alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Justin D. Locke, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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 as of and for the period covered
by the report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Justin D. Locke                    
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Justin D. Locke,Chief Financial Officer
No. 65597.

#### King Shipping Company *v.*United States,

protest 60/23203 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Prom a review of the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was, therefore, overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 57 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5458]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12058-002, Project No. 12686-001]


Baker County, OR; Notice of Project Number and Docket Change for 
the Proposed Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project

March 20, 2007.
    On April 27, 2006, Baker County, Oregon filed a Notice of Intent 
and Pre-Application Document for the proposed Mason Dam Hydroelectric 
Project, initiating the pre-filing activities of the Commission's 
Integrated Licensing Process. On May 23, 2006, Baker County filed an 
application for a second preliminary permit to allow for continued 
study of the site. The Commission issued the new preliminary permit to 
Baker County on January 19, 2007.
    As a result of the issuance of the new preliminary permit, the 
project number assigned to Baker County for the proposed Mason Dam 
Hydroelectric Project has changed. The new project number is P-12686. 
All future filings being made in regards to the ongoing pre-filing 
activities of the Integrated Licensing Process for the proposed project 
should use P-12686-001 to identify the filing. The original project 
number and docket (P-12058-002), assigned to this proceeding and the 
proposed project is now CLOSED.
    All filings made to date, under P-12058-002 with regard to the pre-
filing activities of the Commission's Integrated Licensing Process for 
the proposed Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project, will be cross referenced 
to the new project number and docket P-12686-001 and will continue to 
be part of the official public record. Therefore, re-filing of these 
documents is not necessary.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5458 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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




The undersigned, Yangkan Chong, the
Chief Executive Officer of CHINA NEW ENERGY GROUP COMPANY (the “Company”), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.      The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this statement this 19th day of August, 2009.





/s/ Yangkan ChongYangkan
      ChongChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China New Energy Group Company and will be retained by China New Energy Group
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
#### Ass’d. Mdse. Corp. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6311.

Entry No. 747695, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, March 27, 1942, etc.

Certified March 27, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 21, 1942, etc.

(Decided July 29, 1946)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keeee, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, 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, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made.by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these eases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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 earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 65564.

#### The Huffman Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protests 59/21868, 59/21907, and 59/25594 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. el al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

255) ll-K- (I) -68 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:57AM Sheet 255 of 325 
P.2 

II-K-(I)-68 

INDUSTRIAL BOILER NSPS IMPACT ANALYSIS. SUMMARY OF 

SEVENTH ROUND TEST CASES. 

EEA, Inc. 

October 2, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-68
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Hani Hafiz Ibrahim Qutiefan v. Lubna Aziz Safi

Appellate case number: 01-18-00425-CV

Trial court case number: 13-DCV-206211

Trial court: 505th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant, Hani Hafiz Ibrahim Qutiefan, has filed a motion requesting a one-year 

extension to file a reply brief, to stay any hearings or rulings from this Court, and to cancel 

submission of this case. Appellant filed his brief on July 11, 2019. Appellee, Lubna Aziz 

Safi, filed her brief on October 11, 2019. Appellant’s reply brief, if any, was due on October 

31, 2019. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(c) (“A reply brief, if any, must be filed within 20 days after 

the date the appellee’s brief was filed.”). Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion.

Appellant has also filed a letter-notice stating that he filed for bankruptcy in the 

United States Bankruptcy Court in Houston, Texas, and requested an automatic stay. “A 

bankruptcy suspends the appeal and all periods in these rules from the date when the 

bankruptcy petition is filed until the appellate court reinstates or severs the appeal in 

accordance with federal law.” TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. However, appellant’s notice is deficient. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.1 provides, “Any party may file a notice that a party 

is in bankruptcy. The notice must contain: (a) the bankrupt party’s name; (b) the court in 

which the bankruptcy proceeding is pending; (c) the bankruptcy proceeding’s style and 

case number; and (d) the date when the bankruptcy petition was filed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1. 

Appellant’s notice of bankruptcy does not comply with Rule 8.1. Although appellant 

states, “I filed bankruptcy in the US bankruptcy court of Downtown HOUSTON, TEXAS,” 

this does not identify the bankrupt party’s name or the name of the court in which the 

bankruptcy proceeding was filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1(a), (b). Nor does appellant’s notice 

state the style and case number of the bankruptcy proceeding or the date when the 

bankruptcy petition was filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1(c), (d). Accordingly, we strike 
2

appellant’s notice. Appellant shall immediately file a notice that complies with Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 8.1 so this Court can abate this appeal.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 28, 2020_____
(V. D. 9)

#### Continental Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 63932.

(Decided September 16, 1954)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *Continental Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*32 Cust. Ct. 434, Abstract 57941. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * * that the matter be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

The matter has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values were $11.98 per unit plus packing for the binoculars, and $1.30 per unit plus pacldng for the leather cases.

