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



Statement



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



| | (1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 3, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  |                                           
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | APPLETON PAPERS INC.
|Dated: August 15, 2005 |  |  |  |  |  |                     
|                       |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  | /s/    DALE E. PARKER                     
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Name:                |  | Dale E. Parker                            
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Title:               |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Exhibit 32.1

**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 Large Scale Biology Corporation Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin J. Ryan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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)    | that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Large Scale Biology Corporation for the quartercovered by the Report. |

 

| Date:  August 14, 2003 | By:    | /s/ KEVIN J. RYAN                                                         |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                                                           |
|                        |   | **Kevin J. Ryan Chief Executive Officer Large Scale Biology Corporation** |

          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Large Scale Biology Corporation and will be retained by Large Scale BiologyCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135866 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135866 

 COA: 282228 

Wayne CC: 05-009858

FREDDY HARDRICK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

0721 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

July 29, 2008 

 Clerk
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10 - 20 - 00076 - CR No. 10 - 20 - 00077 - CR IN RE CARLOS PHILLIP GARCIA Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION Carlos Phillip Garcia seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court directing the return of funds removed from his inmate account. The procedure necessary to complain about an order to withhold funds from an inmate account was described in Harrell v. State , 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009). See In re Buhl , Nos. 10
- 19
- 00478
- CR, 10
- 19
- 00482
- CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 102 (Tex. App.
— Waco Jan. 8 , 2020, no pet.). That procedure is to file a motion complaining about the withdrawal order which should be filed with the trial court clerk for the trial court that signed the order. If the trial court then denies the relief requested in the motion, then an appeal, which will be a civil proceeding, can be takenI n r e Garcia Page 2

from that denial. There is nothing in the record before us to indicate Garcia filed a motion in the trial court complaining about the withdrawal order. Because another proced ure is available to Gar cia , he is not entitled to relie f by mandamus. Accordingly, Garcia ’s petitions f or writ of mandamus are denied.

JOHN E. NEILL Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Petitions denied Opi nion delivered and filed March 4 , 2020 [OT06]
#### Aubrey GIST, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27550.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 27, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty.,- Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100 and thirty days in jail.

The. statement, of facts in this case -was not filed until one hundred sixteen days after the date of notice of appeal.

Appellant insists that the filing was within the time which the trial court had permitted the statement of facts to be filed, by extension granted.

The trial court is powerless to extend the time for filing a statement-of facts beyond the ninety-day period provided for in Art. 759a, Vernon’s C.C.P. Davila v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 599, 237 S.W.2d 993.

In the absence of a statement of facts, we cannot appraise the bills of exception appearing in the record.

The judgment is "affirmed.
1 

### Edwards, Brenda
From: Somasundaram, Sriram [sriram.somasundaram@pnl.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:59 PM To: Edwards, Brenda Cc: Aris Marantan; Matthew Millard; Parker, Graham B; Llenza, Charles Subject: Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines - Docket Number EE-2006-STD-0125 - Docket directory and comment # 18

Brenda, Thank you for logging this e-mail into the docket. I have a request for you to put the following record of a phone conversation as another record (Comment #18) into the BVM docket.

_______________________ Sriram Somasundaram called Bob McGarrah of USA Technologies in May 2007 to find out if Bob had any data or information regarding the split of the beverage vending machines rated for indoor/outdoor use only that were installed indoors versus those that were installed outdoors. Bob said he didn't have any data but thought an assumption of 75% versus 25% split between machines installed indoors versus outdoors, respectively, was a valid assumption.

________________________________ Thank you very much. Sriram, S.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 600 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 600

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations concerning 
  use of the term ``fresh'' in the labeling of poultry, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 23, 1995

  Mrs. Boxer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations concerning 
  use of the term ``fresh'' in the labeling of poultry, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Truth in Poultry Labeling Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS ON LABELING OF POULTRY.

    Not later than thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue final regulations under the 
Poultry Product Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) that prohibit 
the use of the term ``fresh'' on labeling of any poultry or poultry 
part, or of any edible portion of the poultry or part, that has been 
frozen or previously frozen to below 26 degrees Fahrenheit.
                                 <all>
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: In re Woody K. Lesikar, Individually, and as Trustee of the Woody K. Lesikar Special Trust

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00391

- CV

Trial court case number: 2008

- 65920A

Trial court: 334th District Court of Harris County

Relator, Woody K. Lesikar, individually, and as Trustee of the Woody K. Lesikar Special Trust, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court, seeking this Court to compel the trial court to vacate its May 21, 2020 order, requiring relator to deposit $500,000 in the court’s registry. The May 21, 2020 order was signed by the Honorable Steven Kirkland. Judge Kirkland has ceased to hold the office of judge of the 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2, the Honorable Dawn Rogers is substituted for the Honorable Steven Kirkland as the respondent in this original proceeding.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 7.2(a). Fur ther, this original proceeding for petition of writ of mandamus is abated and remanded to the trial court to allow Judge Rogers to reconsider the ruling made the basis of relator’s petition. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 7.2(b) (“If the case is an original proceedi ng under Rule 52, the court must abate the proceeding to allow the successor to reconsider the original party’s decision.”).

Within thirty days of the date of this order, the parties are directed to notify the Clerk of this Court of any action taken on r econsideration of the rulings made the basis of relator’s petition and file any orders regarding reconsideration of those rulings in a supplemental

mandamus record. The Court will then consider a motion to reinstate or motion to dismiss this proceeding, a s appropriate.

