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


                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Buko  von  Krosigk , certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of Wineshares International, Inc. for the quarterly period
ending  January  31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material
respects  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations of Wineshares,
International,  Inc.

                           By:    /s/ Buko von Krosigk
                                  -----------------------
                           Name:  Buko von Krosigk
                           Title: Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Director

                           Date:  May 22,  2003

I,  Gerard  Darmon,  certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of Wineshares International, Inc. for the quarterly period
ending  January  31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material
respects  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations of Wineshares,
International,  Inc.

                          By:    /s/ Gerard  Darmon
                                  -----------------------
                          Name:  Gerard  Darmon
                          Title: Chief  Financial  Officer  and  Director

                          Date:  May 22,  2003
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 128 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 128

 Authorizing the printing of a commemorative document in memory of the 
       late President of the United States, Gerald Rudolph Ford.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2007

  Mr. Ehlers submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Authorizing the printing of a commemorative document in memory of the 
       late President of the United States, Gerald Rudolph Ford.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT AUTHORIZED.

    (a) In General.--A commemorative document in memory of the late 
President of the United States, Gerald Rudolph Ford, shall be printed 
as a House document, with illustrations and suitable binding, under the 
direction of the Joint Committee on Printing.
    (b) Contents.--The document shall consist of the eulogies and 
encomiums for Gerald Rudolph Ford, as expressed in the Senate and the 
House of Representatives, together with the texts of each of the 
following:
            (1) The funeral ceremony at Palm Desert, California.
            (2) The state funeral ceremony at the rotunda of the United 
        States Capitol.
            (3) The national funeral service held at the Washington 
        National Cathedral in the District of Columbia.
            (4) The interment ceremony at the Gerald Ford Presidential 
        Museum, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

SEC. 2. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT.

    In addition to the usual number of copies printed of the 
commemorative document under section 1, there shall be printed the 
lesser of--
            (1) 32,500 copies, of which 22,150 copies shall be for the 
        use of the House of Representatives and 10,350 copies shall be 
        for the use of the Senate; or
            (2) such number of copies that does not exceed a production 
        and printing cost of $600,000, with distribution of the copies 
        to be allocated in the same proportion as described in 
        paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
#### J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc. (Mark Cross Co.) *v.*United States

No. 6137.

Invoices dated Walsall, England, February 25, 1942, etc.

Certified March 3, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 4, 1942, etc.

Entry No. 745504, etc.

(Decided April 26, 1945)

*Jordan & Klingaman (Edward F. Jordan*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant. 0

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

Tbe appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for tbe parties hereto: - \

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*Suit No. 4481, C. A. D. 305, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise here involved, less the addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the cost of materials, and fabrication, manipulation or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or'similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production thereof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the costs of materials and fabrication or manipulation and general expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general character by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind.

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

*408On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) 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 are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 44313.

#### Protest 939913-G of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingeb, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Laszlo*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 47) the pistols in question were held dutiable at 27)4 percent under paragraph 372 as claimed.
Exhibit 31.2

**SARBANES-OXLEY
  
  SECTION 302 (a) CERTIFICATION
  OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**



I, Rick Steen, the Registrant's Acting Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Certified Services,
  Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
  financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
  material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
  of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
  controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
  for the Registrant and I have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures
  to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its
  consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
  particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures
  as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report
  (the "Evaluation Date"); and c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions
  about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my
  evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
  Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors
  (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies
  in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect
  the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
  data and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses
  in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
  management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's
  internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there
  were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
  significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
  evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies
  and material weaknesses.



Date: April 30, 2004 /s/ Rick SteenActing Chief
        Financial Officer




---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27293-27294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[XRIN: 0648-XA26]


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a public meeting of its Research Steering Committee 
(Committee) in March, 2007 to consider actions affecting New England 
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from 
this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration 
and action, if appropriate.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 30, 2007, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire 
Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone: (508) 339-2200; fax: (508) 256-
2550.
    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will: review several final 
cooperative research project reports and develop management advice for 
use by the Council; address the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's 
report on the impacts of fishing on groundfish spawning activities and 
related follow-up activities concerning the Northeast Region's 
Experimental Fishing Permit Program; develop recommendations concerning 
the peer review of the recently concluded study fleet pilot

[[Page 27294]]

project; discuss data archiving and data access for cooperative 
research project results; and other outstanding business related to 
cooperative research.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to 
those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising 
after publication of this notice that require emergency action under 
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has 
been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address 
the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-
0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 10, 2007.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-9252 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
No. 96-7771.

#### Trevino *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Robert C. BRIDGES, Jr., Petitioner, v. Janice H. BRIDGES, Respondent.

No. 99-1539.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 2, 1999.

*552Michael' Dubiner of Dubiner & Wilen-sky, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

No response required for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order in a dissolution of marriage action. The order denied petitioner’s motion to exclude the testimony of a psychologist who had met with the parties’ minor child, without notice being given to petitioner. Another evaluator has been appointed by the court at petitioner’s request. Florida Family Rule of Procedure 12.363(c) provides that a mental health expert who has not been appointed by the court under subsection (a) of the rule may testify only if the trial court “determines that good cause exists to permit the testimony.” The “fact that no notice” of such expert’s treatment or testing of a child was given to one of the parents “shall be considered by the court as a basis for preventing such testimony.” A decision under subsection (c) of the rule is within the broad discretion of the trial court.