*487I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 2 0 507 Summary Calendar

GARETH FALCONER , Plaintiff

–

Appell ant,

versus
LEHIGH HANSON , INCORPORATED, a Texas Corporation; CAMPBELL CONCRETE & MATERIALS, L.P., a Texas Corporation,

Defendant s

– Appell ees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4 :1 1

- C V

- 373

Before JOLLY , SMITH , and CLEMENT , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM : *

In this employment

- discrimination suit, plaintiff Gareth Falconer

* 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 May 15, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-20507 Document: 00512631500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2014No. 13

- 2 0507 appeals only the denial of his motion to reconsider the dismissal of the case. He candidly acknowledges that the standard of review is abuse of discretion. Before denying reconsideration, the district court had issued a careful and convincing eleven

- page Opinion and Orde r explaining why dismissal was appropriate after Falconer had failed to prosecute the case. The court pointed out, inter alia , that “[a]lthough not disclosed at the time, that ‘pro se’ complaint was actually drafted by suspended attorney, Michael L. Barne s.” Also, “Unbeknownst to this Court, . . . Falconer refiled exactly the same complaint . . ., resulting in the opening of another case before [a different judge ] . . . . Falconer then attempted to pay his filing fee with a check drafted in Barnes’

name , but that check was returned for nonsufficient funds . . . . Falconer took no further action in that case.” On appeal, Falconer mainly argues that his failure to prosecute was that he needed more time to obtain a lawyer. That does not constitute “excu sable neglect.” There is no abuse of discretion. Essential ly for the reasons amply provided by the district court, the order appealed from, which is the Memo ran
dum and Order dated August 7, 2013, denying the motion to reconsider, is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-20507 Document: 00512631500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2014
No. 58641.

protest 230128-K (New York).

#### Barnett International Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8392 

To add Ireland to the E3 nonimmigrant visa program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2024 

Mr. NEAL (for himself and Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To add Ireland to the E3 nonimmigrant visa program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. E–3 VISAS FOR IRISH NATIONALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) of the 

5 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

6 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or, on a 

7 basis of reciprocity as determined by the Secretary of 

8 State, a national of Ireland,’’ after ‘‘Australia’’. 

9 (b) EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS.—Section 212 of the 

10 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is 

11 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8392 IH

1 (1) by redesignating the second subsection (t) 

2 (as added by section 1(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 108– 

3 449 (118 Stat. 3470)) as subsection (u); and 

4 (2) by adding at the end of subsection (t)(1) 

5 (as added by section 402(b)(2) of Public Law 108– 

6 77 (117 Stat. 941)) the following: 

7 ‘‘(E) In the case of an attestation filed 

8 with respect to a national of Ireland described 

9 in section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii), the employer is, 

10 and will remain during the period of authorized 

11 employment of such Irish national, a partici12 pant in good standing in the E-Verify program 

13 described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immi14 gration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

15 Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).’’. 

16 (c) APPLICATION ALLOCATION.—Paragraph (11) of 

17 section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

18 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)) is amended to read as follows: 

19 ‘‘(11)(A) The Secretary of State may approve 

20 initial applications submitted for aliens described in 

21 section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) only as follows: 

22 ‘‘(i) For applicants who are nationals 

23 of the Commonwealth of Australia, not 

24 more than 10,500 for a fiscal year. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8392 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) For applicants who are nationals 

2 of Ireland, not more than a number equal 

3 to the difference between 10,500 and the 

4 number of applications approved in the 

5 prior fiscal year for aliens who are nation6 als of the Commonwealth of Australia. 

7 ‘‘(B) The approval of an application de8 scribed under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be 

9 deemed for numerical control purposes to have 

10 occurred on September 30 of the prior fiscal 

11 year. 

12 ‘‘(C) The numerical limitation under sub13 paragraph (A) shall only apply to principal 

14 aliens and not to the spouses or children of 

15 such aliens.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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 annual report of Protalex, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arnold P. Kling, President 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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated: August 19, 2011





/s/ Arnold P. KlingArnold P. KlingPresident(Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Elixes Ratel, *Respondent, v.*Elizabeth Ratel, Appellant.

Order refusing to vacate order of publication affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by Pratt, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
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 DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), I, Stephen A. Aanderud, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 13, 2004



/s/ Stephen A. AanderudStephen A. AanderudChief Financial Officer
#### George C. Burgwin, Jr., and Fidelity Trust Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, v. Bertie Gennett Parses Stewart, Jr., and T. J. Dowdell, as Sequestrator.

182 So. 297.

Opinion Filed June 24, 1938.

*Carson & Petteway, S. S. McCahill*and *Lewis W. P'etteway,*for Appellants.

*900*Bryant & Pittman, H. F. Stambaugh*and *Walsh, Becham & Ellis,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause coming on now to be heard upon the stipulation of the parties of record to the appeal, herein and it appearing from said stipulation duly signed and filed in this court that the appellants and appellees have amicably adjusted and settled the controversy involved in the appeal, subject to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid stipulation, and it appearing to the court that said stipulation is in all respects a lawful and proper settlement of the controversy involved in this appeal, and that being consented to by the parties, it should be put into effect by an appropriate decree embracing the terms, conditions, provisions, and agreements in said stipulation contained.

It is thereupon' considered, ordered, and adjudged by this court that the decrees and orders herein appealed from be and the same'are hereby severally vacated and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, with directions to enter a final decree in said cause in conformity with and carrying into effect the terms and conditions of the stipulation hereinbefore mentioned, all of which shall be certified to the said . Circuit Court, together with the mandate of this court herein.

This order is entered on authority of the-opinion in the case of Adams, *et al.,*v. Galloway, *et al.,*115 Fla. 166, 155 So. 96.

Wi-iitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
#### Washington A. Cornwall, *Respondent, v.*William L. Isham, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Barker, J.
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 on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the "Company") for the
quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth S. Klipper, Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer, Chief
Accounting Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby 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:



Dated: February 9, 2009

/s/ KENNETH S. KLIPPER Kenneth S. Klipper
Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First Marblehead Corporation
and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks