alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(b)

TXU ENERGY COMPANY LLC

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CFO

The undersigned, David A. Campbell, Manager and Acting Chief Financial Officer of TXU Energy Company
LLC (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (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. | 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 caused this instrument to be executed this 11th day of May, 2006.



/s/ David A. CampbellName:

David A. CampbellTitle:

Manager and Acting Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TXU Energy
Company LLC and will be retained by TXU Energy Company LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 54769.

#### Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 141989-K, etc.

Abstract 54609. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
(Reap. Dec. 8495)

#### Joseph Markovits, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 748654, etc.

(Decided November 18, 1955)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, 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 by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto—

> That the appeals.to Reappraisement enumerated in Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof cover artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems or parts thereof, or articles wholly or in chief value of the same imported from Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or 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 to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States was as follows:

> 1. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems, or parts thereof wholly or in chief value of threads, filaments or yarn and articles wholly or in chief value of the foregoing.- Appraised value less 3 *%*packing included

> 2. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems, and parts thereof wholly or in chief value of materials other than threads, filaments or yarn and articles wholly or in chief value of the foregoing_Appraised value less 5 % packing included

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases be submitted on this 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 merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> 1. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems, or parts thereof, wholly or in chief value of threads, filaments, or yarn and articles wholly or in chief value of the foregoing-_ Appraised value, less 3 % packing included

> *4312. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems, and parts thereof, wholly or in chief value of materials other than threads, filaments, or yarn and articles wholly or in chief value of the foregoing_Appraised value, less 5% packing included

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Biomass to Green 

Hydrocarbons

Randal Goodfellow

SVP Corporate 

Relations

November 6th, 2008

Ensyn Corp
Outline

• RTP Technology & Plants• Existing Business Segment Review• Future Development• Strategic Framework
Pyrolysis

Simply put pyrolysis is a thermo-cheof breaking biomass into pieces, thesthen be used as building blocks for n
Fast Pyrolysis - RTP

REHEATER

Bio-Oil Product

950 

o

F

< 2s

Heat added very quickly by 

“tornado” of recycled 

flowing sand

• 

• 

• 

• 

Biomass 

Feedstock
RTPTM Produces Three Pr

Categories of Produc

• Bio-Oil (liquid) – 75% of Original Weig

Biomass

• Non-Condensable Gas – 12.5% of Ori

of the Biomass

• Char (solid) – 12.5% of Original Weigh

Biomass
Core Competency

Wood/Biomass 

Residues

Liquid Biomass (“Bio-Oil”)

R

Ensyn’s Core Competency is the co

solid Biomass into liquid materia

Technology), and the ability to frac

liquid economically.
RTPTM Process Developm

Seven R&D and Pilot Plant

Built & Tested for variou

applications & purposes
Commercial Developm

First Commercial Plant constructed in 

since then in the USA and Ca
Commercial Develop

Renfrew Canada Plant (2007) is the la

(200 green TPD / 100 dried 
HTLTM Commercial Demonstra
Bio-Oil Applications

• Bio-Chemicals • Food Ingredients

• Bio-Phenolic• Feedstock Chemicals• Pharmaceutical/Nutraceutical

• Thermal Energy • Boiler Fuel

• Distributed Heating• Replacing #2, #6, Natural Gas, and Coal

• Power • Orenda Turbines from 1MW to 25 MW• Transportation Fuels • Fungible (“drop-in”) Bio-Gasoline & Transportation 
Pathways to Renewable Trans

(Royal Society Report – January 2
Joint Venture
Lignocellulosic Biomass 

to Fuels Via Pyrolysis

Biomass Pyrolysis Stabilization

Mixed Woods Mixed Woods

Corn Stover Corn Stover

D

P

Biocrude

Refinery

P

P

P

P

P

P

Collaboration with DOE, NREL, P

JV with Ensyn
Commercialization Plan

Biomass

‘Gr

Elec

Fue

M

Timeline 

2008

2

2009

Stage 1

Upgrader

Sta

Upg

Mixed Woods Mixed Woods

Corn Stover

Corn Stover

Pyrolysis Unit

Rolling Deployment 
RTPTM

TECHNOLOGY

Energy Projects:

C&D

Upgraded Fuels

(transportation 

& fuel oils)

Petroleum 

Upgrading

(Ivanhoe)

Ch

(fo

p

Strategic 

Framework
Thank You

www.ensyn.crgoodfellow@
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Rownda Johnson, Defendant.

County Court, Erie County,

April 14, 1975

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Edward C. Cosgrove, District Attorney (Joseph J. Hodan*of counsel), for plaintiff. *John Patrick Pieri*for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Rose La Mendola, J.

