alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.A****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 forthe period ending June 30, 2006, of Southern NaturalGas Company (the “Company”) as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, James C. Yardley, Chairman of the Board and President, certify(i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ James C. Yardley           James C. Yardley *Chairman of the Board and President* *(Principal Executive Officer)*   August 7, 2006A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Southern Natural GasCompany and will be retained by Southern Natural Gas Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone: (919)484-0222  Fax: (919) 484-0122

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 16, 2010

To: Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG

From: Denise Grubert, EC/R Incorporated

Subject: Documentation of the August 6, 2010 EPA Site Visit to Ultra Resources in 

Pinedale, Wyoming

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this site visit was to visit Ultra Resources in Pinedale, Wyoming on 

August 6, 2010.

II. LOCATION & DATE

The facility was located in the town of Pinedale, Wyoming. The site visit took place on 

August 6, 2010. 

III. ATTENDEES

Ultra Resources

Belinda Salinas

Sam McClure

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Rachel Agnew

Jodi Howard

Bruce Moore

Greg Nizich

Nick Parsons
EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown

Denise Grubert

Karen Marsh

Wyoming Department of Environment

Jennifer Frazier

Cynthia Madison

The site visit report for this facility contains confidential business information (CBI), and 

pending approval by the facility, a non-confidential report has not been issued.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

ECREDIT SOLUTIONS LLC, §

§

Plaintiff, § Case No. 6:20-cv-304-ADA

§

v. §

§

VYZE, INC., § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

§

Defendant. §

§

§

PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT VYZE, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIMS 

Plaintiff eCredit Solutions LLC (“Plaintiff”) submits this answer to Defendant Vyze, Inc.’s 

Counterclaims per Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. 

ANSWER 

1. Admitted. 

2. Admitted. 

3. To the extent Paragraph 3 contains any allegations, Plaintiff denies them. 

4. Plaintiff admits that counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, and 

admits the Court has proper jurisdiction. Plaintiff denies all other allegations of Paragraph 4. 

5. Admitted. 

6. Admitted except as to the statement “though not necessarily convenient.” Plaintiff denies 

the allegation that this Court is an inconvenient forum. 

COUNT I – DECLARATION REGARDING (ALLEGED) NON-INFRINGEMENT 

7. To the extent Paragraph 7 contains any allegations, Plaintiff denies them. 
8. Plaintiff admits that there is an actual controversy based on Plaintiff’s filing of this action. 

Plaintiff denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 8. 

9. Denied. 

10. Denied. 

COUNT II – DECLARATION REGARDING (ALLEGED) INVALIDITY 

11. To the extent Paragraph 11 contains any allegations, Plaintiff denies them. 

12. Plaintiff admits that there is an actual controversy based on Plaintiff’s filing of this action. 

Plaintiff denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12. 

13. Denied. 

14. Denied. 

RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 Plaintiff denies that Defendant is entitled to any of the relief sought in its prayer. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Papool S. Chaudhari 

Dated: June 4, 2020 By: ________________________________________ 

 Papool S. Chaudhari 

Texas State Bar No. 24076978 

CHAUDHARI LAW, PLLC 

P.O. Box 1863 

Wylie, Texas 75098 

Phone: (214) 702-1150 

Fax: (214) 705-3775 

 Papool@ChaudhariLaw.com 

 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

ECREDIT SOLUTIONS, LLC 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with 

Local Rule. As such, the foregoing was served on all counsel of record who have consented to 

electronic service. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and local rule, all others not deemed to have 

consented to electronic service will be served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing via 

email on this 4th day of June, 2020. 

 /s/ Papool S. Chaudhari

_________________

 Papool S. Chaudhari
Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 311-3 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 311-3 Filed 11/21/23 Page 2 of 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5337 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures comprising poly(methyl 

methacrylate) and zinc acetate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Ms. BUERKLE (for herself and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures comprising 

poly(methyl methacrylate) and zinc acetate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES COMPRISING POLY(METHYL METH4 ACRYLATE) AND ZINC ACETATE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5337 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures comprising 

poly(methyl methacrylate) 

(CAS No. 25086–15–1) 

and up to 1% zinc acetate 

(CAS No. 557–34–6) (provided for in subheading 

3906.10.00) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21 Subsidiaries of Registrant



Information relating to direct and indirect subsidiaries of Center Financial Corporation as of February 28, 2004 is set
forth below. All of the indicated subsidiaries are wholly owned by Center Financial Corporation except as indicated below.



