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

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                                    Statement

     Pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. (S)1350,
the undersigned officer of Appleton Papers Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies that:

     (3)  the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
          30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (4)  the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated:  August 13, 2002


                                         /s/ Dale E. Parker
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:  Dale E. Parker
                                         Title: Vice President and Chief
                                                Executive Officer
YOUP 

thle Llbpartm8nt. 

*lat. Ttie Bill wea introduosd b y Eon* 

.fP. ilb iMvi8, reprqrrentatiaa or thi.8 Matriot 
and prsesd br the 45th Lsgialature br roqutm 

or oortaln o~tiswnr 0r Xae er County und a* 

plier onlf to oountlee rlt R a populetion of 

not lssa than 27,000 and not in0x-a than 17,100, 

aOOOrding to thb l~3Bt etV8ilablO rrnfted 3tateB 

cenuua. 

Qnrlr Thst ecoordlng to t&u lest; mderal 

Cm&o, Jasper CiJunty h&d 0 populetScm or 

17,064, and that no other oowty In the btata 

of Tesa~s he4 a population that rmmci within 

the braO&t of 17,000 to 17,100. 

*Jrdl That asid Bill wa8 lmmduorb and 

paemd aolelp r0r the purpoes or Ismroa~fAig the 

sslarim or the county Co~aalonerrs Oi 

Jaaper cauntr, and a pliei, to no othrrr orrioer 

or Jasper counby, an x ir theresore ~rsgti64tory 0r 

the affairs of Jaujmr Countby to ~tJ20t~0xtentr 

No notide was ig;irbn aa MtplLred~ by tfsa~llon fl, 

or Rrtr III, a3oantitutlon or Teraa& 

"t&h8 That rt fib tiss OS lntro4wJt1ua 

aaQ:pWmga df the Bill, lt~wlro kntiua urd~tmdatrtood 

thst aaid blll.would ~6% 8ftrrotmiy Qthor imtntp 

ln thir Net*, uv¶ wee lntmbaoed and priteact 

with oh8 p.renami idea that it weutd mmi 

famp3~ County only. 
COWty .AttOmiy and roqUe~t# that the Attorney 

Ooneral of l’exsr paeo upo:: the. netter, aooerting that they are perfactly wil1lag to abide 

by the ru.Li~ made by goux~Depertmnt upm thrr 

r8w in quastlon. 

*Theret& 

give E(I gour op ;t nlan’on 

if you wil3. be kind anaugh to 

thr above mattec at fan 

early date, you ‘will Eraa tly oblige ,” 

Artlole 23504, Ravlalril Civil Statutea of Tams, 

raads as fol.J.owsr 

“la every County in thle Stata, having a 

po&ation of not lea8 than esvantaan thcmmnd 

(17,OQO) and not tire than savantaen thouaend, 

one hundred (17,1.00) aooordiri to the la&t 

avellable Ualted Jtatas Cansue, the ocunpaneatlon 

0S l soh County ComaA.ssloner, 80 long~as the taxable rslues in 8aSd County ahaLl sro6.d the sum of 

$ix Vll.lion right Hundred Thousuld Dollar6 

(66 600 OOCil fer the next pmosd 

ba &h&an Hun&ad Dollara 

years, ahsll 

par roar, to 

be paid in .equal meathly lnadhe+a, riit~ 

per oeat of whloh a@ouat ihall ba pelt3 out of 

(59) 

the aaaral Pund of the County, and flttg (50) 

per aaat out of the aof34 end BrLi&e Fund or the 

Gouaty~ provldi15 that ‘khan eudh taxable Value8 

for the next pmo66ing yeas 8ha~U. fall bolou ~$4 

mai, ths salary of aooh Ceuntg Cdssioner ahaLl 

ba a6 provided in ArtSole 2350 of tha iiLvlse& 

statutes or 1925.* 

we ore enolaslng herewith eopiss 01 oplnirlns i40ar 

O-735 and O-699 OD t&iB Departmant, which poae uwn qusetlons aMJar PO t&3 qur6tloa stated In your Zetterti 

