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**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Joshua Gold Resources Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Benjamin Ward, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

                                                                         

----
**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 on Form 10-K of Boston Therapeutics,Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), David Platt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated:  March 31, 2011 | By:           | /s/ David Platt

  |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|                        |  

David Platt     |
|                        | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 This certification accompanies each Reportpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by §906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2
   CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   In connection with this Yearly Report of China Teletech Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yuan Zhao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1. Such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China Teletech Limited.
  Date: April 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Yuan ZhaoYuan ZhaoChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220 

April 8, 2011 

Ms. Nancy A. Rae 

Executive Vice President–Human Resources 

Chrysler Group LLC 

1000 Chrysler Drive 

CIMS 485-08-96 

Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766 

Re: Proposed Compensation Structures for Certain Executive Officers and Most 

Highly Compensated Employees (“Covered Employees 26 – 100”) 

Dear Ms. Rae: 

 Pursuant to the Department of the Treasury’s Interim Final Rule on TARP 

Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance (the “Rule”),1

 the Office of the 

Special Master has completed its review of the 2011 compensation submission by 

Chrysler Group LLC (“Chrysler” or the “Company”) on behalf of employees who are 

either executive officers of Chrysler or one of the Company’s 100 most highly 

compensated employees, excluding those employees subject to Section 30.10 of the 

Interim Final Rule (“Covered Employees 26 – 100” or “Covered Employees”). 

 According to the materials you have submitted, the proposed compensation 

structures for Covered Employees 26 – 100 fit within the exemption set forth in Section 

30.16(a)(3)(ii) of the Rule for employees receiving total annual compensation (other than 

long-term restricted stock) not exceeding $500,000. The proposed compensation 

structures therefore are automatically deemed to meet the requirements of the Rule, and 

Chrysler is not required to seek the prior approval of the Office of the Special Master to 

implement these structures. To the extent the 2011 compensation structure for any 

Covered Employee, including the amounts that are or may be payable thereunder, is 

modified such that the exemption is no longer applicable, Chrysler is required to notify 

the Office of the Special Master and seek approval for further action consistent with the 

Interim Final Rule. 31 C.F.R. § 30.16(a)(3)(ii). 

The foregoing is limited to the proposed compensation structures for Covered 

Employees 26 – 100, and may not be relied upon with respect to any other employee of 

 

1

 The Interim Final Rule and all determination letters issued by the Office of the Special Master are 

available at www.financialstability.gov (click on “About Financial Stability”, then click on “Plan”, then 

scroll down to the second-to-last link and click on “Executive Compensation Guidance”). 
Chrysler. Moreover, the Office of the Special Master has relied upon, and this letter is 

qualified in its entirety by, the accuracy of the materials submitted by Chrysler to the 

Office of the Special Master, and the absence of any material misstatement or omission in 

such materials. 

cc: Holly E. Leese, Esquire 

Lawrence Cagney, Esquire 

nyyours, 

U~ Patricia Geoghegan 

Office of the Special Ma 

for T ARP Executive Compensation 

2
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan 

Checklist Item #32 

Does the application include the required plan identification information? See Section 7.02. 

Plan Identification Information: 

Plan Name: Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan 

Plan No. 001 

Plan Employer Identification Number: 31-6127287 

Document #32 - 1 - 

SWORCCPP-000175
## NUMBER 13 - 2 3 - 00 258 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE JOSHUA THORNTON

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides 1
On June 15 , 2023, relator Joshua Thornton filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which he assert s that the district court 2 abused its discretion by fail ing to comply with the procedural requirements of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) before making a final determination of jurisdiction. See T EX

.

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number F

- 404

- 10

- 1 in County Court at Law Number 1 of Hidalgo County , Texas, and the respondent is the Honorable Rodolfo Rudy Gonzalez , who is the acting judge for the case

. See id . R. 52.2.2

F AM

. C ODE A NN . §§ 152. 00 1

– .317. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
M andamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co. , 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W .3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co. , 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d at 135

– 36; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833,
839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “ The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements. ” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
p roceeding) (per curiam); Walker ; 827 S.W.2d at 840.
The Court, having fully examined and considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by the real party in interest, the record, and the applicable law , is of the opinion that relator ha s failed to meet his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly , we lift the stay previously imposed in this case, and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52. 8, 52.10. GINA M. BENAVIDES Ju stice

Delivered and filed on the 3r d day of July , 202 3

.
SERVED JUNE 22, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BUD FISKE RAYMOND 

FAA DOCKET NO. CPlOWPOOOl 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0018 

NOTICE OF HEARING DATES 

Paragraph #2 of the Procedural Order is amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following 

procedural schedule: 

... On or before August 21, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to 

production requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a 

discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution 

in a timely manner... 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on September 1,2010, inclusive, in the National Transportation Safety Board 

Courtroom, 1515 W. 190th ST. Ste 555, Gardena, CA 90248.' Hearings will 

commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. each day. Settled cases will not be 

removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper pleading(s). Pleadings 

may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or postal service. 

