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





The undersigned, Eric Yu Tak Shing, the
Chief Financial 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 September
      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 14th day of November, 2009.


/s/ Eric Yu Tak
      ShingEric
      Yu Tak ShingChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial 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.
#### I. Magnin & Co. (American Express Co.) *v.*United States

No. 7320.

Invoice dated London, England, November 29, 1945.

Certified November 29, 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 30, 1946.

Entry No. 756770.

(Decided June 27, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): This appeal for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concerns the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. §1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.
No. 54732.

#### Accessocraft Products Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 152221-K (New York).

Ekwall, Judge:

This case involves the rate at which the currency of the invoice, French francs, should be converted into United States dollars under the provisions of section 522 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930. It has been submitted on the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York certified both an official and a free rate of exchange for the currency of the invoice of the involved entry for the date of exportation of the merchandise under the provisions of Section 522 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; that in liquidation of said entry the Collector of Customs converted the currency of the invoice into United States dollars based upon a calculation which did not realistically reflect the number of U. S. dollars legally required to pay for the invoice in the currency of appraisement whereas conversion should have been made in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular letter Number 2675, copy of which is hereto annexed and made part of this stipulation, by dividing the total appraised value by the sum of (1) the number of units of foreign currency obtained for $1 at the official rate of exchange and (2) the number of units of foreign currency obtained for $1. at the free rate of exchange, each in the percentage indicated in the appraisal.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the protest be submitted on this stipulation.

> Plaintiff waives the right to first docket call and further amendment of this protest.

> In view of this stipulation we sustain plaintiff’s claim that the currency of the invoice was improperly converted into United States dollars and hold that the same should have been converted by dividing the total appraised value by the sum of (1) the number of units of foreign currency obtained for $1 at the official rate *290of exchange and (2) the number of units of foreign currency obtained for $1 at the free rate of exchange, each in the percentage indicated in the appraisal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, (the
Report) of UTEK Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Douglas Schaedler, the Principal Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my
knowledge, 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 Registrant.



/s/    DOUGLAS
SCHAEDLERName:

Douglas SchaedlerDate:

March 2, 2009
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Michelle H.Y. Voon  | Attn:  Robert Castle / Kristine Gullo |
| 100 Plaza One 6th Floor         | 100 White Clay Center, Suite 102 |
| Jersey City, NY 07311                | Newark, DE  19711 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets LLC |
| Attn:  Robert Castle                  | Ally Financial Inc. |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020              | 200 Renaissance Center |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 12th Floor, MC 482-B12-C24 |
|                                            | Detroit, MI |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2010-2 |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the Trust Sale and Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the Trust Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |
Before the Second Division,

October 25, 1950

No. 54771.

#### Westinghouse Electric International Co. *v.*United States,

protest 149899-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2187

HUEY L. HAMRICK, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; KITT ENERGY CORPORATION, Respondents.

On Petition of Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (00-600-BLA) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 21, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Huey L. Hamrick, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Jennifer U. Toth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Richard Phillips Johnson, Lexington, Kentucky, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Huey L. Hamrick seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order dismissing his appeal from an Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying his claim for black lung benefits as untimely. We affirm. A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days from the date upon which the decision or order of the ALJ was filed in the Office of the District Director. See 20 C.F.R. § 802.205. The ALJ’s decision and order were filed in the Office of the District Director on July 31, 2001. Hamrick’s notice of appeal, postmarkedSeptember 5, 2001, and received in the Office of the Clerk on September 10, 2001, is therefore untimely. See Dominion Coal Corp. v. Honaker , 33 F.3d 401, 405 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order dismissing Hamrick’s appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

RASHID A. EL MALIK, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2012-7041 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 10-2013, Judge William A. 

Moorman. 

__________________________ 

Decided: April 12, 2012 

__________________________ 

RASHID A. EL MALIK, of Palos Verde’s Estate, California, pro se. 

STEVEN M. MAGER, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. 

With him on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attor-
EL MALIK v. DVA 2

ney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and 

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR., Assistant Director. Of counsel on 

the brief was DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before PROST, MAYER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Rashid El Malik appeals the order of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”), denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. 

El Malik v. Shinseki, No. 10-2013 (Vet. App. Sept. 2, 

2011). He argues that the Department of Veterans Affairs incorrectly denied him an increased rate of special 

monthly compensation. As this court has already explained—in an appeal brought by Mr. El Malik—“[t]he 

remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only 

in extraordinary situations.” El Malik v. Shinseki, No. 

2011–7201, 2012 WL 833663, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 

2012); see also Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1382 

(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“To obtain mandamus, the petitioner 

must show (1) that he has a ‘clear and indisputable right’ 

to the writ and (2) that he has no alternative way to 

obtain the relief sought.” (citation omitted)). We have 

also explained—indeed in yet another appeal brought by 

Mr. El Malik—that “[m]andamus is not a substitute for 

proper appeal and must be denied when the remedy 

sought is available after entry of a final . . . decision . . . .” 

