alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 1.2

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 Annual Report of Platina Energy Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Blair Merriam, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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, as amended; 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/  Blair Merriam
	Blair Merriam
	Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer

	July 13, 2006
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ANNA POSCHL, DECEASED.

Argued March 20, 1967

Decided March 27, 1967.

*Mr. Joseph T. Maloney*argued the cause for appellants.

*Mr. George S. Fischler*argued the cause for respondent *(Messrs. Clapp <&*Eisenberg, attorneys).

*Per*Cüeiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed by Judge Larrabee in the Ocean County Court.

*For*affirmance—Chief Justice Weintkaub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Haneman—7.

*For*reversal—None.
No. 52700.

protests 587905-G, etc. (New York).

#### L. J. Prance et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Order entered October 12, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00389-CV

JOHN HURT AND LESLEA HURT, Appellants

V.

AMALENDU GOSWAMI AND HARSHA GOSWAMI, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 003-02059-2020

ORDER

On October 7, 2022, on appellants’ motion to order the county court to file 

communications between appellant and the county court’s staff or clerk in a 

supplemental record, we provided that appellants could file copies of those 

communications with the trial court clerk for inclusion in a supplemental record. 

By motion filed October 10, 2022, appellants ask we reconsider and order the 

county court to file the communications. We DENY the motion.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Joshua D. HADLEY Machinery Technicians Third Class ( E

- 4 ) , U.S. Coast Guard

CGCM G 03 9 4 Docket No. 14 92

20 March 20 2 4

General c ourt

- martial sentence adjudged on 16 February 202 3

. Military Judge: CDR Emily P. Reuter
, USCG Appellate Defense Counsel: LT Schuyler B. Millham, USCG

BEFORE M C CLELLAND, BRU BAKER & HERMAN

Appellate Military Judges

Per curiam :
A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordan ce with a p lea agreement, of one s pecification of abusive sexual

contact , in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for four months, reduction to E

- 1 , and bad

- conduct discharge

. J udgment was entered accordingly.

Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.(\

United States v. Joshua D. HADLEY, No. 1492 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2024)

Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and, on the basis
of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed.

2 For the Court, 

### //7
, 

# r , (, ·-~CUcJ/\ \~ (__;~
\ Saiiah P. Valdes

I

. el erk of the Court
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 85 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that the United States 

district court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction 

over actions arising under the immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that 

the United States district court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over actions arising under the immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JURISDICTION OVER CASES ARISING UNDER 

4 THE IMMIGRATION LAWS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 85 of title 28, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 85 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1370. Jurisdiction over cases arising under the im2 migration laws 

3 ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

4 district court for the District of Columbia shall have exclu5 sive jurisdiction over— 

6 ‘‘(1) any case arising under the immigration 

7 laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the 

8 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 

9 seq.)); or 

10 ‘‘(2) any claim brought by any foreign national 

11 challenging an order of removal from the United 

12 States or any other action authorized under the Im13 migration and Nationality Act.’’. 

14 (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections at 

15 the beginning of chapter 84 of title 28, United States 

16 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘1370. Jurisdiction over cases arising under the immigration laws.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8587 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the scope of the penalty 

for crimes against children. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 31, 2024 

Mr. LAWLER (for himself, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. DAVIS

of North Carolina, Mr. STAUBER, Mr. BACON, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. 

D’ESPOSITO, and Mr. GOTTHEIMER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the 

scope of the penalty for crimes against children. 

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 ‘‘ Paula Bohovesky and 

5 Joan D’Alessandro Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEATH OR IMPRISONMENT FOR CRIMES AGAINST 

7 CHILDREN. 

8 Section 3559(d)(1)(A) of title 18, United States 

9 Code, is amended by inserting after ‘‘14 years’’ the folVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:45 Jul 17, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8587.IH H8587

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8587 IH

1 lowing: ‘‘or if the victim has not attained the age of 18 

2 years if the charge involved a sexual offense’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1

             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in:

     (i)Registration Statement No. 333-41074 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
        Plastics Mfg. Company Employee Stock Purchase Plan; and

    (ii)Registration Statement No. 333-45830 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
        Plastics Mfg. Company Restricted Stock Plan

 of our report, dated November 7, 2001, on our audits of the consolidated
 financial statements of Plastics Mfg. Company as of September 30, 2001 and
 2000, and for each of the years in the two-year period ended September 30,
 2001, which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


 Milwaukee, Wisconsin              WIPFLI ULLRICH BERTELSON LLP
 December 27, 2001                 WIPFLI ULLRICH BERTELSON LLP
No. 46214.

#### Protests 965556-G, etc., of Columbia Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Wing Duck Co.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 133, C. D. 446) it was held that the merchandise in question is not subject to the internal revenue tax. The protests were therefore sustained.
#### Jane E. Thompson, *Respondent, v.*Hiram Whitmarsh, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Boardman, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8501 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8501

  To prohibit the issuance of licenses for the exportation of certain 
 defense articles to the United Arab Emirates, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2024

Ms. Jacobs (for herself, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Lee of 
  California, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick, Ms. 
Kamlager-Dove, and Mr. Kildee) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the issuance of licenses for the exportation of certain 
 defense articles to the United Arab Emirates, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

    (a) In General.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the President may not sell or authorize a license for the export of 
covered defense articles under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
2751 et seq.) to the United Arab Emirates or any agency or 
instrumentality of the United Arab Emirates, until the President 
certifies to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 
that the United Arab Emirates is no longer providing materiel support 
to the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan.
    (b) Covered Defense Articles Defined.--In this section, the term 
``covered defense articles'' means articles listed under Category I, 
II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XIV, XVI, XVII, or XVIII of the United 
States Munitions List in part 121 of title 22, Code of Federal 
Regulations.
                                 <all>
```
No. 58645.

protest 229078-K (New York).

#### Gray Associates *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The protest was filed by an attorney, purportedly acting for and on behalf of the plaintiff, but, according to the collector’s memorandum, no power of attorney was on file authorizing him to act. Since no one appeared and established authority to act, the protest was dismissed.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER




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 Great Wall Acquisition Corporation
      on
      Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Kin Shing Li, Chairman of
      the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of Great Wall Acquisition
      Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies in all material respects 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 Great Wall Acquisition
      Corporation as of and for the period covered by the Report.




Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.




February
                28, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Kin
              Shing
              LiKin
              Shing LiChairman
                of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary (Principal Executive
                Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting
                Officer)
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ANDREW A. SANDOVAL, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 281, 41 CMR 281

No. 22,494

March 6, 1970

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Karl J. Uebel,*and *Captain Ira J. Dembrow*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain Edwin L. Gage*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

This is another in the series of eases in which written advice on voting instructions was substituted for oral instructions. Because it is indistinguishable from its predecessors, we here, as in those cases, reverse the decision of the Court of Military Review. United States v Pryor, 19 USCMA 279, 41 CMR 279 (1970).

The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing on the sentence may be ordered.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

For the reasons set out in my dissent in United States v Pryor, 19 USCMA 279, 41 CMR 279 (1970), I would affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15162-15163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5922]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Revision of Certain Dollar Amounts in the Bankruptcy Code 
Prescribed Under Section 104(b) of the Code

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Modification of Federal Register notice that certain dollar 
amounts in title 11 and title 28, United States Code, are increased. 
[Original notice appeared in the Federal Register of February 14, 
2007].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following provides (1) An updated list 
of the adjustments to 11 U.S.C. Section 707(b) and (2) an updated list 
of the Bankruptcy Forms which will be amended to reflect the adjusted 
dollar amounts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                New
                11 U.S.C.                  Dollar amount    (adjusted)
                                          to be adjusted   dollar amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
707(b)--dismissal of a case or
 conversion to a case under chapter 11
 or 13 (means test):
    (1)--in paragraph (2)(A)(i)(I)......          $6,000          $6,575
    (2)--in paragraph (2)(A)(i)(II).....          10,000          10,950
    (3)--in paragraph (2)(A)(ii)(IV)....           1,500           1,650

[[Page 15163]]

 
    (4)--in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(I).....           6,000           6,575
    (5)--in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(II)....          10,000          10,950
    (6)--in paragraph (5)(B)............           1,000           1,100
    (7)--in paragraph 6(C)..............             525             575
    (8)--in paragraph 7(A)(iii).........             525             575
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Official Bankruptcy Forms 1, 6C, 6E, 7, 10, 22A, and 22C also will 
be amended to reflect these adjusted dollar amounts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis F. Szczebak, Chief, Bankruptcy 
Judges Division, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1900.

    Dated: March 26, 2007.
Francis F. Szczebak,
Chief, Bankruptcy Judges Division.
 [FR Doc. E7-5922 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 19-0395

SCOTT FIELDS

v.

CITY OF SHERMAN, TEXAS,

DAVID PLYLER, ZACH FLORES,

AND ALEX SHIVERS §

§

§

§

§

§ Grayson County,

5th District.

July 19, 2019

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under

the date shown.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 28th day of August, 2019

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
### V E N D O R 

### P R O F I L E

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have
changed. Contact vendor for updates. Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool 

### A q u a - P u r e V e n t u r e s I n c , F o u n t a i n Q u a i l W a t e r M a n a g e m e n t L L C

Contact Information

Company Name: Fountain Quail (a w holly owned subsidiary of Aqua

- Pure Ventures )

Profile: Fountain Quail is a water treatment service company that utilizes Aqua

Pure’s evaporator technology, which is covered by a process patent in Canada, the US, and most oil producing countries worldwide. The company has been treating flowback and produced water generated from the shale gas industry in the Barn ett shale since 2005 and is expected to expand treatment services in the Marcellus and Fayetteville basins.

Address: Suite 101, 4000 Acton Highway, Granbury, TX, 76049

Phone: 817

- 491

- 8650

Website: http://www.fountainquail.com/



### Treatment Technology

Category: Thermal Distillation/Evaporation

Subcategory: Mechanical Vapor Recompression (MVR)

Technology Name: NOMAD Mobile Evaporator

Surface Footprint Approximately 2,500 ft 2

Process Description: Feed water enters the evaporator, where the water streams divide and flow through distillate and concentrate preheat exchangers that recapture process heat (sensible heat) from recirculating/treated

distillate and concentrated brine. The two flows are then recombined into a single stream. The feedwater then enters a recirculation loop that moves fluid from a separator vessel through a circulation pump to the evaporator exchanger and back to the separator vessel. As the steam moves down through the inside of the evaporator exchanger it

condenses into distilled water.

Feedwater TDS/ % Water Recovery 60,000 mg/L

– 80,000 mg/L, approximately 85% water recovery >80,000 mg/L

- 150,000 mg/L, reduction in % water recovery Up to 90% water recovery is possible depending on feed water quality

% Waste Stream:

Feed Capacity: Approximately 2,500 Bbls per day; Output: approximately 2,000 Bbls per day

Costs: Approximately $3.00 to $5.00 per bbl (includes transportation , power consumption, and labor); approximately $3.00 per Bbl to treat only.
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 Annual Report of Concentra
Operating Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Kiraly, Executive Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



March 31, 2005



/s/ Thomas E. KiralyThomas E. KiralyExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concentra Operating Corporation and will be retained by Concentra Operating Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Robert J. Zatta,certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: May 15, 2006 | /s/ ROBERT J. ZATTA                               |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Robert J. Zatta                                   |
|                    | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----