alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.2 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 Amended Annual Report of China Linen Textile Industry, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Qi Shaofeng, 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: (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 Company.  /s/ Qi ShaofengQi Shaofeng, Chief Financial Officer June 7, 2010
Before the First Division,

February 24, 1954

No. 57874.

protest 214753-K (A) (New York).

#### George F. Bassett & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hot plate mats of wood the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 57261, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 52122.

protests 88802-K, etc. (New York).

#### Thos. D. Toy & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10506 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. EVERDA E. BARON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 233

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Everda E. Baron appeals the 36

- month, above

- guidelines sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to possession of counterfeit financial obligations. She challenges the procedural reasonableness of her sentence, arguing that the district court erroneously calculated the guidelines range by applying a two

- level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 (b)(11). That section authorizes a two

- level enhancement if the defendant trafficked

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 31, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10506 Document: 00512579224 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2014No. 13

- 10506
unauthorized or counterfeit “ access devices. ” § 2B1.1(b)(11). As Baron concedes, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391

- 92 (5th Cir. 2007)

. The access devices at issue here are counterfeit American Express traveler’s checks. Although this court has determined that counterfeit or fo rged checks are not access devices under the definition set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e), t his court has not addressed whether counterfeit traveler’s checks

are access devices under that section. See United States v. Hughey , 147 F.3d 423, 433

- 36 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus, any error was not plain or obvious. See United States v. Ellis , 564 F.3d 370, 377

- 78 (5th Cir. 2009)

. In addition, the record demonst r ates that the district court impos ed a

non - guidelines sentence based on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. The district court’s reasons show that the court imposed a non

- guidelines sentence due to the nature and circumstances of the offense as well as to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, and to deter future criminal conduct. Because the district court imposed a non

- guidelines sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors, any error in the calculation of the guidelines range did not affect the actual sentence; thus, Baron cannot demonstrate that but for error,

s he would have received a lesser sentence. See United States v. Dickson , 632 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

.

2 Case: 13-10506 Document: 00512579224 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2014
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DR. SCOTT, individual and official

capacity; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-56970

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05629-UA-PJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 6, 2012** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Jeffrey E. Walker, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

MAR 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-56970

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and

application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052

(9th Cir. 2007), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse

and remand.

The district court improperly denied Walker’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis because Walker made plausible allegations that he was “under imminent

danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint, including

that his repeated placement in double-cell housing without first completing

treatment for coping in that environment caused his mental health to deteriorate

such that he became suicidal and violent towards others. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see

also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists “if the

complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of

serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”).

To the extent that Walker seeks a preliminary injunction, we deny the

request.

Walker shall bear his own costs on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,759
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,037
<INVENTORY>                                      5,716
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,617
<PP&E>                                           8,499
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,883
<BONDS>                                         20,599
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,200
<SALES>                                         20,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,661
<CGS>                                            9,921
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,062
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,445
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,155
<INCOME-TAX>                                       862
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,293
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,293
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
S02Y1212.

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM Y. BARNES.

(573 SE2d 80)

Per Curiam.

William Y. Barnes has petitioned this Court for a three-year suspension of his right to practice law in this State. Barnes admits that he paid a paralegal and the paralegal’s business for the referral of cases and clients and thus violated Standards 13 and 26 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Standard 13 prohibits a lawyer from compensating a person or organization to recommend or secure employment by a client or as a reward for a recommendation. Standard 26 prohibits a lawyer or a law firm from sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer. The State Bar of Georgia does not oppose Barnes’ petition, and the special master recommends accepting it.

We have reviewed the record and agree to accept Barnes’ petition. Accordingly, William Y. Barnes is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of. three years. Moreover, the following conditions are imposed upon his reinstatement to the Bar: (1) Barnes must provide certification to the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar that he has passed the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam, for which he may sit no sooner than the end of the 33rd month after the effective date of his suspension; (2) Barnes must file that same certification with the State Disciplinary Board; and (3) Barnes must file any request for readmission, showing his satisfaction of all conditions, with the Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board, which will review the record including the request and the State Bar’s response and file a report and recommendation on the request with the Supreme Court, which will then issue a final ruling thereon.

Barnes is reminded of his duties and responsibilities under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Three-year suspension.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hunstein and Thompson, JJ, who dissent.*

Hunstein, Justice,

dissenting.

I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the majority that the appropriate level of discipline in this case is a three-year suspension. I believe Barnes’ conduct in committing violations of Standards 13 and 26 mandates the sanction of disbarment. Barnes admits that he violated Standards 13 and 26 by compensating a non-lawyer organization, Professional Management, Inc., for referrals of per*813sonal injury clients. Because the allegations against Barnes reflect serious disciplinary infractions which support the sanction of disbarment, I would reject Barnes’ petition for voluntary discipline. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent to the majority’s imposition of a three-year suspension in this case.

Decided November 25, 2002.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, E. Duane Cooper, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*C. Alan Nicholson,*for Barnes.