Under the facta rrtatad Fn your latter, and under 

this authoritlea ~olt;ed fq youi? brief and under the authorlties oitsd la oplnlons Holr. o-735 and Q-699 or this De 

sent, ~$0~ B~FB reepcrotfi&lLy atMae that tt is tho opin If* 

rton 

of thla Departmmt that your opinion upon tbfa question is 

oortiot and that AStiol.rr 23504, Revise4 C;toiL Usatutes of 
By (Sl@ned) Wm. J. FSMiI& 

Wm. .J. FPMlng 

Aaalstant 

.
NO. 07-12-0287-CR 

NO. 07-12-0288-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL C 

JULY 25, 2012 

______________________________ 

KEITH TAYLOR, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

_________________________________ 

FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY; 

NOS. D-1-DC-11-300144 & D-1-DC-12-904028; 

HONORABLE JULIE KOCUREK, JUDGE 

_______________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Following pleas of guilty, Appellant, Keith Taylor, was convicted of aggravated 

robbery with a deadly weapon,1 enhanced, in cause number D-1-DC-11-300144 and of 

solicitation to commit capital murder,2

 enhanced, in cause number D-1-DC-12-904028. 

 

1

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). 

2

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(3) West Supp. 2011). 
2 

Pursuant to a plea bargain, he was sentenced to forty-five years confinement in each 

cause, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Trial Court's Certification of 

Defendant's Right to Appeal filed in each cause reflects that Appellant's cases are pleabargained cases with no right of appeal. The certifications notwithstanding, Appellant 

filed notices of appeal challenging his convictions. 

 By letter dated July 11, 2012, this Court notified Appellant of the consequences 

of the certifications and invited him to either file amended certifications showing a right 

to appeal or demonstrate other grounds for continuing the appeal on or before July 21, 

2012. Appellant did not respond. Because he has failed to file an amended certification 

reflecting a right of appeal and has not shown good cause for continuing these appeals, 

we have no alternative but to dismiss these appeals based on the trial court 

certifications. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). 

 Patrick A. Pirtle 

 Justice 

Do not publish.
Sanitized Leach Test of a Similar Solar Cell Technology
EXHIBIT 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


OutSource International of America, Inc., a Florida corporation
OutSource Franchising Inc., a Florida corporation
Capital Staffing Fund, Inc., a Florida corporation
Employees Insurance Services, Inc., a Florida corporation
Synadyne I, Inc., a Florida corporation
Synadyne II, Inc., a Florida corporation
Synadyne III, Inc., a Florida corporation
Synadyne IV, Inc., a Florida corporation
Synadyne V, Inc., a Florida corporation
OutSource of Nevada, Inc., a Nevada corporation
Staff All, Inc., a Florida corporation
Mass Staff, Inc., a Florida corporation
Employment Consultants, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation
X-tra Help, Inc., a California corporation
Co-Staff, Inc., a California corporation
OutSource Funding Corporation, a Florida corporation
Guardian Employer East, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
Guardian Employer West, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

          On December 31, 1998, an internal restructuring was consummated
wherein two new operating subsidiaries were formed (Guardian Employer East, LLC
and Guardian Employer West, LLC) and the ownership of most of the other
subsidiaries were transferred from OutSource International, Inc. to various of
the subsidiaries. OutSource International, Inc. retained 100% direct or indirect
ownership of all Subsidiaries after this restructuring, which was done in order
to better align the legal entities on a geographic basis.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANGEL VERA CAMPOS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30101

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00109-RMP-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Rosanna Malouf Peterson, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 5, 2013

Seattle, Washington

Before: ALARCÓN, MCKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Angel Vera Campos appeals his guilty plea and sentence arising from

methamphetamine-related offenses, asserting that the district court committed

several errors under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting his plea. 

FILED

JUN 14 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Since Campos did not raise his Rule 11 arguments below, we review them for plain

error. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). 

The district court played no role in negotiating the terms of the plea

agreement and did not pressure or advise Campos to take the government’s offer. 

See United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 883 n.2 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, it

did not commit error under Rule 11(c). 

Because the record does not show that Campos bore or actively employed a

firearm in relation to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, the

district court accepted Campos’s plea without a factual basis for “use” or “carry”

liability under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and therefore erred under Rule 11(b)(3). See

United States v. Guess, 203 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2000). 

The district court inaccurately informed Campos that simply having a

firearm in one’s house sufficed for § 924(c)(1) liability as alleged. Cf. id. Because

Campos pleaded guilty on that count immediately after being so informed, we

conclude that the district court also erred under Rule 11(b)(1) by accepting

Campos’s plea without ensuring that he understood the nature of the § 924(c)(1)

charge against him. 

During the change of plea colloquy and at sentencing, Campos repeatedly

expressed confusion as to why his conduct could support a § 924(c)(1) conviction,
3

thus creating a “reasonable probability that, but for the error[s], he would not have

entered the plea.” Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. 

We vacate Campos’s judgment of conviction on the § 924(c)(1) count only

and remand for further proceedings. See United States v. Monzon, 429 F.3d 1268,

1274 (9th Cir. 2005). 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
[No. 35007.

Department Two.

January 28, 1960.]

#### Malcolm M. Stewart *et al., Appellants,*v. Agnes Smith, *Respondent.*
      *1*

*James M. Stewart,*for appellants.

*Paul O. Manley,*for respondent.

Reported in 348 P. (2d) 970.

Finley, J.

The parties to this action are owners of adjoining lots in the city of Aberdeen. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for an alleged undermining of lateral support, claiming that the defendant, her deceased husband, or their predecessors in interest, had by excavation created an earth bank between the two lots, and that this bank had not been properly retained, with the result that earth from the plaintiffs’ land had slipped or sloughed off during the period immediately prior to the commencement of this action.

On the basis of conflicting evidence, the trial judge entered findings to the effect that (1) the bank in question *564had not been excavated by the defendant, her husband, or their predecessors; (2) that the bank had not been improperly retained; and (3) that such slippage as had occurred “was due to the removal of ivy and other natural growth by the plaintiffs.” He thereupon dismissed the action with prejudice.

With one exception, the appellants’ assignments of error relate to the findings of fact. As noted above, these findings were based upon conflicting evidence. In such a case the appellate function begins and ends with a determination of whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. We will not re-try questions of fact involving substitution of our judgment for that of the trial court. *Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc.*(1959), 54 Wn. (2d) 570, 343 P. (2d) 183, and cases cited therein. From our examination of the record, we have concluded there is evidence to support the findings of the trial court.

The remaining assignment of error questions the action of the trial court in entering judgment of dismissal with prejudice. However, the judgment was entered after a trial on the merits. All that the appellants had to offer in support of their claim was before the court, and the respondent was entitled to a judgment that would be *res judicata*and finally settle the controversy. Dismissal with prejudice was, therefore, proper. *Caldwell v. Williams*(1936), 187 Wash. 501, 60 P. (2d) 28.

The judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Weaver, C. J., Hill, Rosellini, and Foster, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 IMPRESO, INC. CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Marshall D. Sorokwasz, Chief Executive Officer and President of IMPRESO,
INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended May 31, 2005 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and2.
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Company.3.
    
    Item 4 Controls and Procedures in the Companys Form 10-Q is incorporated
herein by reference. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed July 15,
2005. /s/ Marshall D. SorokwaszName:
    
    Marshall D. SorokwaszTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer and
President
 *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.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 576

To prohibit the provision of certain trade assistance to United States

subsidiaries of foreign corporations that lack effective prohibitions on bribery.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 16, 1995

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

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To prohibit the provision of certain trade assistance to

United States subsidiaries of foreign corporations that

lack effective prohibitions on bribery.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TRADE ASSISTANCE.

