alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

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 Noble China Holdings Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Mork, Chief Executive and Financial  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; and

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



|Dated:  November 19, 2010
By  /s/ Jeremy Mork
-----------------------------
    Jeremy Mork
    Chief Executive and  Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  






 
 SPECIMEN Ichor holdIngs, ltd. INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN
DEFINITIONS SHARES This CerTifies ThaT: SPECIMEN is The owner of FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE ORDINARY SHARES OF THE PAR VALUE OF $0.0001 EACH OF Ichor holdIngs, ltd. (The “Company”) transferable on the books of the Company in person or
by attorney upon surrender of this certificate duly endorsed or assigned. This certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the Cayman Islands, and to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, as now or
hereafter amended. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent. Witness the facsimile seal of the Company and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. COUNTERSIGNED: BROADRIDGE CORPORATE ISSUER
SOLUTIONS, INC. 1717 ARCH ST., STE. 1300, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 TRANSFER AGENT BY: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRESIDENT, CFO & SECRETARY 







 



 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were
written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
TEN COM —as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT—.Custodian 
TEN ENT—as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) 
JT TEN —as joint tenants with
right of under Uniform Gifts to Minors survivorship and not as tenants Act in common (State) 
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above
list. 
For Value Received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
PLEASE INSERT
SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 
Shares 
of the stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably
constitute and appoint 
Attorney 
to transfer the said stock on the books of
the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
Dated 
NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE Signature(s) Guaranteed OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION
OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER. 
By 
The Signature(s) must be
guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions with membership in an approved Signature Guarantee Medallion Program), pursuant to SEC Rule 17Ad-15.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3285 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3285

 To redesignate the postal facility located at 1401 West Fort Street, 
       Detroit, Michigan, as the ``George W. Young Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 14, 1993

   Miss Collins of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To redesignate the postal facility located at 1401 West Fort Street, 
       Detroit, Michigan, as the ``George W. Young Post Office''.

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The postal facility located at 1401 West Fort Street, in Detroit, 
Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ``George W. Young Post 
Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the postal facility referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``George W. Young 
Post Office''.

                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00108-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.K.C., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019PA00984

Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Appellants are unable to afford payment of court costs. No costs of court are taxed in this appeal.

Dad’s court-appointed appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED

SIGNED August 25, 2021.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
This is to clarify and correct the cooling system water circulation rate information contained in various 

communications with EPA. 

 

The cooling system is a hybrid cooling system comprised of a dry cooling component, and a wet cooling 

component. 

 

A closed loop containing cooling water passes first through the dry cooling component, then through the wet 

cooling component. The resulting cold cooling water is then used in the turbine intercooler, cooling the turbine 

gas and heating the water, which is finally returned to the dry cooling component. The cooling water loop is 

closed; no evaporation of this cooling water occurs. 

 

The flow rate of this circulating water is nominally 9,600 GPM, as shown in Figure 3.5-2A of the revised PSD 

Application. This flow rate was erroneously described as 7,000 gpm in our November 8, 2011 letter. 

 

The wet cooling component operates by applying a different water stream to the outside surface of the cooling 

water tubes. The evaporation of this externally applied water is the source of the drift emissions from the wet 

cooling component. The circulation rate for the water on the evaporative side of the wet cooling component is 

23,250 gpm as shown in Appendix 1.C, Table 1.C.2, of the PSD permit application (page PSD-APP-1.52). This 

circulation rate, together with the drift rate, was used to calculate PM emissions from the wet cooling 

component of the cooling system. Because the circulation rate of the evaporative water stream affects emission 

calculations, and the circulation rate of the cooling water does not, we suggested using this flow rate in the 

equipment description.

Clarification/correction of cooling system water circulation rate (Pio Pico PSD Applicaiton)

Steve Hill 

to: 

Roger Kohn 

08/31/2012 04:42 PM 

Cc: 

"W. David Jenkins (djenkins@apexpowergroup.com)", Gary Rubenstein, "McKinsey, John 

A." 

