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

Exhibit 13.1





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 on Form 20-F of Chai-Na-Ta Corp (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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 such officers knowledge:



(1)

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



(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.





|                                  |  |                                  
|--------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|/s/  WILMAN WONG                  |  | /s/ TERRY LUCK                   
|Name:  Wilman Wong                |  | Name:  Terry Luck                
|Title:    Chief Executive Officer |  | Title:    Chief Financial Officer
|Date:    March 31, 2009           |  | Date:    March 31, 2009          



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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                            2,415,437
<SECURITIES>                      4,592,186
<RECEIVABLES>                       754,598
<ALLOWANCES>                         30,600
<INVENTORY>                       1,036,476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  8,919,171
<PP&E>                            2,603,961
<DEPRECIATION>                      804,683
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   10,718,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               500,923
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                            197,152
<OTHER-SE>                        8,877,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     10,718,449
<SALES>                           3,207,969
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  3,261,638
<CGS>                             1,348,939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     2,984,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     75,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     10,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    8,597
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     201,925
<INCOME-TAX>                         73,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        128,025
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.06
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




As independent public accountant, we here by consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made apart of this
registration statement.




/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Arthur Andersen

Boston MA
12/10/99
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>        THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10Q DATED
                SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
                STATEMENTS
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                           90,609
<SECURITIES>                    131,855
<RECEIVABLES>                    43,842
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,522
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                316,756
<PP&E>                           97,975
<DEPRECIATION>                   64,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  540,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            89,428
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                            952
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                      413,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    540,812
<SALES>                         168,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                168,180
<CGS>                           121,350
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   121,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  57,684
<INCOME-TAX>                     23,075
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              34,609
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     34,609
<EPS-BASIC>                      3.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                      3.63




</TABLE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 26, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-12-00144-CR

____________

HENRY ONYINYE IWU, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1765330

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal, personally signed by appellant, 

has been filed with this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not issued 

an opinion, the court grants appellant’s request.
2

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. We direct the Clerk of the court to issue the 

mandate of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justices Hedges and Justices Frost and McCally.

Do not publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
() 

~~============ 

~~======= 

~===========================:;============== d ,, ::' /~ ;,1.i '? fDl~ '" ~/; ~=========~~~ =____,,===,' =}=================== 

REF ID:A4161641 
REF ID:A4161641 
REF ID:A4161641 
REF ID:A4161641
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2156 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a criminal penalty for 

launching drones that interfere with fighting fires affecting Federal property or responding to disasters affecting interstate or foreign commerce, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2015 

Mrs. SHAHEEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a criminal 

penalty for launching drones that interfere with fighting 

fires affecting Federal property or responding to disasters affecting interstate or foreign commerce, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wildfire and Emer5 gency Airspace Protection Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2156 IS

1 SEC. 2. LAUNCHING DRONES THAT INTERFERE WITH 

2 FIGHTING FIRES AFFECTING FEDERAL PROP3 ERTY OR RESPONDING TO DISASTERS AF4 FECTING INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COM5 MERCE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 65 of title 18, United 

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘§ 1370. Launching drones that interfere with fight10 ing fires affecting Federal property or re11 sponding to disasters affecting interstate 

12 or foreign commerce 

13 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

14 ‘‘(1) the term ‘covered disaster’ means a dis15 aster that affects interstate or foreign commerce; 

16 and 

17 ‘‘(2) the term ‘covered fire’ means a fire that 

18 threatens the real or personal property of the United 

19 States, or of any department or agency thereof. 

20 ‘‘(b) OFFENSE.—Whoever knowingly launches a 

21 drone for recreational purposes in a place near a covered 

22 fire or covered disaster, and is reckless as to whether that 

23 drone will interfere with fighting the fire or responding 

24 to the disaster, if the drone does interfere with that fire25 fighting or disaster response, shall be fined under this 

26 title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2156 IS

1 ‘‘(c) AGRICULTURAL USE OF DRONES NOT AF2 FECTED.—For purposes of subsection (b), the term ‘rec3 reational purposes’ does not include agricultural pur4 poses.’’. 

