alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32(ii)**

****

****

****

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

                        In connect with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2009 to befiled with Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark V. McDonough, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

                        (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

                        (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

                        It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| Date: January 14, 2010         | By: | /s/ Mark V. McDonough      |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                        |     | Mark V. McDonough,Chief Financial Officer           |
Exhibit 32(ii) CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connect with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008 to be filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mark V. McDonough, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that: (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods covered by the Report. It is
not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Date:    October 9,
      2008
    By:
    /s/ Mark V.
      McDonoughMark V. McDonough,Chief
      Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**
CERTIFICATION
I, John S. Davis, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of EnergySouth, Inc.(the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation;and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably which are likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 17, 2004 /s/ John S. Davis   John S. Davis
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27272]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-47-000]

Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Filing of Request for 
Exemption

October 18, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 13, 2000, Viking Gas Transmission 
Company (Viking), tendered for filing a request for exemption from 
Order No. 587-L, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural 
Gas Pipelines, FERC Regulations, Preambles 31,100 (2000) in compliance 
with the Commission's September 28, 2000 ``Order Granting 
Clarification'' issued in Docket No. RM96-1-016.
    Viking states that copies of this filing have been served on all 
Viking's jurisdictional customers and to affect state regulatory 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Section 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before October 25, 2000 considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27272 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Case 5:20-cv-00717-XR Document 16 Filed 03/19/21 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000096988
<NAME> MARLTON TECHNOLOGIES, INC
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                                         947,222
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,397,819
<ALLOWANCES>                                   135,859
<INVENTORY>                                  1,844,888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,855,582
<PP&E>                                       4,797,266
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,401,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,807,153
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,920,263
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,536,496
<OTHER-SE>                                 (11,134,075)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,807,153
<SALES>                                     15,094,043
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,094,043
<CGS>                                       14,541,615
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,541,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                522,057
<INCOME-TAX>                                   155,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            367,057
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   367,057
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.093
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.093




</TABLE>
V 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 306 

For the relief of Corina de Chalup Turcinovic. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Corina de Chalup Turcinovic. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CORINA 

4 DE CHALUP TURCINOVIC. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Corina de Chalup Turcinovic shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 306 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Corina de Chalup 

2 Turcinovic enters the United States before the filing dead3 line specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to 

4 have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise 

5 eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 

6 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 

7 of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Corina de Chalup Turcinovic, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•HR 306 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Corina de Chalup 

2 Turcinovic shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be ac3 corded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigra4 tion and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with
#### WAGNER v. RISKE et al.

No. 11362.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 13, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1943.

C. C. Carsner, of Victoria, for appellant.

Crain, Vandemberge & Stofer, of Victoria, for appellees.

MURRAY, Justice.

This is a suit by W. A. Wagner against Liessette Riske, Anita Riske Giese and her husband, Lester E. Giese, seeking to foreclose an attachment lien against 43.8 acres .of land lying and being situated in Victoria County. It was alleged that this 43.8 acres of land was a part of the community estate of Emil Riske, deceased, and his wife, Liessette Riske. Wagner was the holder of a note in the principal sum of $800 signed by Emil Riske, and if in fact the 43.8 acres of land was the community property of Emil and Liessette Riske, Wagner was entitled to a foreclosure of his attachment lien on said land.

The trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury and resulted in judgment that Wagner take nothing. There is no statement of facts in the record. The trial judge made and filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law.

From the judgment denying him any recovery, Wagner has prosecuted this appeal.

Appellant’s first point is as follows: “This case should be reversed because the Findings of the Court establish the fact that there was a Community Estate consisting of an interest in the 243.8 acres tract of land against which plaintiff established a claim.” We overrule this point. The sixth finding of fact is as follows: “No. 6. Thereafter, on December 3, 1925, by deed the said William Fehler conveyed the whole of said 243.8 acres to his daughter, Liesettie Riske, as her separate property, and I find that the whole of said tract became the separate property of said Liesettie Riske on that date, and that same remained the separate property of said Liesettie Riske from said date.”

This finding was a full and complete finding to the effect that the entire 243.8 acres were the separate property of Liessette Riske and that no part of it was the community property of her and Emil Riske, and such fact finding was sufficient to support the judgment rendered. There is no *297real conflict between this finding and other findings made by the court.

