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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|                     |
|                     | Dated: December 18, 2009.                                                                                                                             |
|                     |

|                              |   |   |                    |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| /s/  ANDREW BRODKEY          |   |   | /s/  JAS BUTALIA   |   |
| Andrew Brodkey                    |   |   | Jas Butalia             |   |
| President/Chief Executive Officer |   |   | 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AgFeed Industries, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Selina
Jin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
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;
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
              By:
              /s/
      Selina JinSelina
      JinChief
      Financial 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.
Exhibit 31.1   CERTIFICATION   I, Peter Toscano, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of International Power Group, Ltd.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements 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 report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;  4.The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer and 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.    Date:  August 18, 2006 /s/Peter ToscanoPeter Toscano(Chief Executive Officer, Principal Operating Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
----

----

| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      8, 2009 | /s/      David J. Bryant                                  |
|------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|             | David      J. Bryant                                      |
|             | Chief      Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer |
|             |                                                      |

----

----
## SERVE D MARC H 3 , 201 0

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I NTH EMATTE RO F AI REVAC , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10CE000 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No . FAA-2010-002 4

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofore designateda s Cas e No . 2007CE030008 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin . Al l future pleading s an d othe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do nth e Judge , th e FAA Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r person s o nth e attache dServic e List .

li e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e L ^ J Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFAA Docke t No . CP10CE000 2 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 20591 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Mr . Coli n Collins , Presiden t an dCE O Ai r Eva c EMS , Inc. , Responden t P.O . Bo x 768-30 6 Davi s Driv e Wes t Plains , M O 6577 5 Jame s E . Ramsey , Respondent' s Counse l Coolin g & Herber s P.C . 240 0 City Cente r

Squar e 110 0 Mai n Stree t Kansa s City , M O 6410 5 TEL : 816-474-077 7 FAX: 816-472-079 0 Mar k G . Camacho , Complainant' s Counse l Senio r Enforcemen t

Attorne y Central Region , ACE- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n DO T Buildin g 90 1 Locust , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 TEL : 816-329-376 5 FAX: 816-329-377 1 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202- 3 66-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX: 202-366-753 6

' Servic e was b

y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the following address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. F E L I X O C T AV I O P I C HA R DO , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 50006 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 8 2 5 - S VW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n V . W i l s on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F e l i x O c t a vi o P i c ha r do appe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 96- m onth s e nt e nc e f

orba nk f r aud and a i di ng and abe tt i ng and c aus i ng an a c tt o be done i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 2, 1344( 1) . P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 1967) , P i c ha r do’ s c ouns e l ha s f i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng the r e a r e no 

# FI LED DE C 23 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50006 2 gr ounds f

orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on t o w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of r e c or d. W e ha ve p r o v id e dth e ap p e llan t w ith th e o p p o rtu n ityto f ile ap r o s e s up p le m e n ta l b r ie f . A pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f ha s be e n f

i l e d. P i c ha r do w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a lhi s s e nt e nc e . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s ua ntt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 48 8 U . S . 75 , 80 -81 (19 88 ), i nd i cat es that th e ap p e a l w a iv e ris o p e r a tiv e . A c c o r d in g ly , w e d is m is s th e ap p e a l in p art. See U ni ted States v. N

gu ye n , 2 3 5 F .3 d1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 2 ( 9 th C ir .2 0 0 0 ) . W i th regard t o P i char do ’ s c on vi ct i on , ou r i nd ependentre vi ew of the re cord d i s c l o s e s n o a r g u ab l e g r o u n d s f o rr e l i e f o n d i r e c tap p e a l , a n dw e a f f i rm. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. AF F I RME D in p a rt; DI S MI S S E D in p art.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1622 

To limit the applicability of a certain judicial ruling to sources regulated 

under section 202 of the Clean Air Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2009 

Mr. BARRASSO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To limit the applicability of a certain judicial ruling to 

sources regulated under section 202 of the Clean Air Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Air Protection 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the deci8 sion and holding of the Supreme Court of the United 

9 States in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection 

10 Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), and any establishment of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1622 IS

1 standards resulting from the proposed rule published by 

2 the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agen3 cy entitled ‘‘Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Con4 tribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

5 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’’ (74 Fed. Reg. 18886 (April 

6 24, 2009)) or any similar or subsequent proposed or final 

7 rule or other action relying on that decision or holding, 

8 shall apply only to sources regulated as of the date of en9 actment of this Act under section 202 of the Clean Air 

10 Act (42 U.S.C. 7521). 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Manuel Vaca, Respondent, v Hillcrest General Hospital, Defendant, and Frank Farahmand, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Frank Farahmand appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.), dated January 12, 1990, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A review of the record indicates that there are factual issues to be determined at a trial. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### NAPLES CITY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jerry L. MECHAM, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20408.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Oct. 29, 1985.

*360Robert M. McRae, Vernal, for defendant and appellant.

Ray E. Nash, Vernal, for plaintiff and respondent.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:

Defendant Jerry L. Mecham was charged with violating a Naples City ordinance and convicted in a Naples City justice of the peace court for driving with a revoked driver’s license and speeding. He appealed, was tried *de novo*in the district court, and was again convicted. He now appeals from the second conviction.

We have jurisdiction over appeals from a justice of the peace court only when the ease raises a constitutional issue. U.C.A., 1953, § 78-3-5. Therefore, we address only defendant’s claim that his due process rights were denied because Naples City failed to give adequate notice of its adoption of a traffic code. Specifically, Naples City gave public notice of its intention to adopt the state traffic code by posting notices on two telephone poles within the city limits and by posting a third notice at the city offices. Defendant argues that under *Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams,*462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), the due process clause of the federal constitution requires that the best notice practicable be given. Since there was a newspaper of general circulation published in Uintah County, Mecham contends that the city should have published its notice in that newspaper.

