alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Samuel S. F. Wong, the Chief Financial Officer of i-CABLE Communications Limited, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 20-F/A of i-CABLE Communications Limited; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 27, 2005 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Samuel S. F. Wong  
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Samuel S. F. Wong      
|                     |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERRY LAMELL EZELL,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOSE ESQUETINI, in his capacity as a federal employee acting within the scope of his duties, and as an individual; MARTIN HERNANDEZ, in his capacity as a federal employee acting within the scope of his duties, and as an individual,

Defendants

- Appel lees. No. 17

- 56038

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 04791

- FMO

DFM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Terry Lamell Ezell appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment for defendants in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

FEB 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 56038

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on cross

- motions

for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San D iego , 670

F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants

because Ezell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

defendants were deliberately indifferent in the treatmen t of his narcolepsy

. See

Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1057

- 60 (9th Cir. 2004) ( a prison official is

deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk

to inmate health ; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion

concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.

See United States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

We treat Ezell’s “amended appeal” (Docket Entry No. 10) as a request to

supplement the opening brief, and grant the request. The Clerk shall file Docket

Entry No. 10.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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  Quarterly  Report  of  Cheviot  Financial  Corp.  (the
"Company"),  on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date of this  Certification  (the
"Report"),  I, Scott T. Smith, 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 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.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Cheviot  Financial  Corporation  and will be  retained  by Cheviot
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



                                                     /s/Scott T. Smith
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Scott T. Smith
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

         Date:  November 12, 2009
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(a)

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

      I, Joseph P. Keithley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Keithley Instruments, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

      (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended
      September 30, 2005 which this certification accompanies 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.

/s/ Joseph P. Keithley
-----------------------------------------
Joseph P. Keithley
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
December 13, 2005

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Keithley
Instruments, Inc. and will be retained by Keithley Instruments, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 66846.

#### S. H. Pomerance Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/3625, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the applicable regulations have now been complied with, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
June 19, 1940

No. 44022.

#### Protest 6085-K(B) of Premier Peat Moss Corporation.

Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUTUILA F. TUVALU,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1724 DFL KJM P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 3, 2006, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants. Process directed to defendant Sandoval was returned unserved with the

notation "unable to locate." 

In light of the declaration filed by Deputy Attorney General Flynn in response to

plaintiff’s request for assistance in locating defendant Sandoval, plaintiff may attempt to serve

defendant Sandoval at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 form,

along with an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed April 11, 2005;

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 68 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and

submit the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, with the following

documents:

a. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant; 

b. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed April 11, 2005;

and

c. One completed summons form (if not previously provided) or show

good cause why he cannot provide such information.

DATED: May 30, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/mp

tuva1724.8e

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 68 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUTUILA F. TUVALU,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1724 DFL KJM P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 1 completed USM-285 form

 2 copies of the April 11, 2005 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 68 Filed 05/31/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 62579.

#### Davies, Turner & Co. and California Radio *&*Electronics Co. *v.*United States,

protest 296896-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of resistors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 57879, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 12 (the  "Partnership")  for the quarter ended June
30, 2004 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 2002,  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.
October 29, 2004
No. 49178.

#### Protests 768301-G, etc., of Joseph Horne Co. et al. (Pittsburgh, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 52589.

protest 132816-K (Seattle).

#### A. R. Matthews *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Government counsel moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it involved a question of value over which this court sitting in classification has no jurisdiction. An examination of the record disclosing that the motion was well-taken, the motion to dismiss was granted.
SERVED MARCH 7, 2011 

• v.^ORTATlON 

• '- "PUPATIONS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OPT^ICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SAMUEL JOSEPH LATHAM 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10WP0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0624 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On July 21, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as 

"Complainant") filed a Complaint. On July 14, 2010, Respondent Samuel Joseph 

Latham (hereinafter "Respondent") had requested a hearing. On March 3, 2011, 

Complainant withdrew its Complaint, citing settlement. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Complaint having been read and 

considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 
p 1. Complainant's Withdrawal of Complaint be and is hereby granted; and i 

^1 2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

M 

SO ORDERED. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP10WP0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Samuel Joseph Latham, Respondent 

33690 Almond St. 

Wildomar, CA 92595 

TEL: 951-392-4897 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

^ Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address; 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
(Reap. Dec. 8239)

#### International Packers Commercial Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 700, etc.

(Decided June 30, 1953)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraise*376ment set forth in Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of canned roast beef and canned corned beef imported from Argentina;

> That the issues involved in said appeals to reappraisement are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *International Commercial Co., Inc., and Armour & Co.,*Reappraisement Decision 8112.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the value or price, at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Argentina in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was for each item as set forth in Schedule A under the heading “Export Value”.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise here involved such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Argentina.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in *United States*v. *International Commercial Co., Inc. and Armour & Co.,*Reappraisement Decision 8112, be incorporated in the record in the reappraisement appeals set forth in the attached schedule of cases, which are submitted for decision on this stipulation.

SCHEDULE A

INTERNATIONAL PACKERS COMMERCIAL CO. INC.

THE TUPMAN THURLOW CO., INC.

213251A 691 12/14/49 11/24/49 Canned Corned Beef 48/1 11.00 less 9.4%

Roast Beef 48/1 11.50 “

213252A 702 12/30/49 12/8/49 “ “ 48/1 “ “

**Note.-*— All prices, per case, net packed, F. O. B. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such values were as set forth in schedule *“G,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

*377SCHEDULE “C”

INTERNATIONAL PACKERS COMMERCIAL CO., INC.

**Nole-*-All prices, per case, net packed, F. O. B. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS JONES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0950 LKK CMK P

vs.

DAVE RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents.

 / ORDER

Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, is proceeding with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus. On March 7, 2007, petitioner filed a request for a six day extension of

time to file an amended petition. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED THAT petitioner is granted a six day

extension of time to file an amended petition. An amended petition is due on or before March

13, 2007. As noted in previous orders, a response is due forty-five days after the amended

petition is filed. 

DATED: March 13, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00950-LKK -CMK Document 41 Filed 03/14/07 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

Case 2:04-cv-00950-LKK -CMK Document 41 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLETE REO HART,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1424 MCE DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY,

et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed June 1, 2006, plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed and

thirty days leave to file a second amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now

expired, and plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint or otherwise responded to the

court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 2:04-cv-01424-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 07/13/06 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

2

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 12, 2006.

DAD:lg

hart1424.fta

Case 2:04-cv-01424-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 07/13/06 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN NICHOLAS COYLE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2309 LKK KJM P

vs.

CHARLOTTE HARRIS-WHITE, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 19, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM Document 64 Filed 03/29/07 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 19, 2007 are adopted in full;

and 

2. The July 14, 2006 motion by defendants Lane, Godman, Mitchell, Anderson,

Tillman and Burgess, that claims II and III found in plaintiff’s complaint be stayed, is granted. 

DATED: March 28, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM Document 64 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 52606.

protest 132459-K (San Francisco) .

#### Arthur J. Fritz & Co. *v.*United States,

*218Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It appeared that the goods were subject to the British purchase tax and on entry a duress certificate was filed in which the importer certified that it had entered the merchandise at a value higher than that defined in the tariff act because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement. The collector disregarded said certificate and liquidated upon the entered value on the ground that the certificate was not signed, the signature being in typewriting. Under authority of *Clinton Smullyan Associates*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 7, C. A. D. 363) the court sustained the claim that the liquidation should have been made upon the basis of the value found by the court on appeal to reappraisement (Reap. Dec. 6478), in which it was held that the British purchase tax was no part of the entered value.
(Reap. Dec. 10434)

#### North Amer. Asbestos Corp. Davis Turner & Co., Inc., et al. v. United States

Entry No. 842876, etc.

(Decided January 22, 1963)

*Sha/rretis, Paley £ Garter*for the plaintiffs.

*Joseph D. Gwilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule for decision on stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto that the merchandise and the issues involved in the above-named appeals for reappraisement are the same as those involved in *United States*v. *North American Asbestos Corp.,*48 CCPA 153, C.A.D. 783 and that the record in said case be incorporated with the record in these cases.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses, incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was 5 shillings 2% pence per pound plus export packing as shown on the invoices.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved and that such value is 5 shillings, *2y2*pence per pound, plus export packing, as shown on the invoices.

Judgment will issue accordingly.