Appellant’s second point is: “Second— This case should be reversed because of the Court’s failure to make Findings of Fact upon material and controlling issues of Fact after being specially requested in writing to make such findings by plaintiff.”

In the absence of a statement of facts we are unable to determine whether or not the trial court should have made the other findings requested by plaintiff. Petty v. Petty, 53 Tex.Civ.App. 584, 57 S.W. 923; Rahl v. Compton, Tex.Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 509; Dark v. Sheldon, Tex.Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 830.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Annual Report of AXT, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Morris S. Young, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section
906"), that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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 29, 2004
                                                /s/ Morris S. Young
                                                -----------------------
                                                Morris S. Young
                                                Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to AXT, Inc. and will be retained by
AXT, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

May 21, 2010



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

D AVID F. H AMILTON

, Circuit Judge

T HERESA L. S PRINGMANN

, District Judge *



### No

. 09

- 2672

U NITED S TATE S OF A MERICA

, Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

J ULIO L EIJA

- S ANCHEZ

, Defendant

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division

.

No. 07 CR 224 Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

, Judge

.

Order

The opinion of this court issued on April 8, 2010, is amended as follows:

Page 9, full paragraph, change the two sentences that start on line 5 and end on

line 11 to read, “ Three of Leija

- Sanchez’s co

- defendants were apprehended in Mexico, which agreed to extradite them to the United States to face all of the indictment’s substantive charges, including arranging for Montes’s murder. The United States promised Mexico that it would not seek or impose the death penalty on any defendant

in the case; Mexico was satisf ied with that undertaking and saw no reason why the United States should not apply its substantive rules.”

Defendant

- appellee filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on April 22, 2010 . No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, and all of the judges on the panel have voted to deny rehearing. The petition for rehearing is therefore DENIED.

* Of the Northern District of Indiana, sitting by designation.
Home Search Forms Contact

Update available

Ventura County Designated Attainment for

State PM2.5 Standard

Today's Forecast & Agricultural Burn Status

About the District

Boards / Committees

Compliance

Downloads

Engineering

Fact Sheets

Incentive Programs

Info / News

Monitoring

Planning & Evaluation

Programs

Public Information

Rules and Regulations

Transportation Outreach

Search

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

Rules and Regulations

Search Rules and Regulations

Preface

Table of Contents

Regulation I (Rules 1-9) General – Definitions, Authority

Regulation II (Rules 10-36) Permits – Operating and Construction, New

Source Review

Regulation III (Rules 41-48) Fees

Regulation IV (Rules 50-76) Prohibitions – General and Source Specific

Regulations

Regulation V (Rules 80-85) Orchard Heaters

Regulation VI (Rules 101-103) Source Testing And Stack Monitoring

Regulation VII (Rules 110-130) Hearing Board

Regulation VIII (Rules 150-159)Emergency Action – Air Pollution Episodes

Regulation IX (Rules 200-204) Public Records

Regulation X (Rule 211) Transportation Outreach Program

Regulation XI (Rules 220-221) Conformity – General and Transportation

Regulation XII (Rules 230) Enforcement – Notice to Comply

Regulation XIII (Rules 250) Registration Programs

All text and images © Copyright, 2006 by Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

Site design by VCAPCD Information Systems Division

E-mail Webmaster

VCAPCD - Rules and Regulations http://www.vcapcd.org/Rulebook/RuleIndex.htm

1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7994

ANTONIO DESHAWN ROBINSON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:08-cv-00122-MSD-TEM) 

Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Antonio DeShawn Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory William 

Franklin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Antonio DeShawn Robinson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 30, 1995. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-02-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                       2,714,050
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               43,099,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,725,156
<INVENTORY>                                 60,009,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           104,753,639
<PP&E>                                      10,900,189
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,465,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             119,249,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       35,218,248
<BONDS>                                     34,576,792
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,350,927
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,999,235
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               119,249,376
<SALES>                                    230,152,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           230,152,806
<CGS>                                      180,775,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              216,823,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               995,515
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,147,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,182,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,884,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,298,125
<DISCONTINUED>                               (534,374)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,763,751
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .95
        

</TABLE>