*Mennonite,*however, is inapplicable here. That case dealt with the question of what notice must be provided to one having an interest in real property before the property can be sold at a tax sale. The Court found that where the name and address of the person whose interest would be affected was available, due process required that the governmental entity involved provide the best notice practicable and that published notice was not sufficient. *Id.*at 798-99, 103 S.Ct. at 2711-12. *Mennonite*has no bearing on the adequacy of notice given to the public at large of a generally applicable ordinance defining criminal conduct.

In this case, the legislature has determined that adequate notice of a municipal ordinance may be given by publishing a short summary of the ordinance “at least once in a newspaper published within the municipality, or if there is no newspaper published therein, then by posting complete copies in three public places within the municipality.” U.C.A., 1953, § 10-3-711 (Supp.1983). The district court found that Naples City’s actions in posting notice were in compliance with the requirements of section 10-3-711. Inasmuch as no newspaper is published in Naples City, that finding is sound.

We find defendant’s challenge to the Naples City ordinance and, by implication, to the constitutionality of section 10-3-711, to be wholly without merit and hold that the statute establishes a reasonable means of providing general notice of the prohibited conduct.

Defendant’s conviction is affirmed.

HALL, C.J., and STEWART, HOWE and DURHAM, JJ., concur.
* 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. 00-41173

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAIME REYNA-SALINAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-00-CR-201-1

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

May 2, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jaime Reyna-Salinas appeals his conviction following a bench

trial on two counts of aiding and abetting the transportation of

an unlawful alien within the United States in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(B)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. 

He argues that the evidence in support of the district court’s

finding of guilt was insufficient. 

The district court’s finding of guilt is supported by

substantial evidence. United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d

409, 411 & 411 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000)(quotations and citation
No. 00-41173 

-2-

omitted), amended in other part on rehearing, 226 F.3d 651 (5th

Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 839 (2001); see United

States v. Romero-Cruz, 201 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 120 S.Ct. 2017 (2000); see United States v. Sorrells, 145

F.3d 744, 753 (5th Cir. 1998). The judgment of the district

court therefore is AFFIRMED.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:

# CHARLES E. STEWARTSTEVE CARTER

Appellate Public DefenderAttorney General of Indiana

Crown Point, IN  46307

**ELLEN H. MEILAENDER**

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

### IN THE

**SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA**

FLOYD E. CARR,)

)

Appellant-Defendant,) 

)Supreme Court Cause Number

v.)

)45S00-0012-CR-792

STATE OF INDIANA,)

)

Appellee-Plaintiff.)

APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT 

The Honorable Clarence D. Murray, Judge

Cause No.  45G02-9909-CF-160

**ON DIRECT APPEAL**

#### June 28, 2001

#### RUCKER, Justice

On the evening of September 1, 1999, Otis Elmore, Joann Jones, Daniel Valdez, and others were sitting outside Elmore’s East Chicago, Indiana apartment drinking beer.  As Floyd Carr walked past the boisterous group, Jones made a snide remark to him.  Carr told them to leave him alone and continued on his way.  Carr returned a few minutes later with a gun and confronted Elmore.  As Valdez grabbed Elmore’s shoulder to turn him away, Carr fired one shot, striking Elmore in the upper left back.  A later autopsy revealed that Elmore died as a result of a single gunshot wound to the chest cavity. 

The State charged Carr with murder.  The jury convicted him as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to fifty-five years imprisonment with ten years suspended.  In this direct appeal, Carr contends the evidence is insufficient to support his murder conviction.  We disagree and therefore affirm.  

# Discussion

Carr contends the evidence is insufficient to support a knowing or intentional killing because “he shot his gun straight up in the air to scare Elmore, not to shoot him . . . .”  Br. of Appellant at 7.  When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we consider only the evidence that supports the verdict and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom.  Johnson v. State, 743 N.E.2d 755, 757 (Ind. 2001).  We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.  Id.  We uphold a conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Id.

A knowing or intentional killing may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death.  Hawkins v. State, 748 N.E.2d 362, 363 (Ind. 2001); Olive v. State, 696 N.E.2d 381, 382 (Ind. 1998).  Further, firing a gun in the direction of the victim is sufficient to infer a knowing or intentional killing.  Hawkins, 748 N.E.2d at 363; Olive, 696 N.E.2d at 382.  In this case, several eyewitnesses testified that Carr returned with a gun, confronted Elmore, fired one shot, and ran away.  Additionally, Valdez testified that Carr fired his gun in the direction of Elmore.  R. at 243.  However, Carr testified that he fired his gun straight up in the air to scare Elmore, not to shoot him.  The jury was free to disbelieve Carr’s self-serving testimony, which it apparently did.  The evidence is sufficient to sustain the murder conviction. 

# Conclusion

We affirm the trial court.  

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN and BOEHM, JJ., concur.

PAGE  

3
# L_2006115EN.01003601.xml

| 28.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 115/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 115/36

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 10 April 2006

appointing a German alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2006/308/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the German Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | A seat as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Dieter DOMBROWSKI, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A seat as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Dieter DOMBROWSKI,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Ms Barbara RICHSTEIN, member of the Parliament of Brandenburg (Mitglied des Landtags von Brandenburg), is hereby appointed an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr Dieter DOMBROWSKI for the remainder of his term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 10 April 2006.

For the Council

The President

U. PLASSNIK

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---