This original proceeding is abated , treated as a closed case, and removed from this

Court’s active docket.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____

/s/ April Farris

______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ January 14, 2021

____
Exhibit 10.18 


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


Party A: China Teletech Holding,
Inc.


 


Party B: Jane Yu.


 


Party A desires
to employ Party B as Party A’s part-time Chief Financial Officer. Party B’s employment with Party A shall begin on
October 1, 2016 and end on September 30, 2018.


 


Party B, as Party
A’s Chief Financial Officer, shall take the responsibilities of preparing consolidated financial statements, comments and
MD&A according to audit report issued by the U.S. auditors. During the term of this employment, Party B is required to report
to Party A’s office 2 to 3 times and each time Party B shall stay for 3 days. The travel expenses for Party B to travel to
Party A’s office will be paid by Party A. Party A will compensate Party B’s all services through both cash and stocks.
The specific method of compensation is listed as follows:


 


1.        Party
A will deposit RMB 6,000 into Party B’s account on the 10th day of each month. The account number is .


 


2.       After
Party A completes the acquisition of the target company, Party A will transfer 2,000,000 shares of Party A’s common stock
to Party B.


 


This Agreement shall
become effective upon signing of both parties. This Agreement is made in two copies with each party holding one.


 


 


	Party A: /s/ China Teletech Holding
Inc. 	 	Party B: /s/ Jane Yu
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Date: September 30, 2016.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 656 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
                                 S. 656

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel QUIETLY.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
vessel QUIETLY (United States official number 658315).

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 656

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel QUIETLY.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000725813
<NAME> YVETTE DESMARAIS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         8055000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 17445000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    367000
<INVENTORY>                                   16373000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              45616000
<PP&E>                                        43937000
<DEPRECIATION>                                22465000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                21472000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         12390000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        852000
<OTHER-SE>                                    65533000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  80565000
<SALES>                                       90783000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              90783000
<CGS>                                         59839000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 59839000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              17904000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (260000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               13300000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4194000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            9106000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9106000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10
        

</TABLE>
The City of San Antonio,

Acting s



# Fourth Court of Appea ls

San Antonio, Texas

February 24, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00142

- CV

Joe A. ZUNIGA,

Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO , Acting by and through its Agent City Public Service Board

d/b/a CPS Energy,

Appellee s

From the 131st Judicial District Court, B exar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 14216

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant's motion for rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ K eith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-60975 and
333-106616) and Form S-8 (Nos. 2-91950, 2-93578, 33-18278, 33-29014, 33-39215, 33-56420,
33-53303, 333-51073, 333-93803, 333-93805, 333-47268, and 333-102321) of Mandalay Resort Group of our report dated
April 13, 2004, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's adoption of Statements of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities", No. 138, "Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging Activitiesan Amendment
of FASB Statement No. 133", and No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets"), appearing in this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Mandalay Resort Group for the year ended January 31, 2004.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Las
Vegas, Nevada
July 26, 2004

---



QuickLinks
*

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2612

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Gary Bernard Cain, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2006

Filed: February 17, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gary Bernard Cain pleaded guilty to three counts of bank robbery. At the plea

hearing, Cain agreed he was a career offender based on his criminal history, and his

resulting sentencing guidelines range was 168-210 months. After the district court

rejected his objections to the presentence report at sentencing, Cain agreed the 168-

210 range was correct. The district court*

 sentenced Cain at the bottom of the

advisory guidelines range to 168 months in prison and three years of supervised

release. Cain appeals arguing his post-Booker sentence is unreasonably long and the
-2-

district court failed to cite sentencing factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cain

has not overcome the presumption that his sentence within the advisory guidelines

range is reasonable. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.

2005). The district court properly considered the guidelines range and applied the

other factors in § 3553(a), including the nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the

offense, Cain’s criminal history and characteristics, and the need to promote respect

for the law, provide just punishment, and deter criminal conduct. The district court

was not required to enumerate each factor listed in § 3553(a). United States v.

Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir. 2005). The court also stated reasons why the

factors supported a sentence of 168 months. 

Considering the record as a whole, we cannot say the district court imposed an

unreasonable sentence. Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 627 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 332
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 627

                          [Report No. 104-231]

   To require the general application of the antitrust laws to major 
                league baseball, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 27, 1995

Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. 
    Graham) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                            February 6, 1996

                Reported by Mr. Hatch without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the general application of the antitrust laws to major 
                league baseball, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Major League Baseball Antitrust 
Reform Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL MAJOR LEAGUE 
              BASEBALL.

    The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new section:
    ``Sec. 27. (a) Subject to subsection (b), the antitrust laws shall 
apply to the business of professional major league baseball.
    ``(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect--
            ``(1) the applicability or nonapplicability of the 
        antitrust laws to professional baseball's amateur draft, the 
        minor league reserve clause, the Professional Baseball 
        Agreement, or any other matter relating to the minor leagues;
            ``(2) the applicability or nonapplicability of the 
        antitrust laws to any restraint by professional baseball on 
        franchise relocation; or
            ``(3) the application of Public Law 87-331 (15 U.S.C. 1291 
        et seq.) (commonly known as the Sports Broadcasting Act of 
        1961).''.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 332

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 627

                          [Report No. 104-231]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To require the general application of the antitrust laws to major 
                league baseball, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            February 6, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```