employee from whom testimony or doc3 ument production may be required, are authorized to tes4 tify and to produce documents in the case of United States

5 v. Jack L. Williams, et al., except when Senator Bumpers’

6 attendance at the Senate is necessary for the performance

7 of his legislative duties, and except concerning matters for

8 which a privilege should be asserted.

9 SEC. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized

10 to represent Senator Bumpers, Galen Fountain, and any

11 other employee of the Senate, in connection with testimony
3

SRES 247 ATS

1 and document production in United States v. Jack L. Wil2 liams, et al.

Æ
# L_2005268EN.01S00301.xml

| 13.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 268/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 268/s3

---

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 81/2005 was withdrawn prior to adoption and is therefore blank.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 68 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.68
                                     Agreed to November 13, 1997        

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, 
November 13, 1997, or Friday, November 14, 1997, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, and that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, 
November 13, 1997, or Friday, November 14, 1997, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
    Sec. 3. The Congress declares that clause 5 of rule III of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives and the order of the Senate of 
January 7, 1997, authorize for the duration of the One Hundred Fifth 
Congress the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of 
the Senate, respectively, to receive messages from the President during 
periods when the House and Senate are not in session and thereby 
preserve until adjournment sine die of the final regular session of the 
One Hundred Fifth Congress the constitutional prerogative of the House 
and Senate to reconsider vetoed measures in light of the objections of 
the President, since the availability of the Clerk and the Secretary 
during any earlier adjournment of either House during the current 
Congress does not prevent the return by the President of any bill 
presented to him for approval.
    Sec. 4. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall inform the 
President of the United States of the adoption of this concurrent 
resolution.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```