The People appeal from an order of the Honorable Carmelo A. Parlato, Judge of the City Court of Buffalo (77 Mise 2d 889), dismissing an information charging defendant herein with violation of section 130.38 of the Penal Law on the grounds that said section is unconstitutional since it denies equal protection of the law to citizens "not married to each other” in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 11 of article I of the New York Constitution.

In declaring the statute unconstitutional, Judge Parlato of *906the City Court of Buffalo states (p 891): "The subject statute would make criminals of some citizens, but not others, on the basis of an unsupportable distinction and would constitutionally wrongfully deny to the former the equal protection of the law.”

This court cannot agree with such a conclusion.

Traditionally, the system of jurisprudence in this State as well as others, has recognized discriminate application and enforcement of laws as they affect certain classes of citizens such as minors and married persons.

The court does agree with the contention of the respondent that one of the three areas involving deviate sexual behavior in which the Legislature should be concerned is the duty to prevent a violation of public decency.

A higher court has already ruled that no substantial Federal question existed as to the constitutionality of the subject statute.

In *Raphael v Hogan*(305 F Supp 749) the plaintiff argued that the subject statute was unconstitutional on its face because it invidiously discriminated between married individuals and unmarried individuals.

The court rejected the argument that it is criminal for unmarried people to engage in sodomy in public, but not for married people to do so.

The court stated (p 756): "We believe a rational foundation exists for the state’s discrimination between acts of consenual sodomy committed by married and unmarried persons. No matter who the participants are, we emphasize such deportment in public violates the prohibition of the statute hereunder consideration.”

In the instant case this court agrees with the finding of the higher court. If the participants had been married to each other, they could be prosecuted under New York State’s public lewdness statute (Penal Law, § 245.00).

Order of the Judge of the City Court of Buffalo herein dismissing the information is vacated and the information is hereby reinstated.
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 Cardigant Medical Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerett A. Creed, Chief Executive 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 the best of my knowledge:

(a)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2012
/s/ Jerett A. Creed
Jerett A. Creed

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137396 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 137396 

 COA: 276824 

Ingham CC: 06-000720-FC

ROBERT JERMINE OLIVER,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 12, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
NO. 07-11-00274-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MARCH 26, 2012

DOUGLAS HOOPES, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY;

NO. D-1-DC-10-202780; HONORABLE KAREN SAGE, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

Appellant, Douglas Hoopes, was convicted of making a false report of an emergency involving a public service[footnoteRef:1] and sentenced to 415 days in a State Jail Facility. We affirm. [1:  See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 42.06(a)(3) (West 2011).] 

Appellants attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial courts judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response.  Appellant has not filed a response.  By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  SeePenson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsels motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial courts judgment is affirmed.[footnoteRef:2] [2:  Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellants right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.] 

								Mackey K. Hancock

                                                       Justice

Do not publish.  

2
Before the Second Division,

November 21, 1951

No. 56056.

protest 162484-K (Baltimore).

#### John S. Connor *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Laweence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of aluminum scrap; that said scrap is a nonferrous material in chief value of metal; and that it is secondhand or waste or refuse, fit only to be remanufactured. Upon the agreed statement of facts, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 189 LT Case No. 2019

- 357

- CJ

_____________________________ N.C., A C HILD , Appellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal fro m the Circuit Court for Clay County. Timothy R. Collins, Judge. Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, Special Assistant Public Defender s , Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend, Ass istant Attorney Gener al, Tallahassee, for Appellee. September 19, 2023

P ER C URIAM
. A FFIRMED
. W ALLIS , E ISNAUGLE , and S OUD , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
EXHIBIT 32.1WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES — OXLEY ACT OF 2002The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (“the Company”), each hereby certifies that to his/her knowledge, on the date hereof:(a) the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section l3(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: August 14, 2009                                                                                       /s/ CharlesN. HazenCharles N. HazenPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 14, 2009                                                                                       /s/ SherriW. SchugartSherri W. SchugartChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-K of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2008, I, Michael T. Storm, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc.,hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1) suchForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2) theinformation contained in such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|  /s/ Michael T. Storm                            |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael T. Storm                                      |   |
| Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
www.pillsburylaw.com 405218957v1 

Kenneth P. Quinn 

tel 202.663.8898 

kquinn@pillsburylaw.com 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

1200 Seventeenth Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | tel 202.663.8000 | fax 202.663.8007 

 

May 8, 2015 

Chief, Documentary Services Division 

Department of Transportation 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Notice of Substitution of Counsel in Dockets OST-2015-0097, OST2014-0045, OST-2000-7708, and OST-1997-3289 

Please take notice that Kenneth P. Quinn and Jennifer E. Trock hereby 

substitute Lisa Harig as counsel of record for Compass Airlines, LLC in the above 

referenced proceedings. 