Richard C. GoodwuT-O 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

This is a bifurcated hearing. Respondent is excused from attending the sessions in Gardena, CA. 

Respondent will be given the opportunity to present oral testimony at a hearing in Pocatello or Boise, ID. 

depending on the availability of court facilities pursuant to our Amended Procedural Order. Our Amended 

Order on Venue, served May 5, 2010, remains in effect. 
•tP H 

FAA Docket No. CPlOWPOOOl 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1OOO' 

ONE COPY 

Arthur Wasserman, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Office of Arthur Wasserman 

16380 Roscoe Blvd., Suite 120 

Van Nuys,CA 91406-1221 

TEL: 818-895-8234 

FAX: 818-895-0675 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Adm^inistration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
1 Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:39 PM

To: 'mmckinnon@mckennalong.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA) ; Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha

(FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Information

February 11, 2015

Mr. Mark E. McKinnon McKenna, Long, and Aldridge, LLP 1676 International Drive, Penthouse
McLean, VA 22102

Dear Mr. McKinnon:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0962). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the size of the aircra ft for the proposed UAS operation.

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency sp ectrum. This information can be located in the

aircraft manual.

 Provide description of proximity to airports.

 Your petition references a pre-flight inspection and/or checklist. Desc ribe the process used to determine if the UAS is airworthy and in sa fe condition for operation in the NAS.

 Describe the process used to document UAS discrepanc ies and the corrective acti on taken in the aircraft record. Examples of processes incl ude (1) the petitioner has elected to use its own process to maintain its UAS and ensure that only airworthy and safe UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS and (2) the petitioner has elected to maintain its UAS in accordance with the manufacturer maintenance and inspection recommendations.

 Your petition references the materials listed below, however the materials were not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Erie Operations Manual

o DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus F light and Maintenance Manual

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to2 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by February 25, 2015. If we do not rece ive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
|   | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: September 28, 2011            | /s/ Douglas P. Ahlers                                |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Douglas P. Ahlers                                    |
|                                | Chief Executive Officer and President                |
|                                |                                                 |
|                                |                                                 |
|                                |                                                 |
| Date:  September 28, 2011 | /s/ Cheryl J. Leach                                  |
|                                | Cheryl J. Leach                                      |
|                                | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
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 Annual Report of China Food and Beverage Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chen Yi Quan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (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.  /s/ Chen Yi Quan
Chen Yi Quan
Principal Financial Officer
March 31, 2010
#### Johnnie Lee SIMPSON v. STATE.

No. 38467.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the application for a certificate of appealability and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this matter. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 4, 2009 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. DONALD ALTON HARPER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-3354 (D.C. No. 2:93-CR-20069-JWL-1) (D. Kan.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before KELLY , McKAY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges. **

Donald Alton Harper, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his motion for relief from judgment. We deny the request for a COA and dismiss the appeal.-2- Mr. Harper was convicted in 1994 of armed bank robbery and using or carrying a firearm during the robbery. The motion at issue in this case purportedly sought relief from Mr. Harper’s convictions pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 48, 51, and 52(b) but the district court construed the motion as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct Mr. Harper’s sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court noted that the current motion was Mr. Harper’s seventh motion challenging the legality of his detention and that the previous six motions were all denied. The district court noted further that in order to file a successive § 2255 motion, Mr. Harper must seek authorization from the court of appeals. The district court indicated that it had the option of transferring the motion to this court or it could dismiss the motion. The district court explained that Mr. Harper had previously been warned about filing frivolous motions and that Mr. Harper’s current motion lacked merit and was not likely filed in good faith. Because of this, the district court determined that it was not in the interest of justice to transfer Mr. Harper’s motion to this court and it dismissed the motion. In a recent opinion, this court warned Mr. Harper that he would be subject to sanctions if he continued to file frivolous motions challenging the legality of his detention. See United States v. Harper, 545 F.3d 1230, 1234 (10th Cir. 2008). We conclude that the underlying motion filed by Mr. Harper was frivolous and that Mr. Harper lacked a good faith basis to appeal from the district court’s-3- dismissal of that motion. Accordingly, we DENY the request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal. See 10th Cir. R. 46.5(D)(1) (providing for dismissal as a sanction for filing a frivolous appeal).

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 33.1
 REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA
FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES
  1.
    
    The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria
applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph
(d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities
it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving
the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the approximately $664.9
million original principal amount of CenterPoint Energy Restoration Bond Company, LLCs
system restoration bonds (the Senior Secured System Restoration Bonds): (1)(ii)
(outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), (2)(ii) (wire transfer
disbursements), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (3)(ii) (allocation and remittance), (3)(iii)
(disbursements to investors), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v)
(records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(xi) (payments
on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements)
and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);2.
    
    The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;3.
    
    The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria as of December 31, 2009 and for the period November 25, 2009 through December 31,
2009, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and4.
    
    Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
report on the Servicers assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as
of December 31, 2009 and for the period November 25, 2009 through December 31, 2009, which
is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.
  CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, as servicerBy:
    /s/ Marc KilbrideName:
    Marc KilbrideTitle:
    Vice President and Treasurer