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, an agency referred to in subsection (b) may

6 not provide economic support (including export assistance,

7 subsidization, financing, financial assistance, or trade ad8 vocacy) to or for any foreign corporation or any United

9 States subsidiary of a foreign corporation unless the head

10 of such agency certifies to Congress that the foreign cor-
2

•S 576 IS

1 poration has adopted and enforces a corporate-wide policy

2 that prohibits the bribery of foreign public officials in con3 nection with international business transactions of the cor4 porations and its subsidiaries.

5 (b) COVERED AGENCIES.—Subsection (a) applies to

6 assistance provided by the following agencies:

7 (1) The Trade and Development Agency.

8 (2) The Overseas Private Investment Corpora9 tion.

10 (3) The Export-Import Bank.

11 (4) The Agency for International Development.

12 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

13 (1) The term ‘‘bribery’’, in the case of a cor14 poration, means the direct or indirect offer or provi15 sion by the corporation of any undue pecuniary or

16 other advantage to or for an individual in order to

17 procure business and business contracts for the cor18 poration or its subsidiaries.

19 (2) The term ‘‘foreign corporation’’ means any

20 corporation created or organized under the laws of

21 a foreign country.

22 (3) The term ‘‘United States subsidiary’’ means

23 any subsidiary of a foreign corporation which sub24 sidiary has its principal place of business in the
3

•S 576 IS

1 United States or which is organized under the laws

2 of a State.

Æ
Exhibit 99(b)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Form 10-KSB of IBW Financial Corporation for the
year ended December 31, 2002, I, Thomas A. Wilson, Jr., Senior Vice President,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Frederick County Bank, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002, 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 such Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of IBW Financial Corporation.



/s/ Thomas A. Wilson, Jr.
-------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Wilson, Jr.
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 273 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.273

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
  the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

                                 An Act

 
         To amend section 61h-6 of title 2, United States Code.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 61h-6 of 
title 2; The Congress, Chapter 4--Officers and Employees of Senate and 
House of Representatives; United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:

``Sec. 61h-6. Appointment of consultants by Majority Leader, Minority 
            Leader, Secretary of the Senate, and Legislative Counsel of 
            the Senate; compensation

    ``(a) The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, are each 
authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of not more than four 
individual consultants, on a temporary or intermittent basis, at a 
daily rate of compensation not in excess of the per diem equivalent of 
the highest gross rate of annual compensation which may be paid to 
employees of a standing committee of the Senate. The Secretary of the 
Senate is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of not more 
than two individual consultants, on a temporary or intermittent basis, 
at a daily rate of compensation not in excess of the per diem 
equivalent of the highest gross rate of annual compensation which may 
be paid to employees of a standing committee of the Senate. The 
Legislative Counsel of the Senate (subject to the approval of the 
President pro tempore) is authorized to appoint and fix the 
compensation of not more than two consultants, on a temporary or 
intermittent basis, at a daily rate of compensation not in excess of 
that specified in the first sentence of this section. The provisions of 
section 8344 of title 5 shall not apply to any individual serving in a 
position under this authority. Expenditures under this authority shall 
be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved 
by the President pro tempore, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, 
Secretary of the Senate, or Legislative Counsel of the Senate, as the 
case may be.
    ``(b) The Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader, in appointing 
individuals to consultant positions under authority of this section, 
may appoint one such individual to such position at an annual rate of 
compensation rather than at a daily rate of compensation, but such 
annual rate shall not be in excess of the highest gross rate of annual 
compensation which may be paid to employees of a standing committee of 
the Senate.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**RULE13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Whittier Energy Corporation. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Bryce W. Rhodes, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Michael B. Young, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, each certifies for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b)or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the Untied States Code,that:

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Exchange Act; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated:  November 12, 2004 | */s/ Bryce W. Rhodes*                              | * * |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|----------|
|                           | Bryce  W. Rhodes                                   |
|                           | President,  CEO and Director                       |
|                           |                                               |
|                           |                                               |
| * *                       | */s/ Michael B. Young*                             | * * |
|                           | Michael  B. Young                                  |
|                           | Chief  Financial Officer, Treasurer and Controller |

 

1

----