In re El Malik, No. 2010-M937, 2010 WL 2076990, at *1 

(Fed. Cir. May 19, 2010); see also In re El Malik, 322 Fed. 

Appx. 976 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2008) (unpublished order) 

(converting Mr. El Malik’s petition for a writ of mandamus to a regular appeal). Here, Mr. El Malik does not 
3 EL MALIK v. DVA

offer any persuasive explanation for why his grievance 

cannot be addressed through a regular appeal. Therefore, 

we affirm the decision of the Veterans Court denying Mr. 

El Malik’s petition for a writ of mandamus. 

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT DIANA C . ANDER SON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. SUN LIFE ASSUR

ANC E OF C ANADA, INC . And C OM M U

NITY HEALTH SYSTEM S INC ORPOR

A TED, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17594 D.C . No. 4:12-c v-00145-C KJ Distric t of Ariz ona , Tuc son ORDER

B e fore : M c KEOW

N, W ARD LAW , a

nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s . Sun Life Assura

nc e C om pa ny of C a na da

and Dia na Ande rson’ s joint m otions to va c a te the m e m oran dum disposition da

te d April 6, 2016 a

nd dism iss this a c t ion with pre

judic e are GR

ANTED. Ea c h pa

rty sha ll be a r its own c osts a nd a ttorne y ’ s fe e s. IT IS SO O RDE R E D. 

# FIL ED JUN 13 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS
#### The Attorney General of the State of New York *v.*The Continental Life Insurance Company, *Respondent*(Claim of Benjamin N. Feltwell and others, *Appellants).*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements against appellants. Opinion by Learned. P. J.
#### Gino Gruarin et al., Respondents, v Frank S. Skrlin, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 567]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Koshian, J. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.—Dismiss Action.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John A. Scarlett, M.D., certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.

Date: May 4, 2007



By:

/s/ John A. Scarlett, M.D.John A. Scarlett, M.D.Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
(Reap. Dec. 8894)

Entry Nos. 341; 2788.

#### Edward S. Zerwekh Company *v.*United States

(Decided July 10, 1957)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These two appeals for reappraisement relate to certain binoculars and cases exported from Japan and entered at the port of Los Angles, Calif.

The cases have been submitted on an agreed set of facts, establishing export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and showing such statutory value for these binoculars and cases to be the unit values as set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, less deductions from said unit values of “(F. O. B.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage,” as invoiced, net packed, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Order filed, November 6, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00905-CV

____________

STEVEN LEVY, Appellant

V.

CACH, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1003903

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due October 30, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order the official court reporter of the County Civil Court at Law Number One 

to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
Secretary of Natural Resources

TDD (804) 698-4021

www.deq.virginia.gov

Director

(804) 698-4000

1-800-592-5482

SEP27 ?O1fl

Ms. Diana Esher, DirectorAir Protection Division (3APOO)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

Reference:

RCVED

SEP 2 9 2010

bivision DirectOr (.3APOO)

Ambient Air Quality

Standards, 8-hour Ozone,

Revision D08

Dear Ms. Esher:

Pursuant to the requirements of § 110 of the Clean Air Act, we are officially requesting

approval of a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan approvedand submitted under the authority of § 10.1-1185 ofthe Code of Virginia and in accordance with

the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans).

This revision consists of a regulation (9VAC5 Chapter 30) that contains the ambient air

quality standards set out in 40 CFR Part 50. This action added an 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075

parts per million and related reference conditions, as well as made a technical correction to the

PM2.5standard in support of a previous revision, F06 (submitted separately as a revision to the

SIP as Revision F06c). In addition, the list of appendices to 40 CFR Part 51 was updated under

documents incorporated by reference, 9VAC5-20-21. The regulation amendments were adopted

by the State Air Pollution Control Board on December 15, 2008 under the authority of § 10.1-

1308 ofthe Code of Virginia.

Enclosed are the following:

1. A true copy of the official regulation (Revision D08) which was published in the

Virginia Register ofRegulations on February 16, 2009 after being duly adopted by
2. Certification of public participation activities and compliance with state

administrative procedures.

3. Public participation record.

For purposes ofthis submittal, certain provisions are being included for information

purposes only and are not to be construed as part ofthis particular SIP submittal; these provisions

are specifically identified in Enclosure 2 ofthis submittal.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please let us know.

Sine ?ely,

David K. Paylor

DKP\kgsTEMPLATES\SIP-REG\REGOO

SIP\NONATTN AREAS\20 1 O\D08-SIP.DOC

Enclosures
#### William Zoller, *Respondent, v.*Alanson Young, Appellant.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Hardin, J.; dissenting opinion by Smith, P. J.
(Reap. Dec. 10190)

#### Jovita Perez et al. v. *United*States

Entry No. 4254, etc.

(Decided March 6, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiffs.

*William S. Orrich, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after March 1,1958.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to ap-praisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927— 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, 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 expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for. reap-praisement listed in Schedule B are hereby submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise involved herein is export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165), and hold that such statutory value for the said merchandise is the prices set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein, with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.