Direct Subsidiaries



|                       |  |                       
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name                   |  | State of Incorporation
|                       | 
|Center Bank            |  | California            
|                       | 
|Center Capital Trust I |  | Delaware              



Indirect Subsidiaries



|                   |  |                       
|------------------ |  | ----------------------
|Name               |  | State of Incorporation
|                   | 
|CB Capital Trust12 |  | Maryland              

---

|1 | Subsidiary of Center Bank
|- | -------------------------

|2 | Center Bank owns 100% of the common securities of Capital Trust, a Maryland corporation which has qualified as a real estate investment trust under the Internal
Revenue Code.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Westchester Fire Insurance Company, Plaintiff, *v.*Jack Lipsky et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 13, 1958.

*391
      *Prince & Loeb*for plaintiff.

*Louis E. Schwarts*for Martin Libin, defendant.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

This is an action brought by plaintiff insurance company for a judgment declaring that the policy of indemnity insurance issued by plaintiff to defendants Lipsky was fraudulently obtained, was breached by said defendants and in any event did not cover the accident sued upon by defendant Libin against defendant Pearl Lipsky in the Supreme Court, Queens County.

Plaintiff now seeks an order directing that the time of defendant Pearl Lipsky to answer the complaint in the Queens County action be extended and that all further proceedings in the Queens County action be stayed pending final judgment in the instant action. The application is not opposed by defendants Lipsky. Defendant Libin urges it be denied on the ground that in the ordinary course of trial calendar events the present equity action will be disposed of long before the Queens County negligence action, and that it is thus unnecessary and in any case unfair that the latter suit be stayed pending the determination of this suit for a declaratory judgment.

Although it may at this time seem unnecessary, that is not truly so. Steps may be taken in that action which may prejudice both the plaintiff and the defendants there. And I disagree that the stay would be unfair. On the contrary, multiplicity of actions will be avoided and the rights of all of the interested parties — including the objecting defendant — will best be protected by keeping the Queens County suit in *status quo*pending the prior judicial determination of those rights.

Accordingly, the motion is granted to the extent of staying all further proceedings in the Queens County action until 20 days after the final determination of this action, provided that plaintiff proceeds with its prosecution thereof with all reasonable expedition (see *New Amsterdam Cas. Co.*v. *Kirschenbaum,*194 Misc. 104, 107; cf. *Jesse E. Kahn, Inc.*v. *Driscoll Co.,*1 Misc 2d 405, 409-411).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SOUTHTRUST CORPORATION FROM THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         926,096
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,031
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               262,483
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                72,489
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    326,268
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,995,278
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,859,241
<LOANS>                                     32,043,373
<ALLOWANCE>                                    456,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,344,503
<DEPOSITS>                                  28,627,591
<SHORT-TERM>                                 7,875,050
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            600,851
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,125,342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       423,924
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,640,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              44,344,503
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,360,526
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              296,625
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,657,151
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             599,723
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             950,188
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          706,963
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   54,844
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 484
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                532,428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                352,233
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     352,233
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   237,960
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.22
<LOANS-NON>                                    137,075
<LOANS-PAST>                                    55,856
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 55,121
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               453,280
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   27,086
<RECOVERIES>                                     3,094
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              456,089
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           456,089
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

LIGHTING BALLAST CON TROL LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant,

AND

UNIVERSAL LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIE S, INC., Defendant

- Appellant.

______________________

2012

- 1014

______________________

Appeal from the United States Di s trict Court
for the Northern District of Texas in case no. 09

- CV

- 0029, Judge Reed O’Connor.

