alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Sterling Drilling Fund 1983-2 (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Charles E. Drimal Jr., Chief Executive Officer of PrimeEnergy Management
Corporation, the Managing General Partner, 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 result of operations of the
Partnership.



/s/ Charles E. Drimal Jr.
-----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2002
No. 48273.

#### Protest 96519-K (A), etc., of Belmont Distributing Co. (New York)

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

After hearing argument in this case the court dismissed the protests.
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 China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Kam Wah Poon,
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:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

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

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906,  another
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to China Energy  Savings  Technology,
Inc. and will be retained by China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Kam Wah Poon
-------------------------------------
Kam Wah Poon
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
Date: February 14, 2005
PUBLIC LAW 111–126—JAN. 22, 2010 124 STAT. 3 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4462: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Jan. 20, considered and passed House. 

Jan. 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–126 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the 

relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR CHARITABLE CASH CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RELIEF OF VICTIMS 

OF EARTHQUAKE IN HAITI. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 170 of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any contribution 

described in subsection (b) made after January 11, 2010, and before 

March 1, 2010, as if such contribution was made on December 

31, 2009, and not in 2010. 

(b) CONTRIBUTION DESCRIBED.—A contribution is described in 

this subsection if such contribution is a cash contribution made 

for the relief of victims in areas affected by the earthquake in 

Haiti on January 12, 2010, for which a charitable contribution 

deduction is allowable under section 170 of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986. 

(c) RECORDKEEPING.—In the case of a contribution described 

in subsection (b), a telephone bill showing the name of the donee 

organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the 

contribution shall be treated as meeting the recordkeeping requirements of section 170(f)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

(d) PAYGO.—All applicable provisions in this section are designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles. 

Approved January 22, 2010. 

Jan. 22, 2010 

[H.R. 4462] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
**Exhibit
      32**








**Certifications**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Investors Title Company, a North Carolina corporation
      (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:





(i)
      The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Form
      10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and




(ii)
      information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
              March 21,
              2006/s/ J. Allen FineJ.
              Allen FineChief
              Executive
              Officer


Dated:
                March 21,
                2006/s/ James A. Fine, Jr.James
                A. Fine, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### John F. Webb and Thomas L. Thurston, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Philip Mauro, defendant in error.

*Error to Desmoines.*

At here a witness has received letters purporting to be from A. B., and has answered one of them, but has received no reply, he cannot, with no other evidence of the hand writing of A. B., be a competent witness to prove his (A. B’s.) signature to a power of attorney.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Philip Mauro against John F. Webb, impleaded with Thomas L. Thurston. At October term 1842, there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $631,86, The defendants below brought the case up for reversal. Six errors were assigned, and argued, but as the court considered but one, we shall omit them. The one considered is embraced in the opinion.

Grimes & Starr, for plaintiffs in error.

D. Rorek, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The first point made by the counsel for the plaintiffs in error in this case, is, that the court erred in admitting the power of attorney to be read without legal proof of its execution. It appears from the bill of exceptions, that when the cause came on for trial on the plea of the general issue, the plaintiff below called a witness to prove the execution of a power of attorney, purporting to be signed by the defendants below, and constituting one Wm. H. Mauro their agent. Said witness stated that he had never seen Thomas L. Thurston write ; that he had received two letters on business purporting to come from said Thurston, and dated at Washington city, and to one of which he replied ; that he had no reason to doubt but that they were genuine. He was then asked by plaintiff’s counsel, if he would not *330judge the signature of Thurston to said power to be genuine, to which defendant’s counsel objected, but the court overruled the objection and permitted the power of attorney to be read (the execution of said instrument by the other defendant, Webb, having been first proved.)

We think the court below erred in admiting the power of attorney in evidence upon the .testimony set forth in the.bill of exceptions; for although it is not necessary in all cases, for the witness to have seen a person write, in order to be a competent witness by whom to prove his signature, still we think the present case does not fall within the legal exception. The witness in the present instance had received two letters purporting to come from the defendant Thurston, to one of which he had replied. Had the correspondence been, continued the probabilities of imposition, would have been so far rebutted as to render him a competent witness to prove the fact in question, but if the receipt of two letters, and an ankwer by the witness before any reply has been made to said answer, is suificient - to enable the witness to swear to the signature it will be a very easy matter to manufacture testimony of that nature.

Judgment set aside and a new trial awarded.
#### John V. Care & Son, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7874.

Entry Nos. 8352; 6393; 8643.

(Decided August 29, 1950)

*John C. Ray*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard H. Welsh,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement 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 cost of manufacturing and producing merchandise such as or similar to the particular merchandise involved herein, to wit: #11, 900 lbs. cream separators, at a time preceding the dates of exportation which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production of merchandise such as or similar to particular merchandise under consideration in the usual course of business, is as follows:

> 1. The cost of materials of, and of fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such and similar merchandise is, Canadian_ $73. 79

> 2. The usual general expenses in the manufacture of such merchan-dise_ 9. 71

> 3. The cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the particular merchandise under consideration in condition, packed ready for shipment

> to the United States_1- 3.90

> 4. Profit equal to the profit ordinarily added by manufacturers who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind. . 6. 99

> TOTAL (Canadian)_ $94. 39

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that such or similar merchandise is not freely offered for sale for home consumption nor for export to the United States, nor is such merchandise freely offered for sale, packed ready for delivery in the principal market of the United States.

