alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | 1. | The      Company’s Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the      “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Information      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         | /s/      Xiaoqun Ye                |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Date:      November 19, 2010 | Xiaoqun      Ye                    |
|                         | Chief      Executive Officer       |
|                         | (Principal      Executive Officer) |
|                         |                               |
|                         | /s/      Yan Lin                   |
| Date:      November 19, 2010 | Yan      Lin                       |
|                         | Chief      Accounting Officer      |
|                         | (Principal      FinancialOfficer)  |

----
# C_2023078EN.01000201.xml

| 2.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10991 – GIP / KKR / VODAFONE / VANTAGE TOWERS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 78/02)

On 22 February 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M10991. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M10991. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,108
<SECURITIES>                                     3,096
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                       581
<INVENTORY>                                      4,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   394
<PP&E>                                          28,039
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,697
<BONDS>                                         19,655
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,894
<COMMON>                                         3,319
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,740
<SALES>                                         57,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,181
<CGS>                                           43,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,933
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,379
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,757
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,757
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 4, 2017

a0327

Order 

Clerk

April 4, 2017

153537

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153537

COA: 323162

Wayne CC: 13-004236-FC

AQUIRE BERNARD SIMMONS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Quarterly Report of NB Manufacturing, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Lazzeri, President and Director 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, that, to the best of my knowledge,:

     (1)  The Report 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.

Date:    May 5, 2009
                                                     /s/ Robert Lazzeri
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Robert Lazzeri
                                                     President and Director


<PAGE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3435

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee

v.

Darrel Lee Henry

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska

____________

 Submitted: May 13, 2013

Filed: May 24, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After Darrel Henry pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender under

the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, see 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), the
district court sentenced him to 15 months' incarceration and ten years of supervised 1

release. Mr. Henry appeals, contending that his ten-year term of supervision is

unreasonable.

We review the substantive reasonableness of the length of supervision for an

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Zoran, 682 F. 3d 1060, 1065 (8th Cir.

2012); United States v. Brewer, 628 F.3d 975, 978 (8th Cir. 2010), cert. denied,

132 S. Ct. 126 (2011). When setting a term of supervision, a district court must

consider virtually all of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(c), and Mr. Henry maintains that the district court "made a serious error in

judgment in weighing" the § 3553(a) sentencing goals when setting his term at ten

years. But district courts have "wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each

case and assign some factors greater weight than othersin determining an appropriate

sentence." United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009). Having

carefully reviewed the record, we discern no basis for concluding that the district

court abused its discretion in weighing the relevant factors orsetting Mr. Henry's term

of supervision, particularly given his "history and characteristics," 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(1), and "need for the sentence imposed" to provide him with "medical care

... [and] other correctional treatment in the most effective manner," 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(2). We note, moreover, that ten years of supervision is well below a term

of life, which is Mr. Henry's statutory maximum. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k); see Brewer,

628 F.3d at 978.

Affirmed.

______________________________

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Nebraska.

-2-
##### 



MAXCO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
EXHIBIT 21  SUBSIDIARIES OF MAXCO, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF MAXCO, INC.

|                                            |  |               |  | 
|------------------------------------------- |  | ------------- |  | 
|                                            |  | State of     
|                                            |  | Incorporation
|                                            |  |              
|                                            |  |               |  | 
|Atmosphere Annealing, Inc.                  |  | Michigan     
|                                            |  |               |  | 
|PSI Co. (formerly Pak-Sak Industries, Inc.) |  | Michigan     
|                                            |  |               |  | 
|Parcco, Inc.                                |  | Michigan
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JK/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUA ZHANG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-75373

Agency No. A093-052-352

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. 

Hua Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

FILED

DEC 29 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JK/Research 2 06-75373

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d

935, 937 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on discrepancies between Zhang’s testimony and documentary evidence

regarding when she was ordered to report for a pregnancy test, and Zhang’s failure

to provide a persuasive explanation for the discrepancy. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490

F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary

evidence support an adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies go to the

heart of the claim). In the absence of credible testimony, Zhang’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 2003). 

Because Zhang’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency

found to be not credible, and Zhang points to no other evidence the agency should

have considered, her CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guadalupe PRESAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-1884

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 6, 1976.

Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Karen K. Friedman, Charles S. Szekely, Jr., Asst. Federal Public Defenders, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U.S. Atty., James R. Gough, George A. Kelt, Jr., Robert A. Berg, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

In the recent case of *Sifuentes v. United States, affirmed sub nom., United States v. Martinez-Fuerte,*- U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976), the Supreme Court held that stops, as in the case at bar, for brief questioning routinely conducted at such permanent checkpoints as Sarita, Texas are consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

In this case as appellant’s automobile approached the point where the Border Patrolman was standing, the officer shined his flashlight on the front license plate and saw a marijuana brick hidden behind the grill of the car.

The sighting of the marijuana in the plain view of the officer clearly justified the seizure of the contraband and appellant’s conviction is

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
31.2





CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION





I, P.
Morgan McCune, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triple A Medical,
Inc.





2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.








Date:
August 9, 2008





/s/ P. Morgan
McCune





P. Morgan
McCune


President
and Chief Financial Officer


August 9,
2008
# C_2023323EN.01000101.xml

| 13.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10979 – PROVIDENCE EQUITY PARTNERS / ROTHSCHILD & CO / A2MAC1)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 323/01)

On 21 December 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10979. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10979. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# Official Journal C 293/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 293 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 492 December 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 293

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 492 December 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 293/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 293/2 | Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products. (1) | 2 |
| 2006/C 293/3 | Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products. (1) | 4 |
| 2006/C 293/4 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 6 |
| 2006/C 293/5 | State aid — United Kingdom — State aid No C 37/06 (ex NN 91/05) — Fishing Vessel Modernisation Scheme — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1) | 9 |
| 2006/C 293/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4491 — DHC/KP1) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 14 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 293/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 293/2

Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products. (1)

2

2006/C 293/3

Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products. (1)

4

2006/C 293/4

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

6

2006/C 293/5

State aid — United Kingdom — State aid No C 37/06 (ex NN 91/05) — Fishing Vessel Modernisation Scheme — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1)

9

2006/C 293/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4491 — DHC/KP1) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

14

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN