alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                  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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of America Service Group
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated: May 10, 2006



                                                  /s/ Michael W. Taylor
                                                  ------------------------------
                                           Name:  Michael W. Taylor
                                           Title: Senior Vice President &
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  (Principal Financial Officer)
No. 65287.

#### The J. D. Richardson Co. *v.*United States,

protest 265921-K (Detroit).

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.
----

(2004/C 88 E/0633)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1555/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject:   Averting alcohol-related harm in Finland

I wish to thank Commissioner Frits Bolkestein for the answer which he gave on 14 April 2003, on behalf of the Commission, to question P-0870/03 (1).

However, the Commissioner did not answer the part of my question concerning the possible use of Articles 30 and 95 of the EC Treaty.

I should therefore like to repeat the last part of my question:

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Article 26 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (2) authorised Denmark, Finland and Sweden to apply restrictions on the quantity of excise products that can be brought into their territory from other Member States by travellers for their own use, without further excise duty payment. These derogations expire at the end of 2003. This Directive is based on Article 99 (now Article 93) of the EC Treaty. Any extension of the derogations authorised by Article 26 of this Directive would require a modification of this provision on the basis of the same Treaty provision and could not be based upon Articles 30 or 95 of the EC Treaty.

Outside the area of taxation, any non fiscal measure adopted in non-harmonised areas by a Member State on public health grounds which could result in restricting imports of alcoholic beverages would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis in order to decide whether it complies with the conditions set in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, or in Article 95 if the relevant area is already subject to harmonisation measures at Community level.

----

(1)OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 85.

(2)OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

----
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 72559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23263]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 
comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the 
Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference 
through the Microsoft Teams Platform.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, November 16, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 
214-413-6550.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be held Thursday, November 16, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time via 
teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. For more information, please 
contact Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6550, or write 
TAP Office, 1114 Commerce St., MC 1005, Dallas, TX 75242 or contact us 
at the website: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include the potential project referrals from the 
committees, and discussions on priorities the TAP will focus on for the 
2023 year. Public input is welcomed.

    Dated: October 17, 2023.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2023-23263 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1109

_____________________________

GARY MCCLENDON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Borello, Judge.

October 15, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Gary McClendon, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

             CONSENT OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Integrated Process Equipment Corp.

   
         We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
on Amendment One to Form S-3 of Integrated Process Equipment Corp. of our report
dated August 1, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Integrated
Process Equipment Corp. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1997 and 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity
and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the June 30,
1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Integrated Process Equipment Corp. and to the
reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the registration statement.
    



                            /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


   
Phoenix, Arizona
July 17, 1998
Before the Second Division,

September 29, 1955

No. 59315.

protest 241720-K (New York).

#### Associated Metals & Minerals Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Laweence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of alloys in chief value of tin, not specially provided for, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[House Document 111-69]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 111-69

 
  CERTIFICATION OF HAITI'S COMPLIANCE WITH HOPE II REQUIREMENTS UNDER 
                            PUB. L. 110-246

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THEPRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES

                              transmitting

      TO MAKE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS FROM HAITI ELIGIBLE FOR 
PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT UNDER THE HAITIAN HEMISPHERIC OPPORTUNITY 
 THROUGH PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 2008 (HOPE II), PURSUANT TO PUB. L. 110-246

  October 20, 2009.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
         Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    The Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 
Encouragement Act of 2008 (HOPE II) (the ``Act'') (Public Law 
110-246), amended the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 
(CBERA) to make certain additional products from Haiti eligible 
for preferential tariff treatment. Under HOPE II, these imports 
from Haiti will continue to be eligible for preferential 
treatment after October 18, 2009, if I determine and certify 
that Haiti has met certain eligibility criteria set out in the 
Act.
    Since enactment of HOPE II, Haiti has issued a decree 
establishing an independent labor ombudsman's office, and the 
President of Haiti has selected a labor ombudsman following 
consultation with unions and industry representatives. In 
addition, Haiti, in cooperation with the International Labor 
Organization, has established a Technical Assistance 
Improvement and Compliance Needs Assessment and Remediation 
(TAICNAR) Program. Haiti has also implemented an electronic 
visa system that acts as a registry of Haitian producers of 
articles eligible for duty-free treatment and has made 
participation in the TAICNAR Program a condition of using this 
visa system.
    In light of these actions and in accordance with section 
213A of CBERA, as amended, I have determined and hereby certify 
that Haiti: (i) has implemented the requirements set forth in 
sections 213A(e)(2) and (e)(3); and (ii) is requiring producers 
of articles for which duty-free treatment may be requested 
under section 213A(b) to participate in the TAICNAR Program and 
has developed a system to ensure participation in such program 
by such producers, including by developing and maintaining a 
registry of producers.

                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, October 16, 2009.

