alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**AULTRA
      GOLD INC.**




**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 **** Aultra
      Gold Inc **.** (the
      Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Baljinder
      Bhullar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.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 results of operations of the Company.




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.




Date: May
              15,
              2007
            By:
            /s/ *Baljinder
              Bhullar*Baljinder
              BhullarChief
                Financial Officer
# DOT-OST- 1?17-2 7?f) Schlemmer, Kevin (OSn From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:45 PM Chuck Howell; Doug Voss (dvoss@flygreatlakes.com); 'Mike Matthews'; 'Brad Rawson' (brad.rawson@skywest.com); 'mike.thompson@skywest.com' Matthew Leitner Omsairport@daktel.com); 'manager@devilslakeairport.com'; Adams, Kevin (OST); Devany, Dennis (OST) Request for clarification on EASproposals for DVLand JMS
Regarding the proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS)at Devils Lake and Jamestown, North Dakota, from carriers holding authority to operate scheduled service, SkyWest Airlines' proposal for service to both communities does not meet EASminimums interms of frequency requirements, specifically 2daily round trips 6days aweek with not more than one intermediate stop on each flight per 49 USC41732(b)(1)(a). Additionally, Great LakesAirlines' 

## current service does not meet the aforementioned EASminimums interms of frequency requirements. Given that neither SkyWest's proposal nor Great Lakes' current service meet EASminimum frequency requirements, we request clarification from both carriers on their proposed service levels at the stated subsidy levels by COBtomorrow (Thursday, January 23, 2014). Regards, Kevin Schlemmer
Chief, EssentialAir Service 

### & Domestic Analysis Division United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC20590 (202) 366-3176 phone (202) 366-763B fax

1 ...• 1

.. 0
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,967,358
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              119,481,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,181,997
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,743,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    112,894,131
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,567
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,930,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,743,086
<SALES>                                     18,151,669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,151,669
<CGS>                                        6,706,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,706,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,243,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,520,253
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,375,355
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,232,004
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,143,351
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,143,351
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
        

</TABLE>
#### Ron E. McFARLAND, d/b/a Landscaper’s Service, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF the STATE OF COLORADO and Clayton Ferrell, Respondents.

No. 85CA0626.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

June 12, 1986.

*155Waller, Mark & Allen, P.C., Kevin D. Allen, Denver, for petitioner.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Christa D. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Indus. Com’n.

No Appearance for respondent Clayton Ferrell.

TURSI, Judge.

Ron E. McFarland, the employer, seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Commission finding that his business was obligated to pay unemployment insurance taxes. The sole issue on review is whether McFarland’s employees perform “agricultural labor,” which does not constitute “covered employment” under § 8-70-103(10) and (11), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.). We affirm the order.

McFarland, doing business as Landscaper’s Service, contested a Division of Labor finding that he was liable for unemployment insurance taxes. The evidence at the hearing established that McFarland ran a business which harvested living native trees. McFarland and his workers would either obtain a permit from a governmental landowner or pay a fee to a private landowner, enter the area, dig up native trees, package them, and transport them. McFarland alone would then sell the trees to landscapers and retail nurseries.

Section 8-70-103(ll)(a)(I), C.R.S., provides that covered employment does not include “agricultural labor.” “Agricultural labor” is defined in § 8-70-103(ll)(a)(I)(A), C.R.S., as service performed:

> “On a farm in the employ of any person, in connection with cultivating the soil, or in connection with raising or harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodity.”

Therefore, the controlling issue is whether the work is done “on a farm” pursuant to the statute. Section 8-70-103(ll)(a)(II), C.R.S., states that the term farm,

> “includes stock, dairy, poultry, fruit, fur-bearing animal, and truck farms, plantations, ranches, nurseries, ranges, greenhouses, or other similar structures *used primarily*for the raising of agricultural or horticultural commodities and orchards.” (emphasis supplied)

Here, the evidence established that McFarland harvests the trees either on private ranchland or on public land, *e.g.,*Bureau of Land Management or National Forest lands. The undisputed evidence further established that the land was in an untouched or natural state and had not been used, primarily or otherwise, in the raising of agricultural or horticultural commodities. Therefore, under the circumstances here, the work was not done “on a farm,” and, as a matter of law, it does not constitute exempt agricultural labor.

The order is affirmed.

PIERCE and BERMAN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification  Pursuant  to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. ss.1350)

I, Beaufort J.B.  Clarke,  Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer of ICON Capital
Corp.,  the General  Partner of the  Registrant  in  connection  with the Annual
Report of ICON Cash Flow Partners L.P.  Seven (the  "Partnership")  on Form 10-K
for year ended  December 31,  2005,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report") certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1.   The Annual Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78m); and

2.   The  information  contained in the Annual  Report fairly  presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Partnership.


