alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 WRITTEN STATEMENT
 PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In connection with Quarterly Report of China Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, WenXiang Ding, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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: July 20, 2011
By:
/s/ WenXiang DingName:    WenXiang DingTitle:      Chief Executive Officer
In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 28, 2009. 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1929) entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for an additional temporary extension 

of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small 

Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.’’, 

do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AU2 THORIZATION OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE 

3 SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSI4 NESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An 

6 Act to extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small 

7 Business Administration’’, approved October 10, 2006 

8 (Public Law 109–316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most recently 

9 amended by section 1 of Public Law 111–66, is amended 

10 by striking ‘‘October 31, 2009’’ each place it appears and 

11 inserting ‘‘January 31, 2010’’. 
2 

•S 1929 EAH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by sub2 section (a) shall take effect on October 30, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1929 

AMENDMENT
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00562

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T. V. B. , G.N.H., and E.S.W., Children

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 00127 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to thi s appeal because she qualifies as indigent under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.

SIGNED December 27, 2018.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
, J. 

Gibbons 

"requires plaintiffs to set forth the facts which support a legal theory"); 

Hay v. Hay, 100 Nev. 196, 198, 678 P.2d 672, 674 (1984) ("Because Nevada 

is a notice-pleading jurisdiction, our courts liberally construe pleadings to 

place into issue matters which are fairly noticed to the adverse party"). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court dismissing 

appellant's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failure to 

state a claim REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court 

for proceedings consistent with this order. 1 

J. 

Saitta 

J. 

cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge 

Thomas J. Tanksley, Settlement Judge 

Cohen & Padda, LLP 

Schiff Hardin LLP 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'Having reviewed respondent's answering brief, we further conclude 

that respondents have not established that appellant's intentional 

infliction of emotional distress claim should have otherwise been 

dismissed based on claim preclusion. See Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 

124 Nev. 1048, 1054, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008) (requiring that the parties 

or their privies be the same for claim preclusion to apply). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) I947A 4411#9
EXHIBIT
      32.2


SECTION
      1350
      CERTIFICATIONS





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 Exobox Technologies Corp.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
      April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
      date
      hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael G. Wirtz, 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,
      these financial statements were not reviewed by our independent registered
      public accountants; and





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


of
      the Company.











Date:December
      21, 2007





/s/
MichaelG.Wirtz


Chief
      Financial
      Officer
#### STATE ex rel. George ROGERS v. Richard L. STALDER, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 89-KH-0877.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Rogers, George; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of East Carroll, 6th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 31794.

Denied.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 337

EX PA R TE R O G ER D A LE BR EC H EE N , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 2 3 3 0 2 - A I N T HE 4 2 n d DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM TAYLO R CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u an t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 82 6 (T ex . C rim. App. 1967). Applica nt was convic ted of murder and sentenc ed to forty -eig hty ear s’ imprisonment. Ap pli c ant c on te nd s th a t his c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e becau se he fa ile d to timely file a notice of appe al. The trial c ourt has dete rmined that counse l failed to timely file a notice of appea l. We find, there fore , that Applicant is e ntitled to the opportunity to file an out-of -time appe al of the judg ment2

o f c o n v i c t i o ni nC a

u s e N o . 2 3 3 0 2
- A f

r o m t h e 4 2 n d

J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c tC o u r t o f T ayl o r C o u n t y. Applicant is or dere d returne d to that time at which he may g ive a written notice of appea l so that he may t h en, with the aid of

counsel, obtain a

meaning ful appe al. All time limi ts shall be calc ulated
a s if the se nte nc e ha d be e n imp os e d on the date on wh ic h th e mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s. We h old that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appe al, he must take aff irmative steps to file a w ritten
no tic e of a pp e a l in the tr ia l c ourt

wi thi n 3 0 d ay s a ft e r t

he mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s.