______________________

O R D E R

Oral argument, en banc, is scheduled for Friday, Se pte m ber 13, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 201. Each party will have 30 minutes to present oral arg u ment. The parties shall notify the Clerk in writing by August 15, 2013, of the name of the counsel wh o will present oral
argument.LIGHTING BALLAST v. PHILIPS ELECTRON 2

FOR THE COURT

Dated: May 10, 2013 /s/ Jan Ho r baly Jan Horbaly
Clerk
|                                                                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                             
|Texas State Offshore Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                                             
|Texas State Offshore Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 1      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
----

----

III Bekendmakingen

Commissie

----

DIRECTORAAT-GENERAAL INTERNE MARKT EN DIENSTEN

Bekendmaking van een vacature voor een directeur-generaal (rang AD 15)

COM/2006/10028

(2006/C 147 A/01)

Wie zijn wij:

Directoraat-generaal Interne markt en diensten. Wij definiëren en coördineren het algemene beleid van de Gemeenschap op het gebied van de interne markt. De interne markt is een van de belangrijkste prioriteiten van de Unie. De belangrijkste taak van het DG is om, in het belang van de burgers en de bedrijven van de Unie, een steeds verdergaande integratie van de Europese Markt te waarborgen en te trachten de belemmeringen voor het vrije verkeer van diensten en kapitaal en voor de vrijheid van vestiging op te heffen.

Wij bieden:

De post van directeur-generaal, die in het kader van de politieke richtsnoeren van de bevoegde commissaris verantwoordelijk is voor het volgende:

Wij zijn op zoek naar kandidaten die:

Zij moeten aantonen:

Om tot de selectie toegelaten te worden moeten de kandidaten aan de in de vacature genoemde geschiktheidscriteria voldoen die te vinden zijn op:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_en.htm

De uiterste datum voor de inschrijving is 24 juli 2006. De on-line-inschrijving wordt afgesloten om 12.00 uur (Plaatselijke tijd Brussel).

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JONATHAN VILLAREAL, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY 

ON BEHALF OF ZROBLACK, LLC;

 Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHN SAENZ, 

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

5-20-CV-00571-OLG-RBF

ORDER RETURNING CASE TO DISTRICT COURT

Before the Court is the above-styled cause of action, which was referred for disposition 

of all pretrial matters. See Dkt. Nos. 22 & 36. The Court is in receipt of Defendant John Saenz’s 

motion to voluntarily dismiss his counterclaims against Plaintiffs Jonathan Villarreal and 

ZroBlack, LLC. See Dkt. No. 81. As this case appears ready for entry of Final Judgment, it is 

ORDERED THAT it is RETURNED to the District Court for all purposes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 30th day of March, 2022.

RICHARD B. FARRER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 82 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **2094**

HANNA DESTAW ,
P etitioner ,

v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General , Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

S ubmitted : March 24, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Hanna Destaw , Petitioner Pro Se

. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litig ation Counsel, Eric Warren Marsteller , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Hanna Destaw , a native and citi zen of Ethiopia , petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Tortur e. Destaw first argues that she established extraordinary circumstances to excuse her failure to file her asylum application within one year of her arrival in the United States. We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 11 58(a)(3) (2006), and find that Destaw has failed to raise a constitutional claim or question of law that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2006). See Gomis v. Holder , 571 F.3d 353, 358

- 59 (4th Cir.
2009), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 1040 (2010)

. Gi ven this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Destaw’s asylum claim. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of

h er petition for review.
Destaw also contends that the Board and the immigration judge erre d in denying her request for withholding
of removal. “ Withholding of remova l is available under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not
that h er life or freedom would be threatened in the cou ntry of
removal because of her race, religion, nationality, membership3 in a particular soci al group, or political opinion.” Gomis , 571
F.3d at 359 ; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2009). Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports
the denial of Destaw’s re quest for withholding of removal. *
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part and deny the petition for review in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befor e the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

* Destaw has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. She has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 24 1 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5198 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on sodium hypophosphite 

monohydrate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. MULVANEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on sodium 

hypophosphite monohydrate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SODIUM HYPOPHOSPHITE MONOHYDRATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.44 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 sodium hypophosphite monohydrate) is amended by strik7 ing the date in the effective period column and inserting 

8 ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5198 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS