alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
f8k020111ex10i_neweratech.htm


Exhibit 10.6


 


Agricultural Products Purchase Agreement







Seller: Hunan Xiangmei Food Co., Ltd. (Part A)


Purchaser: Henan Yunhe Cailanzi Development Co., Ltd. (Party B)







For the purpose to develop the long-term cooperation between the parties, this Agreement is entered into by and between the parties on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon as follows:








	
1.  

	
For the purpose to ensure the sufficient productions in the second half year, Party B hereby purchases the agriculture products (Glutinous Rice, Sesame, Peanut, etc.) from Party A and the total amount shall be determined at the time when the above ordered products are delivered to Party B’s storages.













	
2.  

	
Quality Requirement: The ordered products actually delivered to Party B’s storages shall be the same as the samples previously provided to Party B’s storages: percentage of the water contained shall be between 13.5% to 14%.













	
3.  

	
Price: Glutinous Rice (¥3,300/ton), Peanut (¥8,000/ton) and Sesame (¥12,000/ton).  Once the above prices are agreed to by the parties herein, no party shall unilaterally adjust the prices according to the market prices.  Any adjustment made to the prices shall be mutually agreed to by the parties.  Party B shall be responsible for the delivery costs and expenses.













	
4.  

	
Delivery and Payment: Upon the delivery from Party A to Party B, Party B shall conduct the quality inspection in Party B’s storages.  Upon passing the inspections, the transaction shall be confirmed as valid and Party B shall make the payment within 60 days.













	
5.  

	
This Agreement shall be effective from 07/28/2010 to 04/30/2011 and shall be effective upon the parties’ signatures.  Any disputes between the parties under this Agreement shall be resolved through amicable negotiations in good faith.







 




	
Party A: (Corporate Seal)

	
Party B: (Corporate Seal)


	
Corporate Representative: Jilin Zhou

	
Corporate Representative: Zihua Zhu


	
Date: 07/28/2010

	
Date: 07/28/2010
| Exhibit 32.2                                                              |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER                                  |
| PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF |
| THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002                                            |
|                                                                      |  |
|                                                                           | I, Paul E. Atkiss, Chief Financial Officer of Viper Networks, Inc. (the “Small Business Issuer”) do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code that: |
|                                                  |  |  |
|                                                                           | (1)      | The Small Business Issuer’s amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (Amendment No. 2) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as amended May 5, 2006 (the “Report”) to which this statement is filed as an exhibit, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|                                                                      |  |  |
|                                                                           | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Small Business Issuer. |
|                                                                      |  |
| By:*/s/ Paul E. Atkiss* Paul E. Atkiss Chief Financial Officer |  |                                                                       Date:  May 5, 2006 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**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**

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (“PPD”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Fredric N. Eshelman, Chief Executive Officer of PPD, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-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 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 PPD as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report. 

Date: May 5, 2006
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Speedus Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
M. Finn, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange of 1934, amended; 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: November 15, 2004


By:    /s/ Thomas M. Finn
       ------------------
Name:  Thomas M. Finn
Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


                                       20
0 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

April 2 1, 2015 

G.R. Lowe Ill 

CEO 

Aviation Fabricators, lnc. 

805 North Fourth Street 

Clinton, MO 64735 

Dear G.R. Lowe: 

Small Airplane Directorate 

90 I Locust Street 

Kansas City, Missouri 64 106 

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for 

exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it. 

We Have the Petition 

We have received your March 23,2015, petition on behalf of Aviation Fabricators (AVFAB) 

for an exemption from§ 23.561(a)(b)(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

This exemption, if granted, would allow A VF AB to install PIN 62-0428 stretcher assembly 

for a horizontal medical passenger without dynamic seat testing on Pilatus Models PC-12, PC12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47£ airplanes. 

We have added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0782) and we are 

processing it. We will contact you if we need additional information. 

How We Will Process the Petition 

A petition for an exemption, according to § 11.63( d), must be sent to the FAA at least 

120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a 

summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public comment unless, according to 

§ 11 .87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it. 
We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions in the meantime, you may contact Mr. Robert Stegeman at 

(816) 329-4 140. 

Sincerely, 

w~ Earl Lawrence 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

2
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor
Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted) (the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002), Joseph D. Keegan, Ph.D., the Chief Executive Officer of Molecular
Devices Corporation (the "Company"), and Timothy A. Harkness, the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
periods covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the periods covered by the Periodic Report.

This certification accompanies the Periodic Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Dated: November 14, 2002


/s/ JOSEPH D. KEEGAN                    /s/ TIMOTHY A. HARKNESS
---------------------------             ---------------------------
Joseph D. Keegan, Ph.D.                 Timothy A. Harkness
Chief Executive Officer                 Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60089

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JERRY LEE QUINN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CR-83-S-D

- - - - - - - - - -

October 17, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Lee Quinn appeals his jury conviction for being a

felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) and the 120-month sentence imposed by the district

court. Quinn argues that there was insufficient evidence to

support his conviction for being a felon in possession of a

firearm. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Government, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the
No. 96-60089

- 2 -

evidence presented at the trial established Quinn was guilty of

the firearm offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States

v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910 (5th Cir. 1995); United States

v. Martinez, 975 F.2d 159, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 

507 U.S. 943 (1993).

Quinn argues that the district court clearly erred in

finding that he obstructed justice and in imposing a two-level

increase in his offense level pursuant to § 3C1.1 of the

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Because Quinn did not present any

rebuttal evidence to refute the facts set forth in the

Presentence Report (PSR) concerning the obstruction of justice

enhancement, the district court did not clearly err in adopting

the facts in the PSR and increasing Quinn’s offense level for

obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 of the Guidelines. See

United States v. Sherbak, 950 F.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (5th Cir.

1992).

Quinn argues that the district court clearly erred in

finding that the firearm was stolen and in increasing his offense

level under § 2K2.1(b)(4) of the Guidelines. Because Quinn did

not present rebuttal evidence to refute the facts in the PSR

concerning whether the firearm was stolen, the district court did

not clearly err in adopting the facts in the PSR and increasing

Quinn’s offense level because the firearm was stolen pursuant to

§ 2K2.1(b)(4) of the Guidelines. See Sherbak, 950 F.2d at 1099-

1100.
No. 96-60089

- 3 -

AFFIRMED.
No. 90-1832.

No. 91-9.

#### Pestrak *v.*Ohio Elections Commission et al.; and Ohio Elections Commission et al. *v.*Pestrak.

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of the parties to further defer consideration of petitions for writs of certiorari granted.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Globix Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert M.
Dennerlein, Chief Financial 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, 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.


Date:  January 14, 2005

                                                      /S/ Robert M. Dennerlein
                                                      ------------------------
                                                      Robert M. Dennerlein
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsConference Proceedings Prepared by NRC Staff or Contractors

# Proceedingsof the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionSixteenth Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting: Held at National Institute of Standards and Technology,Gaithersburg, Maryland, October 24–27, 1988 (NUREG/CP-0097)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CAROLYN GOODEN

, * No. 12

- 596 V

Petitioner, * Special Master Moran

*

v. * Filed: July 29 , 2014

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

Respondent. * respondent does not object.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lawrence R. Cohan

, Esq., Anapol, Schwartz, et al., Philadelphia, PA

, for

Petitioner;

Melonie J. McCall

, U nited States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC

, for

Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On July 2 8 , 2014 , petitioner filed a stipulation of fact concerning final

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above

- captioned matter. Previously , on July 22,

2014 , petitioner filed an a pplication for attorneys’ fees and costs seeking an award

of $44,328.88. In informal discussions , re spondent raised objections to certain

items of petitioner’s application . Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner

amended her application to request $42,000.00 , an amount to which respondent

does not object. The Court awards this amount.

On September 13, 2012

, Carolyn Gooden filed a petition for compensation

alleging that the trivalent influenza (“flu”) vaccine , which she received on

February 24, 2010, caused her to suffer chronic inflammatory demyelinating

polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). Petitioner receive d compensation based upon the

parties’ stipulation. Decision , filed June 16 , 2 014 . Because petitioner received

compensation, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. §

300aa

- 15(e).

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b),

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Petitioner seeks a total of $42,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states

that she incurred no out

- of

- pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim.

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested fo r attorneys’ fees and costs.

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $ 42,000.00 in the form of a check made payable to

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Lawrence R. Cohan , for attorneys’

fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357

-

6 353.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Containment Integrity Research at Sandia National Laboratories - An Overview (NUREG/CR-6906)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6906 (PDF - 36.1 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** March 2006**Date Published:** July 2006

Prepared by M. F. Hessheimer1 R. A. Dameron2

1 Sandia National Laboratories  P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, NM 87185

2 David Evans and Associates, Inc. 9635 Granite Ridge Drive Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92123

A. Sheikh, Program Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Fuel, Engineering & Radiological Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Job Code Y6757

Availability Notice

## Abstract

For nearly thirty years, significant research has been performed at Sandia National Laboratories to improve the understanding of the response of nuclear power plant steel and concrete containment structures and their capacity to withstand accidents beyond their design basis and other extreme loads. This work has consisted of experimental programs and analytical studies to investigate the response and capacity of containment structures and components for a wide variety of loading conditions with a primary emphasis on internal overpressurization. This report summarizes the work that has been performed and the results of these efforts, and identifies common themes that have emerged. The most detailed information provided is of the research conducted at Sandia National Laboratories, sponsored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But effort is made to also highlight work conducted by other research organizations throughout the world to put the Sandia/NRC research into context and to attempt to summarize the current practice for evaluating containments subjected to accident loads.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Exhibit 32

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the
"Annual Report") of Midwest Generation, LLC (the "Company"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that:

Dated:
March 2, 2009

/s/ Guy F. Gorney Guy F. Gorney
Manager and President
Midwest Generation, LLC/s/ John P. Finneran, Jr. John P. Finneran, Jr.
Manager and Vice President
Midwest Generation, LLC


This
statement accompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---



QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

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.

 November 18, 2016

a1115

Order 

Clerk

November 18, 2016

152802 & (18)(22)(27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152802

COA: 328557

Genesee CC: 11-028915-FC

GARY DUANE FRISBY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of Court, the motion by defendant-appellant to dismiss his application 

for leave to appeal and the prosecutor’s acquiescence in the motion are considered. The 

motion to dismiss is granted, and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
No. 86-854.

#### Meacham et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Ithaca Partners, L.P., et al., Respondents, v Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Appellant. Executive Life Insurance Company Trust et al., Respondents, v Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 655]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered April 21, 1995, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 29, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion to renew and reargue, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The claims in this case concern allegations that defendant, a New York law firm, committed various acts of fraud and misrepresentation in connection with a bond offering of its client, an Australian company, in the New York financial markets. All of defendant’s actions concerning such offering were performed in New York. The main issues raised involve New York law and concern defendant’s conduct in New York. Much of the relevant testimony will likely come from witnesses who reside in the United States. Most of the relevant documents are located in New York or can be produced here. Under these *500circumstances, on this record, the IAS Court properly determined that defendant failed to sustain its significant burden of proving that any alleged prejudice to it in defending this action here outweighs plaintiff bondholder’s right of access to the New York courts *(see, Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi,*62 NY2d 474, *cert denied*469 US 1108; *Silver v Great Am. Ins. Co.,*29 NY2d 356, 361). While a related action is pending in Australia, a majority of defendants in that case are from Australia or New Zealand, and the complaint in this case clearly alleges a New York based fraud.

We have considered defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.