5 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

6 for chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘1370. Launching drones that interfere with fighting fires affecting Federal 

property or responding to disasters affecting interstate or foreign commerce.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
REF ID: A72516 · 

... .. i ' I 

r;-:-co:;::rr::-- ::r:3Sh.:JE D= +:e ~, ie~ _ .. ~ ..... ""'--UA.¥ ai, 194a - ~--------- Ti1.ie .Piled X2250Z .... ,., - u: 

E• !SASSY LONDON 

~~IT .. ID WhS:iil:GTO?~ 

4840 

H .... ?.~:. R~C~IVE"} TO!>AY THP.OUGH PkRK :.~s~ ... ft.G'C.: FD.O • ':IN?~IE FOR 

I::TELLIG!::t-:CE '?ICTUP.~ raa,.t STAm>?O!t9T OF ~MBL.S ~'I J..ND ITS 

Vls.!'.IOUS kFFIJ,Lr,.TED O:tCANIZl .. '.i'I:r!:1 SUCH AS B:'i:""!', oss AND mrI 

:.~RES~t~TATIVES. ALSO &D vr!!t'I I::r~-~!'U?G TA!.K ~;ITH Hr?::, 

-:-,..,.,I~TO'"c:o ECO''O· "I"' CHIT:"i;' :. .,D LO"O..,. r""L' -: t.R 01:1 ?;'"0"'01 'I"' ~··!.. =' .=.& .... ii ..., If t;J .. ...... I.I u ~ I ....... .. ...,,, ~ - ---· • ..- ..-.v .... ,,. "' ....... ..-

iAF.E MINISTRY A?lD Mk v:: co::CLUD!:D T!i..:.. T HA~iDI.IliG OF ECO~Ol.UC 

l"-4.TE .!AL IS WELL ~•OB.TH LOJKI~:G u:iro, htm so E H..:...VF.: JJL~NGED 

Ii~TEI!LIGEHC~ FIP.LD IS GIVP!i SO 1-.:UCH 11.TTE?~TIO:: HEr.'!!: Alm Tro"ESE 

I A:.! P.T:.£ .. Cl!Ir:G cm:CLtJSIOl>i ':'F'J..~. a.-2 'crJi.D DO JmT.-tI~G Bt::TT"m 