                                  

```
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted October 11, 2006 *

Decided October 12, 2006 Before Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY , Circuit Judge Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Nos. 05-3480 & 05-3627 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. JAMES I. RIDLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division No. 04 CR 49 William C. Lee, Judge. O R D E R

James Ridley, along with others, robbed a bank at gunpoint and stole over $60,000. A jury found him guilty on two counts: armed robbery and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. See18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 2113(d); 924(c). The district court sentenced Ridley on these two counts to consecutive sentences of 77 and 84 months’ imprisonment and concurrent five- and three-year terms of UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53Nos. 05-3480 & 05-3627 Page 2 supervised release respectively. It also ordered Ridley to pay $49,284 in restitution. Although the court’s restitution order required Ridley to participate in the inmate financial responsibility program and pay any restitution remaining after his incarceration as a condition of his supervised release, it did not set a specific payment schedule in consideration of his ability to pay. Ridley contends that the district court erred in ordering him to pay restitution without considering his ability to pay and fixing a payment schedule as required by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 206, 110 Stat. 1214, 1234 (1996) (amending 18 U.S.C. § 3664). See United States v. Day , 418 F.3d 746, 761 (7th Cir. 2005). Ridley forfeited this argument by not raising it in the district court, rendering our review for plain error only. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). But a district court has plainly erred when it orders restitution without fixing a payment schedule in consideration of the defendant’s ability to pay, as the government concedes happened here. See United States v. Pandiello , 184 F.3d 682, 688 (7th Cir. 1999). We agree. Accordingly, in case no. 05-3480 we VACATE the district court’s order regarding restitution and REMAND with instructions to set a payment schedule in light of Ridley’s financial circumstances. Case no. 05-3627, which we consolidated for purposes of briefing and disposition, is DISMISSED as duplicative.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-31286

Summary Calendar

 

JAMES R. TOWNLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEVE RADER; CYNTHIA HEBERT; RICHARD STALDER; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT

OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-2021

 

September 30, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In his civil rights action, James R. Townley (#106693) alleged

that defendant Cynthia Hebert had erroneously classified him as

having three felony convictions, a determination which rendered him

ineligible for parole. The Louisiana Supreme Court has held to the

contrary. See Townley v. Department of Pub. Safety and

Corrections, 681 So. 2d 951, 952-53 (La. 1996). Because Townley’s

civil rights action is factually frivolous, the district court’s

order of dismissal is AFFIRMED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

AFFIRMED.
2
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 347

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need to pass legislation

to increase penalties on perpetrators of hate crimes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 7, 2000

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. CARSON, Mr.

CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of

Texas, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. WYNN, Ms. LEE, Ms. MCKINNEY,

Mr. TOWNS, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. LAMPSON,

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr.

GILMAN, Mr. DINGELL, Ms. BERKLEY, and Mr. BONIOR) submitted the

following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need

to pass legislation to increase penalties on perpetrators

of hate crimes.

Whereas diversity and tolerance are essential principles of an

open and free society;

Whereas all people deserve to be safe within their communities, free to live, work, and worship without fear of violence and bigotry;

Whereas crimes motivated by hatred against persons because

of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sex-
2

•HCON 347 IH

ual orientation, or disability undermine the fundamental

values of our Nation;

Whereas hate crimes tear at the fabric of American society,

leave scars on victims and their families, and weaken our

sense of community and purpose; and

Whereas individuals who commit crimes based on hate and

bigotry must be held responsible for their actions and

must be stopped from spreading violence: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 Congress—

4 (1) needs to pass legislation that amends the

5 Federal criminal code to set penalties for persons

6 who commit acts of violence against other persons

7 because of the actual or perceived race, color, reli8 gion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or

9 disability of any person;

10 (2) condemns the culture of hate and the hate

11 groups that foster such violent acts;

12 (3) commends the communities throughout our

13 Nation that are united in condemning such acts of

14 hate in their neighborhoods;

15 (4) commends the efforts of Federal, State, and

16 local law enforcement officials; and

17 (5) reaffirms its commitment to a society that

18 fully respects and protects all people, regardless of
3

•HCON 347 IH

1 race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual

2 orientation, or disability.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 70 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 70

  To correct a technical error in the enrollment of the bill S. 1026.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 13, 1997

 Mr. D'Amato submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  To correct a technical error in the enrollment of the bill S. 1026.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1026) to reauthorize the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Secretary of the Senate 
shall strike subsection (a) of section 2 and insert the following:
    ``(a) In General.--Section 7 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 
(12 U.S.C. 635f) is amended by striking `until' and all that follows 
through `but' and inserting `until the close of business on September 
30, 2001, but'.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1






CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF


BAYING ECOLOGICAL HOLDING GROUP INC.


FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Parsh Patel, am the Chief Executive Officer of Baying Ecological Holding Group Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2011 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Annual Report").




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






July 31, 2014
By:
/s/ Parsh PatelParsh PatelPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn M. COCKERHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-30642.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brett L. Grayson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*322PER CURIAM: *

Shawn M. Coekerham appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition and firearms. Coekerham contends that his sentence is invalid in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the sentencing judge applied the sentencing guidelines as if they were mandatory. We review for plain error. *United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556); *United States v. Malveaux,*411 F.3d 558, 560 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). To prevail under a plain error analysis, Coekerham must show: “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects his substantial rights.” *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005) (internal quotations and citation omitted), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). If these three conditions are met, this court has the discretion to correct the error, “but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” *Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733 (citation and internal quotations marks omitted).

To demonstrate that the plain error affected his substantial rights, Coekerham has the burden of showing that the error “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” *Id.*(internal quotations and citation omitted). He must demonstrate “that the sentencing judge — sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one — would have reached a significantly different result.” *Mares,*402 F.3d at 521.

There is nothing in the record to suggest that Cockerham’s sentence would have been any less had the court applied the sentencing guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory. *See Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34. Coekerham thus fails to establish prejudice to his substantial rights. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.