Deliver ed: May

5, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh
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 Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Order 2012-3-7; Docket DOT-OST-2012-0022]

# AGENCY:

Department of Transportation.

# ACTION:

Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2012-3-7) Docket DOT-OST-2012-0022.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding that VIH Cougar Helicopters, Inc. is not a U.S. citizen as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(15) and canceling its Part 298 exemption authority.

# DATES:

Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than April 2, 2012. .

# ADDRESSES:

Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket DOT-OST-2012-0022 and addressed to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-465), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-7785.

Susan L. Kurland,

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2012-6408 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)(G)





March 8, 1996



Mr. Ken Cyrus
Pharmacia & Upjohn Management Co. Ltd.
Knyvett House
The Causeway
Staines, U.K.

Dear Ken:

        To confirm our prior understanding, you will not enter into a new
employment agreement with either Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc. (the "Company") or
Pharmacia & Upjohn Management Company, Ltd.  However, under your Severance
Agreement with The Upjohn Company, dated March 15, 1995 (the "Severance
Agreement"), you will be entitled to receive the severance pay and other
benefits provided in the Severance Agreement if you satisfy the terms of that
Agreement.  Your moving to London to assume your current position shall not be
deemed to be a waiver by you of any rights you may have under your Severance
Agreement.  Further, whenever your employment with the Company and its
affiliates terminates, you shall be entitled to be repatriated to the United
States and receive the benefits then provided to repatriated U.S. employees,
including receiving retirement benefits and retiree medical benefits then
provided to similarly situated U.S. employees.  Finally, in order to induce you
to continue your employment with the Company, in the event you should die or
become permanently disabled on or prior to November 2, 1997 while employed by
the Company or one of its affiliates, you or your beneficiary or estate shall
receive the severance pay and other benefits provided in the Severance
Agreement as if you had terminated your employment immediately preceding your
death or disability.

Very truly yours,



John L. Zabriskie
President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000949859
<NAME> CFC INTERNATIONAL
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1841070
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7243516
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (612000)
<INVENTORY>                                    8631604
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              18644673
<PP&E>                                        26047125
<DEPRECIATION>                              (10951228)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                35498839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5651781
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         47364
<OTHER-SE>                                    18519962
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  35498839
<SALES>                                       42319147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              42319147
<CGS>                                         26063431
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 26063431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1275000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              412920
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5428224
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2207021
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3221203
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3221203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11
                             Blue Wave Systems Inc.

                       Computation of Per Share Net Loss

                For the Years Ended June 30, 1999, 1998 and 1997
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 1999         1998       1997
                                                                             ----------    ---------   --------
<S>                                                                          <C>           <C>         <C>
Basic Net Loss Per Share:
     Net loss applicable to common stock                                     $   (2,023)   $ (11,454)  $ (1,830)
                                                                             ==========    =========   ========

     Weighted average shares outstanding                                         13,076       12,684     10,594

Basic net loss per share                                                     $    (0.15)   $   (0.90)  $  (0.17)
                                                                             ==========    =========   ========


Diluted Net Loss Per Share:
     Total weighted average shares from above                                    13,076       12,684     10,594

    Weighted average of options outstanding                                         N/A          N/A        N/A
    Weighted average exercised options outstanding for portion of period,
          net of equivalent shares purchased at average fair market value           N/A          N/A        N/A
    Effect of using option proceeds to repurchase common stock at average
          fair market value                                                         N/A          N/A        N/A
                                                                             ----------    ---------   --------
          Other dilutive securities                                                  --           --         --
                                                                              ----------    ---------   --------

    Weighted average diluted shares outstanding                                  13,076       12,684     10,594
                                                                             ----------    ---------   --------

Net loss                                                                     $   (2,023)   $ (11,454)  $ (1,830)
                                                                             ==========    =========   ========

Diluted net loss per share                                                   $    (0.15)   $   (0.90)  $  (0.17)
                                                                             ==========    =========   ========
</TABLE>
C OURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TYISHA MICHELLE JONES