> IT IS FURTHER AGREED that this case may be submitted under the foregoing stipulation.

On 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 #11 900-pound cream separators here involved, and that such value was 94.39 Canadian dollars each.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9919)

#### Haddad & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 102313.

(Decided February 20, 1961)

*James G. McGoldrick*for the plaintiff.

*WilUam H. Ornele, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement for decision upon stipulation on the basis of which I find that the proper basis of value of the *600raincoats involved, which are in chief value of rubber, exported from Hong Kong on February 5,1959, is export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and that such value is the invoice unit price, plus cost of packing and export charges as invoiced, not including buying commission.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2304 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2304

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow chiropractors 
   to provide items and services through private contracts under the 
                           Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2012

 Ms. Mikulski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow chiropractors 
   to provide items and services through private contracts under the 
                           Medicare program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chiropractors Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWING CHIROPRACTORS TO PROVIDE ITEMS AND SERVICES THROUGH 
              PRIVATE CONTRACTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1802(b)(5)(B) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395a(b)(5)(B)) is amended by striking ``paragraphs (1), 
(2), (3), and (4) of section 1861(r)'' and inserting ``section 
1861(r)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to contracts entered into on and after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20003

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUADALUPE BARRON,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 14-40011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUADALUPE BARRON, also known as Lupe,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-31-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20003 Document: 00513053742 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2015
No. 14-20003

c/w No. 14-40011

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Guadalupe Barron pleaded guilty, in two separate criminal matters, to 

possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and to 

conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of 

cocaine. He appeals his concurrent sentences of 118 months of imprisonment, 

arguing that the district court clearly erred by applying a 5% reduction from 

the gross weight for packaging, instead of a 5.3% or higher reduction.

We review the district court’s application and interpretation of the 

Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United 

States v. Goluba, 672 F.3d 304, 306 (5th Cir. 2012). A district court’s finding 

on drug quantity is a factual finding we review for clear error. United States 

v. Davis, 76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996). If the district court’s assessment of the 

evidence is plausible in light of the record as a whole, we may not reverse even 

if we would have weighed the evidence differently if sitting as the trier of fact. 

See Davis, 76 F.3d at 84.

Here, the district court adopted the drug quantity set forth in the 

presentence report (PSR) after considering Barron’s arguments in favor of a 

higher percentage reduction for packaging. Barron, however, presented no 

evidence rebutting the drug quantity or the 5% packaging reduction set forth 

in the PSR. Given the absence of contrary evidence concerning the proper drug 

quantity, the district court was free to adopt the PSR’s estimated weight and 

use that weight for sentencing purposes. See United States v. Puig–Infante, 19 

F.3d 929, 943 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s decision to apply a 5% 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

 

 Case: 14-20003 Document: 00513053742 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2015
No. 14-20003

c/w No. 14-40011

reduction at most to the gross weight of the marijuana to account for packaging 

was plausible in light of the record. See Davis, 76 F.3d at 84. Accordingly, the 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-20003 Document: 00513053742 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/22/2015
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the annual report of Sterling Drilling Fund 1983-1 (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Management
Corporation, the Managing General Partner, 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 result of operations of the
Partnership.




/s/ Beverly A. Cummings
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2003
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2273 

To designate the Talkeetna Ranger Station in Talkeetna, Alaska, as the 

Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2012 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate the Talkeetna Ranger Station in Talkeetna, 

Alaska, as the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THE WALTER HARPER 

4 TALKEETNA RANGER STATION, ALASKA. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Talkeetna Ranger Station 

6 located on B Street in Talkeetna, Alaska, approximately 

7 100 miles south of the entrance to Denali National Park, 

8 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Walter Harper 

9 Talkeetna Ranger Station’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2273 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the Talkeetna Ranger Station referred to in sub4 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Wal5 ter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 95-2034.

#### Schledwitz *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2015213EN.01001002.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/10

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Botoşani v Polixeni Guletsou

(Case C-598/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical question referred - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 7(2)(c) - Applicability of social security conventions between Member States - Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State - Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State - Application for grant of an old-age benefit - Refusal))

(2015/C 213/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Botoşani

Applicant:

Defendant: Polixeni Guletsou

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a bilateral agreement, relating to the social security benefits of nationals of one of the signatory States having had the status of political refugees in the territory of the other signatory State, concluded on a date when one of the two signatory States had not yet acceded to the European Union and not appearing in Annex III to that regulation, does not continue to apply to the situation of political refugees repatriated to their State of origin before the bilateral agreement was concluded and that regulation entered into force.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
## Exhibit 99.2

I, Peter T. Kissinger, the Chairman of the Board; President; and Chief Executive
Officer of Bioanalytical  Systems,  Inc.,  certify that (i) the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2002, (the Report)  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934,  and (ii) the  information  contained in the Report fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of  Bioanalytical  Systems,  Inc. as of the dates and for the periods
set forth therein.

| | /s/  Peter T. Kissinger
Chairman of the Board;
President and
Chief Executive Officer
January 13, 2003
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 44367.

#### Protests 717409-G, etc., of Gellman Bros. (St. Paul).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.