Dated:   April 18, 2006

 /s/ Beaufort J.B. Clarke
------------------------------
Beaufort J.B. Clarke
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
ICON Capital Corp.
General Partner of ICON Cash Flow Partners L.P. Seven
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6883

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD SCOTT SELBY, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-16) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Scott Selby, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Richard Scott Selby appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of the restitution requirement of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Selby , No. CR-94-16 (W.D. Va. June 16, 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 11.1

                    TEL-SAVE HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

                                 (IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Year Ended December 31,
                                                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                                                       1997             1996           1995(A)
                                                                  ------------     ------------    ------------
<S>                                                                 <C>                <C>             <C>    
Net income (loss)                                                   $(20,945)          $20,168         $10,819
                                                                    ========           =======         =======
BASIC

Weighted average common shares - Basic                                64,168            52,650          31,422
                                                                    ========           =======         =======

Net income (loss) per share - Basic                                 $  (0.33)          $  0.38         $  0.34
                                                                    ========           =======         =======

DILUTED

Weighted average common and common equivalent
  shares outstanding - Diluted:

Weighted average shares                                               64,168            52,650          31,422
Weighted average equivalent shares                                        --             4,352           2,183
                                                                    --------           -------         -------
   
Weighted  average  common  and  common  equivalent
     shares - Diluted                                                64,168             57,002          33,605
                                                                    =======            =======         =======
Net income (loss) per share - Diluted                               $ (0.33)           $  0.35         $  0.32
                                                                    =======            =======         =======
    

</TABLE>

----------
(A)      Pro  forma tax  provisions  have been  calculated  as if the  Company's
         results of operations  were taxable as a C corporation  (the  Company's
         current tax  status) for the year ended  December  31,  1995.  Prior to
         September 20, 1995, the Company was an S corporation  with all earnings
         taxed directly to its shareholders.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-51116 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE JIMENEZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-01-CR-146-ALL-SS

-------------------- June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Jimenez-Vargas appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation 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). Jimenez-Vargas complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause.No. 01-51116 -2- Alternatively, Jimenez-Vargas contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) 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. Jimenez-Vargas 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), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). 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 the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Order entered April 10, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01430-CR

No. 05-12-01603-CR

NAKIA LASHUAN FRANKLIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 416-81048-2008, 416-81072-2012

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On March 6, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desire to pursue the 

appeals; (2) appellant was represented by retained counsel at trial, but did not retain counsel for 

the appeals; (3) appellant is indigent; (4) Angela D’Amore has now been appointed to represent 

appellant; and (5) Ms. D’Amore should be given forty-five days to file appellant’s brief.

We DIRECT the Clerk to substitute Angela D’Amore as appellant’s appointed attorney 

of record in place of Matthew Rolston.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief within FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this 

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

Matthew Rolston, Angela D’Amore, and John Rolater.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Parole Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 8, 2012.

# PLACE: 

U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Consideration of two original jurisdiction cases pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Patricia W. Moore, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC  20530, (202) 346-7001.

Dated: February 27, 2012.

Rockne Chickinell,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 2012-5183 Filed 2-28-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial 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 of Black Nickel Acquisition Corp. III (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Pruitt, 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 results of operations of the Company.





February 25, 2011
/s/ Michael D. PruittMichael D. Pruitt

Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 China Clean Energy Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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 such officers 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.



|                    |                                
|------------------- | -------------------------------
|Dated: May 11, 2009 | /s/ Tai-ming Ou                
|                    | Tai-ming Ou,                   
|                    | Chief Executive Officer        
|                    | (Principal Executive Officer)  
|                    |                                
|Dated: May 11, 2009 | /s/ Shannon Yan                
|                    | Shannon Yan,                   
|                    | Interim Chief Financial Officer
|                    | (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 10.5


Physicians Formula
Holdings, Inc.

1055 West 8th Street

Azusa, California 91702


October 23, 2006


Mr. Joseph J. Jaeger

Chief Financial Officer

Physicians Formula, Inc.

1055 West 8th Street

Azusa, California 91702


Re:                               Additional
Bonus Potential


Dear Joe:


In recognition of your
valuable and diligent efforts in assisting with the initial public offering
(the “Initial Public Offering”) of Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc.
(the “Company”), we are pleased to revise the terms of your bonus
opportunity of $500,000 set forth in the letter, dated December 16, 2005 (the “Original
Letter”), of Physicians Formula, Inc. addressed to you.  This letter shall become effective upon the
closing of the Initial Public Offering, and, upon effectiveness, this letter
shall amend and restate in its entirety the Original Letter.


Pursuant to the revised
bonus opportunity, the Company will pay you $250,000 upon the closing of the
Initial Public Offering and an additional $250,000 upon the earlier of the
completion of a secondary equity offering following the Initial Public
Offering, or your completion of 24 months employment with the Company following
the Initial Public Offering, so long as in each such case you remain employed
by the Company from the date hereof until the date of each such event.  These payments will be subject to all
required tax withholding and similar deductions.


Thank you for your
continuing efforts and hard work.


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  PHYSICIANS FORMULA HOLDINGS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Ingrid Jackel

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its: Chief Executive Officer