F0'9.. ITSF.I1F '!SAM TO 1:-ru~ .. TIPLY ITS I "'FO~' ~ti. '!'IOI: C'-A THP.:.--..u:G !1.G~?\TS 

'S .. ., A _:r ~,.2Q 

~~~e Cc~yleted MAY 22. 1943 

T ~me C or:!· let e d 2030Z 

- "'·--i .,-,, ""I·-~ r.- 11 "IT ?XJ! C'" •"OF.. c-;;-· -i-:15 ~3eSAG:: IS F'0?.3'.::DJ:::!i .a. _,.Cl • • r.... .· ... - '-'-1 r.! .-1 • ... u .! .. - •--

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-20-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

• 

. · . 

. · . . ·.. . . YA• \'V\ 

"M\ I 

\I ••1 I 

.. ·. 

•• Ill • 

·.1 

: ! ... : 

•• y,,•. 

.... : 

-·. ::.: 

.. 

-'="
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVID R. RUIZ , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 1269

[ September 17, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit ; Edward Harold Merrigan , Judge; L.T.
Case No. 02

- 1617CF10A

.

Brett S. Chase of Chase Law Florida, P.A., St. Petersburg , for appellant.

No response from appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , F ORST , and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2012 

To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include certain 

communities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2021 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself, Mr. KELLY, and Ms. ROSEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to 

include certain communities, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Downwinders Parity 

5 Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE 

7 COMPENSATION ACT. 

8 Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Com9 pensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note; Public Law 101– 

10 426) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2012 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (B)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘that portion of’’; and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘that consists of townships 

4 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 71’’; and 

5 (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘all acre6 age in any county all or part of which is located in’’ 

7 before ‘‘that part’’. 

8 SEC. 3. REPORT. 

9 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

10 of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the rel11 evant committees of the Senate and the House of Rep12 resentatives a report that outlines efforts to educate and 

13 conduct outreach to persons made newly eligible for bene14 fits under the amendments made by section 2. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Electro-Sensors, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bradley D.Slye, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                 |                                                            |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |                                                            |
| August 14, 2003 | /s/ Bradley D. Slye                                             |
|                 |                                                            | Bradley D. Slye |
|                 | [Principal Executive Officer  and Principal Accounting Officer] |

 

 

#2833675\3

 

1

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL15-42-000]

                    On February 27, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL15-42-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation concerning the justness and reasonableness of the Fortis MBR Sellers' market-based rates in the Tucson Electric balancing authority area.[1]                                                              *FortisUS Energy Corporation, et al.,*                     150 FERC ¶ 61,153 (2015).                

                    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-42-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: February 27, 2015.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             For the purpose of this filing, the Fortis MBR Sellers include: FortisUS Energy Corporation; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; Tucson Electric Power Company (Tucson Electric); UNS Electric, Inc.; and UniSource Energy Development Company.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2015-05254 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit 3.28**

 

**ADDENDUM TO CREDIT FACILITY AGREEMENT**
 

This is an addendum to the Credit Facility entered into as of February 27th 1998 by and between Epsom Investment Services N.V. (Epsom) and Calcitech Ltd dated the 28th February 2001.

 

Whereas, Epsom has extended credit to the Company on the following new terms:

 

Amount

Five Million United States Dollars (US$ 5,000,000)

 

Period

To the 6th March 2002

 

Interest Rate

7.75%

 

Facility Fee

1% of the total value of the credit facility paid on renewal of the credit facility

 

Collateral

All  shares held in its wholly owned subsidiary CalciTech Synthetic Minerals Ltd

 

It is agreed that all other terms and conditions of the Credit Facility remain the same.  This addendum is a part of the whole agreement of the above referenced credit agreement.

 

 

 

By:

“D. Craven”

By:  

“R.A. Leopard”

 

For Epsom Investment Services N.V.

For Calcitech Ltd.

David Craven

R.A. Leopard

 
Director

Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,644,648
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  226,697
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      62,985,920
<DEPRECIATION>                            (37,514,235)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,395,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     54,025,002
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,395,720
<SALES>                                      4,169,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,186,116
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,052,287
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,194,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (60,797)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,797)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Case, Appellant, vs. Fuldner, Town Clerk, and another, Respondents.

*May 2*

May *21, 1901.*

*Costs: Demurrer: Appeal,*

1. Under sec. 3686, Stats. 1898 (providing that alter the decision of a demurrer the court may permit the party interposing the demurrer to plead over or withdraw his demurrer on terms), an order awarding absolutely $10 costs on overruling a demurrer is erroneous; *569such costs are only admissible as terms of leave to interpose some further plea.

2. On a general appeal from such order, no question being raised but that it was proper except as to costs, the order will be reversed as to costs and otherwise affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the superior court of Milwaukee county: J. C. Ludwig, Judge.

*Affirmed inpa/rt; reversed in part.*

Appeal from an order overruling plaintiff’s demurrer to defendants’ answer. The order awarded absolutely to defendants $10 costs. Plaintiff appeals on the single question of whether it was error to allow such costs.

Eor the appellant there were briefs by *Geo. L. Williams,*and oral argument by *Glenn H. Williams.*

Eor the respondents there was a brief by *Henderson ds*Williams, and *WimMer, Flanders, Smith, Botham & Vilas,*and oral argument by *J. G. Flanders.*

MaRshall, J.

The question presented for decision is ruled in favor of appellant by sec. 2686, Stats. 1898. *Curtis v. Moore,*15 Wis. 134; *Bishop v. Aldrich,*48 Wis. 619, 623; *Schoenleber v. Burkhardt,*94 Wis. 575; *Schroeder v. Richardson,*101 Wis. 529; *State ex rel. Rice v. Chittenden,*107 Wis. 354. The statute cited plainly indicates that special costs against a losing party, upon the decision of a demurrer, or any costs other than such as abide the final result of the action and to be taxed in the ordinary fee bill, are only admissible as terms of leave to interpose some further plea. This court has repeatedly so held in the cases cited. The appeal from the order being general, and no question being raised but that it was proper except as to the costs, it must be reversed as to that feature and otherwise be affirmed.

*By the*Court.— So ordered. Ordered further that costs in this court in favor of appellant be limited to clerk’s fees.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2091 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2091

       To amend the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to increase 
    appropriations to Restaurant Revitalization Fund, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2021

Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. 
Baldwin, Ms. Ernst, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
   Heinrich) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To amend the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to increase 
    appropriations to Restaurant Revitalization Fund, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restaurant Revitalization Fund 
Replenishment Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE RESTAURANT REVITALIZATION FUND.

    Section 5003(b)(2) of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public 
Law 117-2; 135 Stat. 85; 15 U.S.C. 9009c(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) by striking ``$28,600,000,000'' and inserting 
                ``$88,600,000,000''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, of which $300,000,000 shall be 
                for administrative expenses to carry out this section'' 
                before the period at the end; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)(i)(II), by striking 
        ``$23,600,000,000'' and inserting ``$83,300,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Toner vs. The City of Eau Claire.

*November 4*

*November 21, 1882.*

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Eau Olaire*County.

The questions involved in this case and the opinion filed 'herein by Orton, J., are identical with those in the case of *Bastían v. The City of Eau Claire, supra.*

*By the*Court.— The order of the circuit court is affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.