I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this dissent.
No. P68/148.

protests 63/6991 and 63/15952 (Portland, Oreg.).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foreging protests consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay*Company, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 123 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-275, is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 106(c) and 
inserting ``November 3, 2000'', and by adding, at the end, the 
following new section:
    ``Sec. 120. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
resolution, except section 107, $7,100,000 shall be available for 
obligation by the Administrator of General Services for expenses 
necessary to carry out the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 
U.S.C. 102 note).''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 2, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
---

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

The undersigned, Brian Fiddler, of Hard Creek Nickel
Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 20-F of Hard Creek Nickel
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2016 (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 Hard
Creek Nickel Corporation.

Dated: April 28 2017



Brian
      FiddlerBrian FiddlerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
      Officer)


---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0312. BATASKI BAILEY v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A.

From the limited application material supplied, it appears that Wells Fargo

obtained an arbitration award against Bataski Bailey in the amount of $17,808.43.

Wells Fargo petitioned the superior court to confirm the award. The trial court

granted the petition, and Bailey filed a notice of appeal from this ruling. The trial

court thus entered an order requiring Bailey to post a supersedeas bond.

Bailey challenged the trial court’s order requiring him to post the supersedeas

bond, and he sought to proceed in forma pauperis. On February 25, 2016, the trial

court struck Bailey’s pauper’s affidavit and dismissed his appeal based upon his

failure to pay costs. Bailey seeks discretionary review of this ruling.

A trial court’s order dismissing a properly filed direct appeal is itself subject

to a direct appeal. See Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 81 (727 SE2d 484) (2012),

citing American Medical Security Group v. Parker, 284 Ga. 102, 103 (2) (663 SE2d

697) (2008). We will grant an otherwise timely discretionary application if the lower

court’s order is subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, this

application is hereby GRANTED. Bailey shall have ten days from the date of this

order to file a notice of appeal with the trial court. If, however, he has already filed

a notice of appeal from the order at issue, he need not file a second notice. The clerk

of the trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

April 18, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/18/2016
Before the Third Division,

June 28, 1945

No. 50309.

#### Protests 49587-K, etc., of Hahne & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided *220February 5, 1945.) In. accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at Doon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 13.1 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 Form 20FR12G Registration Statement of Aquasol Envirotech Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I hereby 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.  Date: September 15, 2006   "Yenyou (Jeff) Zheng " Yenyou (Jeff) Zheng Chief Financial Officer, President & Director
Before the Third Division,

April 12, 1962

No. 66691.

#### The Hervin Co. and Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/10815 and 60/23981 (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decharacterized horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66254, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1077

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow consumers

greater access to information regarding the health benefits of foods

and dietary supplements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 11, 1999

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr.

HOSTETTLER, and Mr. STUMP) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to

allow consumers greater access to information regarding

the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consumer Health Free

5 Speech Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

7 Section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

8 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)) is amended in clause
2

•HR 1077 IH

1 (B) by inserting ‘‘(other than food, including dietary sup2 plements)’’ after ‘‘articles’’.

3 SEC. 3. ADULTERATED FOOD.

4 Section 402(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

5 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342(f)(1)) is amended in sub6 paragraphs (A) and (B) by striking ‘‘significant or unrea7 sonable’’ and inserting ‘‘significant and unreasonable’’.

Æ
---

---

Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned hereby certifies that
the Annual Report on From 10-K of Israel Growth Partners Acquisition Corp. (the
Registrant) for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the Registrant.

|Dated: October 31, 2008 |  | /s/ Dror Gad
Dror GadChief Financial Officer
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------



---

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Sun Community Bancorp Limited
Phoenix, Arizona

     We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting a part of this
Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Amendment 1) of Sun Community Bancorp
Limited of our report dated April 19, 1999 relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Sun Community Bancorp Limited which is contained in that
Prospectus. We also consent to the references to us under the caption "Experts"
in the Prospectus.


                                BDO SEIDMAN LLP

Grand Rapids, Michigan
May 28, 1999
FEDERAL RESERVE

CONSUMER COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION PROCEDURES FOR

THE “PROTECTING TENANTS AT FORECLOSURE ACT”

 

 

 

 

Examination Objectives 

1. To assess the institution’s awareness of its responsibilities under the Protecting Tenants at 

Foreclosure Act. 

2. To assess the institution’s compliance management policies and procedures with respect to its 

responsibilities under the law. 

Examination Procedures 

1. Determine that the institution is aware of its responsibilities under the law through interviews with 

institution management. 

2. Determine that the institution has incorporated its compliance responsibilities under the law into its 

operations, particularly with respect to its foreclosure notice procedures. 

3. Determine that the institution has conducted training for appropriate personnel regarding the law. 

4. Determine that the institution has incorporated routine reviews for compliance with the law into its 

compliance monitoring program. 

5. Determine that the institution’s internal audit program has been updated to include audit plans for 

evaluating compliance with the law.

6. Review applicable compliance review and audit materials, including work papers, checklists, and 

reports pertaining to the law. Evaluate whether the reviews and audits performed were reasonable 

and accurate, any identified deficiencies were reported to institution management, and effective 

corrective action occurred in response to any identified deficiencies.

7. Summarize findings and supervisory concerns. Identify actions needed to address any weaknesses 

and deficiencies in the institution’s compliance management systems. Discuss findings with 

institution management and obtain any necessary commitment for corrective action.