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

Via EDGAR

Securities and
Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Whiting USA Trust II (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its 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 Trust.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                                
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2015 |  |  |  |     |  | The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Trustee for Whiting USA Trust II               
|                  |  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ MIKE ULRICH                                
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Mike Ulrich                                    
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President
**EXHIBIT 31.1(A)**

**Certification required by Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**

I, Dr. Lionel L. Reilly, certify that:
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

2.            Based on my knowledge, this amendment to the annual 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 annual report;

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

a)             designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation;

c)             disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over inancial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)             all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

October 26, 2006

 
| /s/ Dr. Lionel L. Reilly         |
|---------------------------------------|
| Dr. Lionel L. Reilly             |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

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

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

May 27, 2014

p0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

148331

SHARON BETH KIRSCH,

Petitioner

- Appe llant,

v SC: 148331

COA: 311121

Oakland CC: 2011

- 121734

- AA

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC

INSTRUCTION and MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Respondents

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2013

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.7 MB)

Tags:Defense Supply Center Richmond, Jeffery Vargas , Understanding and Working Across Generations workshop 

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50942

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISMAEL CHAVEZ-ROMERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-676-ALL

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ismael Chavez-Romero appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Chavez-Romero complains that his sentence

was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He

argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. 

Alternatively, Chavez-Romero contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
No. 02-50942

-2-

and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that

the conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an

element of a separate 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) offense that should have

been alleged in his indictment. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Chavez-Romero acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Opinion issued September 14 , 2021

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 21
- 00 3 36
- CR

——————————— IN RE JOHN ANTHONY BUCHANAN , Relat or

Original Pr oc eeding on Petiti on for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
R elator , J ohn Anthony Buchanan , incarcerated and proceeding pro se, has
filed a petition for writ of mandam us, seeking an order to compel the trial court to vacate a previous order appointing counsel , perform a proper indigency
determination , and reinst ate former co unsel. 1 We deny the mandamus p etition. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v

. John An tho ny Buchanan , cause number 1618854 , pending in the 179 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Hon orable Ana Martinez presiding.2 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice R ada ck and Justices Land au and Countiss. Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
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




The
undersigned hereby certifies, in her capacity as an officer of BEFUT
International Co., Ltd. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of her knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
      September 30, 2010 (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.






Dated:  November
      15, 2010/s/
      Mei YuName:
      Mei YuTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer and principal accounting
      officer)




This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 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 statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,409-01

In re THE STATE OF TEXAS ex rel. Jennifer A. Tharp, Relator

ON THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS IN CAUSE NO. CR2016-223

IN THE 433 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RD

COMAL COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

We have before us the State’s motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of

mandamus and a petition for a writ of mandamus. Defendant below and real party in

interest here, Mitchell Anthony Childers, stands charged by indictment in cause number

CR2016-223 with two counts of indecency with a child by contact. The victims in the

case were interviewed by a forensic interviewer at the Children’s Advocacy Center in
Tharp - 2

New Braunfels, Texas, in June 2013. Although the defense has apparently had access to

the recordings of the interviews, the defense moved the trial court to order a transcription

of the recordings. The State objected that transcribing the recordings is prohibited under

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 39.15. The trial court ordered the transcription

over the State’s objection.

The State filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Third Court of Appeals.

After staying the proceedings below, the court of appeals denied relator relief and lifted

the stay. In re The State of Texas, ex rel. Jennifer A. Tharp, No. 03-16-00827-CV (Tex.

App.– Austin Feb. 10, 2017). On February 10, 2017, the State filed in this Court a motion

for the emergency stay of proceedings below, a motion for leave to file a petition for a

writ of mandamus, and a petition for a writ of mandamus. This Court granted the motion

to stay the proceedings below. In re The State of Texas ex rel. Jennifer A. Tharp, No.

WR-86,409-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 2017).

The Court has now decided to file and set this case and order briefing. The parties

shall brief the issues raised by the pleadings. The real party in interest is also invited to

file a brief. All briefs shall be due in this Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 15 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017.

th

Do not publish
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (3.58 MB)

Tags:Puget Sound, Nimitz

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
**Exhibit 24.2****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Lionel Reilly or NealSoderquist, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of PROFESSIONAL VETERINARY PRODUCTS, LTD. for the fiscal year ended July 31,2005, and any such amendment thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(“SEC”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, to file any such amendment to theForm 10-K, exhibits thereto and documents required in connection therewith with the SEC, andgenerally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully andeffectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.     INWITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19th day of October, 2005.             /s/ C.L. Rawson               Chester L. Rawson       STATEOF MONTANA  )      )  ss.COUNTYOF MISSOULA  )        Onthis 19th day of October, 2005, before me, a Notary Public qualified for said County,personally came Chester L. Rawson, known to me to be the identical person who signed the foregoinginstrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.     /s/ Karen Schnabl                   Notary Public  My commission expires: April 01,2009     State ofMontana                  Residing in Condon
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         183,983
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,178,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                   113,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,707
<PP&E>                                         162,634
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,567,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,930,246
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,690
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,544,942 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,567,878
<SALES>                                      1,060,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,873,512
<CGS>                                          338,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,722,728
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (133,282)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (320,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (320,963)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (320,963)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6154

HUNG YEE, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. J.D. WHITEHEAD, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01550-CCB)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hung Yee, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hung Yee, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Yee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 22

- 00061

- CR

IN RE WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- 678

- C2

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus filed on March 4, 2022, is denied.

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Smith,

and Justice Wright 1

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed March 23, 2022

Do not publish

[OT06 ]

1 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals,

sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 74.003,

75.002, 75.003.