Accordingly, please substitute the above-named counsel for Compass Airlines, 

LLC on the service lists to receive all orders, notices, pleadings, correspondence, and 

other documents in the above proceedings and all other proceedings 

Sincerely, 

Kenneth P. Quinn 

 
May 8, 2015 

Page 2 

www.pillsburylaw.com 405218957v1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I certify that on May 8, 2015, I served by electronic mail a copy of the 

foregoing Notice of Substitution of Counsel upon those addressee listed below: 

brian.hedberg@dot.gov (Department of Transportation) 

brett.kruger@dot.gov (Department of Transportation) 

robert.finamore@dot.gov (Department of Transportation) 

reese.davidson@dot.gov (Department of Transportation) 

dan.weiss@united.com (United) 

steve.morrissey@united.com (United) 

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United) 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com (Delta) 

chris.walker@delta (Delta) 

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com (Republic) 

bob.kneisley@wnco.com (Southwest) 

perkmann@cooley.com (Counsel for Hawaiian) 

dkirstein@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit) 

barbara.russell@virginamerica.com (Virgin) 

matwood@cozen.com (Counsel for Frontier) 

Thomas.ting@suncountry.com (Sun Country) 

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com (Counsel for Republic) 

dheffernan@cozen.com (Counsel for Alaska) 

jeremy.ross@alaskaair.com (Alaska) 

esahr@eckertseamans.com (Counsel for JetBlue) 

howard.kass@aa.com (American Airlines) 

robert.wirick@aa.com (American Airlines) 

slachter@cozen.com (Counsel for Frontier) 

robert.land@jetblue.com (JetBlue) 

leslie.abbott@wnco.com (Southwest Airlines) 

jyoung@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit Airlines) 

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com (Sun Country) 

thomas.bolling@united.com (United) 

john@mietuslaw.com (Counsel for Aeromexico) 

info@airlineinfo.com (Info) 

 __________________________ 

 Kenneth P. Quinn
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 30, 2019

d0422 

# Order

Clerk April 30, 2019

157992(28)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157992

COA: 340731

Hillsdale CC: 13

- 373061

- FC

ROBERT MANUEL

- GUY McCOY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 4,

2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
No. 65605.

#### Pivar Conley Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 59/21157 and 59/33583 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pile ribbons made of synthetic textile similar in use to pile ribbons, wholly or in chief value of silk, and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 56531.

protests 147631-K and 177860-K (New York).

#### Frederick Miller *v.*United States,

*446Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven fabrics in the piece, with fibers wholly of silk, valued at more than $5.50 per pound, similar in all material respects to the merchandise involved in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CHARLES L. POLITTE, Private E-2, U. S. Army, Appellant

10 USCMA 134, 27 CMR 208

No. 12,176

Decided January 9, 1959

*Lieutenant Colonel W. H. Blackmarr*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*First Lieutenant Avram G. Hammer*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Major Thomas J. Nichols*and *First Lieutenant George J. Miller.*

Opinion of the Court

HomeR FeRGUSON, Judge:

Accused stands convicted of offenses in violation of Articles 121 and 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 921 and 886. With the exception of a modification of the sentence at the convening authority level, intermediate appellate bodies have affirmed.

The accused’s appeal is predicated upon Charge I, to which he pleaded not guilty, which charged him with the larceny of monies of another person. A deposition of the accused’s commanding officer was proffered in evidence, in which was recounted the former’s confession of the crime to him. Testifying in his own behalf, accused admitted making the confession but offered as excuse the fact that he had done so for another who was actually guilty of the offense, and who was to confess to it after his imminent discharge from the service, but who failed to do so. Accused admitted to accepting a monetary consideration for the making of his confession.

We granted the accused’s petition for review to determine whether the law officer erred in allowing the court-martial to consider the deposition in closed session over defense objection.

There can be no question but that the law officer’s action constituted error. See United States v Jakaitis, 10 USCMA 41, 27 CMR 115. In probing for prejudice, however, we note that in *Jakaitis,*supra, the prosecution case rested upon four depositions and one stipulation, to which, as to the two offenses involved, the accused entered pleas of not guilty. It follows that in closed session the court-martial there was faced with the task of weighing the accused’s testimony against the *135depositions. Here, m one all-important respect, the situation is different. In the present case the accused, while tendering an excuse, admitted to making the confession. Consequently, the court-martial had no issue to determine as to the statements made in the deposition when it retired into closed session. Therefore, we find no prejudice.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Lati-MER concur.