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 2 69

- C R

Appeal from the

120 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20130 D0 6247 )

O R D E R

On January 31, 2017

, Justin B. Underwood, Appellant’s retained attorney, filed with this

Court a motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal , but the motion does not contain the

Appellant’s signature as required by T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.2. The motion states that Appellant has

moved out of Texas, and Mr. Underwood is unable to locate her. Rule 42.2 does not permit the

Court to dismiss the appeal without Appellant’s signature on the motion unless the record

affirmatively reflects that Appellant no longer wishes to appeal. There is nothing in the record

showing that Appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss

is DENIED

. Further, the R eporter ’ s R ecord is now due March 8, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6 th day of February , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15399-15400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6419]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold 
a meeting on March 28, 2012, 9:30 a.m. at the Board's meeting room on 
the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, 
Chicago, Illinois, 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:
    Portion open to the public:
    (1) Executive Committee Reports
    (2) Elimination of Director of Operations Position/Stand Alone 
Field Service Organization
    Portion closed to the public:
    (A) Director of Administration Position
    The person to contact for more information is Martha P. Rico, 
Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.


[[Page 15400]]


    Dated: March 12, 2012.
Martha P. Rico,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-6419 Filed 3-13-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
#### Ray LAMASTUS v. BIG POINT MARINA, LTD., Harvey J. Cooper, Jr. and Benedict Cimini, Jr.

No. 86-C-2383.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Lamas tus, Ray; applying for supervisory writs of certiorari, and other equitable relief; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA 86 0217; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 88092.

Denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Darius Damascus Briggs v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00291-CR

Trial court case number: 12-04-03646 CR

Trial court: 435th District Court of Montgomery County

On March 18, 2014, this case was abated and remanded to the trial court to determine (1) 

whether appellant still wishes to pursue his appeal and (2) whether appellant’s appointed counsel 

should be permitted to withdraw and, if so, to appoint substitute counsel. The supplemental 

clerk’s record filed on May 2, 2014 contains (1) a motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s 

appointed counsel, (2) an order by the trial court granting counsel’s motion to withdraw and 

appointing substitute counsel, (3) a sworn affidavit of appellant stating that he wishes to proceed 

with his appeal, and (4) the trial court’s “Findings of Fact, Recommendation and Order.”

Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of this order. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.6(a). Appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing of 

appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). No extensions of time will be granted absent 

extraordinary circumstances.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 6, 2014
**Exhibit 23.2**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form S-8 (Nos. 333-116691, 333-14373, 333-25973, 333-62631, 333-34200,
      333-61688, 333-64892, 333-102444 and 333-106197) of North American
      Scientific, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2005 relating to the
      financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
      Form 10-K.





/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP





Los
      Angeles, California


January
      15, 2007
#### STATE ex rel. Joe Nelson REDMAN v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-2473.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Redman, Joe Nelson; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 119-965; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW-86-1283.

Denied on the showing made.
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  I, Richard P. Dutkiewicz,
as Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of New World
Restaurant Group, Inc. (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:  (1)the Annual Report of the
Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (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.   March 11, 2005
  By: /s/ RICHARD P. DUTKIEWICZRichard P. DutkiewiczChief Financial OfficerPrincipal Accounting Officer
#### Kenneth JACKSON, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Luis SPENCER, Respondent, Appellee.

No. 02-2203.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

June 12, 2003.

Kenneth Jackson on brief pro se.

Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, and Cathryn A. Neaves, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We *affirm,*essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum of decision, dated August 12, 2002.

We reject appellant’s contention that his habeas petition was dismissed by the district court without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Appellant, in fact, filed an opposition to the state’s motion to dismiss, which the court considered. Although appellant sought to file a *second*response to the motion to dismiss, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing that request. Further, there was no abuse of discretion in denying appellant’s motion seeking an evidentiary hearing.

*Affirmed.*

Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, LIPEZ and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.