Hide Details 

From: Steve Hill <SHill@sierraresearch.com>

To: Roger Kohn/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Cc: "W. David Jenkins (djenkins@apexpowergroup.com)" 

<djenkins@apexpowergroup.com>, Gary Rubenstein <GRubenstein@sierraresearch.com>, 

"McKinsey, John A." <JAMCKINSEY@stoel.com>

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Users\rkohn\AppData\Local\Temp\notesAF3A78\~web8304.htm 9/4/2012
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01

                             MEDIA ARTS GROUP, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Jurisdiction of            Ownership
     Name of subsidiary                     Incorporation             percentage
     ------------------                     -------------             ----------
<S>                                        <C>                        <C> 
Thomas Kinkade Stores, Inc.                USA (California)               100%
MAGI Entertainment Products, Inc.          USA (California)               100%
MAGI Sales, Inc.                           USA (California)               100%
California Coast Galleries, Inc.           USA (California)               100%
</TABLE>

California Coast Galleries, Inc. was merged into Media Arts Group, Inc. in 
April 1997.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-KSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              168,483
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       276,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                         18,000
<INVENTORY>                                         557,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,079,361
<PP&E>                                            1,702,614
<DEPRECIATION>                                      148,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2,766,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5,388,007
<BONDS>                                              15,235
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                             614
<COMMON>                                              1,400
<OTHER-SE>                                       (2,638,555)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2,766,701
<SALES>                                           1,897,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2,226,347
<CGS>                                             2,703,441
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5,426,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4,913,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  552,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (8,666,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (8,666,278)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   6,425,004
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2,241,274)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (1.10)
        


</TABLE>
#### Hipolito ROGRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, Respondent.

No. 68-47.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 28, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          45,759
<SECURITIES>                                    66,916
<RECEIVABLES>                                      267
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,728
<PP&E>                                           4,639
<DEPRECIATION>                                     551
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    190,063
<COMMON>                                           611
<OTHER-SE>                                    (60,870)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,053
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               113,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (112,771)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (112,771)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.85)


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7646

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KEITH A. DAVIS, a/k/a Black , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. ( 3:11

- cr
- 00512

- MBS

- 1 )

Submitted : March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Keith A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not b inding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Keith A. Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing various postjudgment motions regarding his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1 (a) (2018). First, we deny Davis’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his bankruptcy and forfeiture claims because he failed to submit a signed dismissal agreement as required by Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). But o n appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raise d in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Davis concedes that his bankruptcy and forfeiture claims were not properly before the district court, so he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 17 7 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Next, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Davis’s motion to
reconsider the cou rt’s previous denial of his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2018). The district court may only reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
based on a s entencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Here, Davis’ Guidelines range was not lowered by Amendment 782, which lowered the offense levels for drug offenses by 2 levels, because
his Guidelines range was based on his status as a career offender. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and a rgument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BankUnited, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John A. Kanas, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ John A. Kanas                                     |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| **John A. Kanas**                                     |   |
| **Chairman, President and   Chief Executive Officer** |   |

 

Date: May 16, 2011

 

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"denaliadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/denaliadmin\/","title":"Careers","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wZUvVSD1mp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/careers\/\">Careers<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/careers\/embed\/#?secret=wZUvVSD1mp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Careers” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"wZUvVSD1mp\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Docket No: FAA

- 2015

- 8466 Dir ID: 2015

- NM

- 045

- AD

Contacts. With w h om o u tsi d e the F A A has t h is pr o p os al be en dis c u s se d ?

Org a ni z a t i on Per s on C o nta c ted Da t e Re sp on s e

Nat i onal Bus i ness Aircraft As s o ciat i o n Eli Cotti 3 /1 0 /15

R e gio n al Airline As s o ci a ti o n 3 /1 0 /15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 3 / 1 0 /15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 3 / 1 0 /15
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4019 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4019

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit certain severance 
        payments to be included in income over a 4-year period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 1994

 Mr. Hinchey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit certain severance 
        payments to be included in income over a 4-year period.

    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 ``Tax Fairness for Displaced Workers 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ELECTION TO INCLUDE CERTAIN SEVERANCE PAYMENTS IN INCOME OVER 
              4-YEAR PERIOD.

    (a) General Rule.--Section 451 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to general rule for taxable year of inclusion) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(h) Election To Include Certain Severance Payments in Income Over 
4-Year Period.--
            ``(1) In general.--If an individual makes an election under 
        this paragraph with respect to any qualified severance payment, 
        such payment shall be included in gross income ratably over the 
        4-taxable-year period beginning with the taxable year in which 
        such payment is received.
            ``(2) Qualified separation payment.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term `qualified separation payment' means any 
        payment received by an individual if--
                    ``(A) such payment was paid by such individual's 
                employer on account of such individual's separation 
                from employment, and
                    ``(B) such separation was in connection with a 
                reduction in the work force of the employer.
        The aggregate amount taken into account under the preceding 
        sentence with respect to any separation from employment shall 
        not exceed $50,000.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to payments received on or after January 1, 1993.

                                 <all>
```
#### MARINE REPAIR AND SUPPLY CORP., Appellant, v. Lionel W. RICHTER, Appellee.

No. 70-865.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 6, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.