In this type of case, certiorari review of a non-final order is available only if the order is a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings, and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. *See Bared & Co. v. McGuire,*670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Even assuming that this court would find error in the trial court’s discretionary ruling on the motion in li-mine, this is not the type of issue for which certiorari lies. *See Leibman v. Sportatorium, Inc.,*374 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); *Stoever v. Vedder Homes, Inc.,*697 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); *Riano v. Heritage Corp. of South Florida,*665 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that writ of certiorari is reserved for those situations where “ ‘there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice’ ”) (quoting *Combs v. State,*436 So.2d 93, 96 (Fla.1983)).

The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.

POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
No. 50768.

#### Protests 112340-K, etc., of Angelus Hardwood Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 54337.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 151659-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record disclosing that the protest was not filed within the prescribed time, as required by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the motion to dismiss was granted.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mniteb**~tateg** 

# <!Courtof**~peaIg** 

# fortbejfeberaI<!Circuit

AMBASE CORPORATION AND 

### CARTERET BANCORP, INC., Plaintiffs-CrossAppellants, AND 

### FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-CrossAppellant, 

### v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.
2012-5047, -5048, -5049 Appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 93-CV-531, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.


### ON MOTION
ORDER The parties jointly move for a limited remand to the United States Court of Federal Claims for the purpose of seeking approval oftheir settlement agreement pursuantAMBASE CORP v. US 2

to Court ofFederal Claims Rule 23.1(c). The parties also move to hold the appeals in abeyance pending the Court of Federal Claims' approval or disapproval of the settlement agreement.

, This court grants the motion to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the Court of Federal Claims's consideration ofthe parties' motions. We retain jurisdiction so that any ofthe parties may seek appellate review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty days ofentry ofthe court's determination on remand. The appeals are held in abeyance pending the resolution ofthe motion by the Court of Federal Claims. The parties should promptly inform this court ofthe Court ofFederal Claims' ruling on the motion and should propose how they believe the appeals should proceed in light ofthe court's ruling. Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted to the extent explained above. This court retains jurisdiction over the appeals at this time. (2) All other pending motions are moot. FOR THE COURT 

## OCT 032012 Date

cc: Charles J. Cooper, Esq. John 

### M. Dorsey, 

### III, Esq. Jeanne 

### E. Davidson, Esq. s25 /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk



## ..•**-.ft'Fi~PEALS** 

## FOR**~.At** CIRCUIT 

### OCT 03201£ JANHORBALY 

## ClERK
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6492

NAPOLEON J. RANKIN

- BEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 01129

- TDS

- JEP )

Submitted : August 19, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Napoleon J. Rankin Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order a cce pting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Rankin Bey’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cas es, p arties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under
Fed . R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court entered its order on January 29, 2021

. Rankin Bey filed t he notice of appeal on March 23, 2021

. * Because Rankin Bey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this cou rt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Rankin Bey could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (1) ; Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988).
No. 74-5836.

#### Ehly *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
---

Exhibit 99.4

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery

Co., Ltd. (the Company) and Shenzhen Longgang Branch, Bank of China

(the Creditor) Dated March 10, 2010

Main articles:

- Contract number: 2010 Zhenzhongyin Gangjiezi 00007;
- Loan principal: RMB 150 million;
- Loan Term: from March 10, 2010 to March 11, 2011;
- Interest rate: fixed at 5.31%;

> Interest accrued and settled per month, interest settlement day is the 20thday of each month;
>       Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 5.31% plus 50% *5.31%;
>       Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 5.31% *1;

- If any of the following occurs, the Creditor is entitled to demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity and cancel all loans unprovided:

> Delay in repayment of loan interest and the loan principal;
>       The Company uses loan proceeds for purposes other than what is
> agreed without the consent of the Creditor;
>       The Company provides untrue declaration or hide important
> financial
> information about its operation;
>       The Company terminates operation or is stopped from operation;

- Purpose of the loan is to repay two loans: one is expired on March 13, 2010 (No. 09853563) and another is expired on March 31, 2010(No. 09854121);
- Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Creditor;
- Breach of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time limit; suspension of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest incurred due to
delayed loan; imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid interest; withdraw from any accounts of the Company the loan principal, interest and other fees; compensation for the Creditors
expenses incurred due to demanding the loan principal and interest in case of litigation, etc.

Headlines of the articles omitted

- Loan arrangement
- Interest clearing of the loan
- Payment of the loan
- Guarantee
- Declaration and Promise
- Rights reserved
- Modification, Amendment and Termination of Contract
- Disputation settlement
- Fee
- Attachment
- Other agreements
- Validity

---
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 Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David M. Barnes, CFO and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.

                                            CYBER DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC.

                                            By: /s/ David M. Barnes
                                                -----------------------------
                                                David M. Barnes
                                                Chief Financial Officer and
                                                Principal Financial and
                                                Accounting Officer

                                                November 20, 2006