alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Bioenergy Biotechnology Corp.


No.49, Sec. 2, Jhongshan Rd., Tanzih Township,
Taichung County 427, Taiwan (R.O.C.)


TEL: 886-4-25313733 Fax: 886-4-25313733
http://www.bioenergy.com.tw


 


ORDER


	Corporation name	Yambear Bio-tech, Inc.	Tel	0910820563
	Contact person	Zhenyi Chen	Fax	 
	Address	 	Date	2012/09/05


 


 


	Name	Volume	Untaxed price	Quantity	Total amount
	Metal (Cordyceps militaris)	50ml/bottle	NT$ 30.5/bottle	3000	91500
	Fire (root of kirilow rhodiola)	50ml/bottle	NT$ 30.5/bottle	3000	91500
	MSM joint enhance enzymes (Water)	50ml/bottle	NT$ 30/bottle	3000	90000
	
        Antrodia camphorata enzymes (Wood)

         
	50ml/bottle	NT$ 31/bottle	3000	93000
	Chinese traditional herbs enzymes (Earth)	50ml/bottle	NT$ 26/bottle	3000	78000
	 	 	 	 	 
	Total amount	444000


 


	
        1.      
        Purchase order: please confirm by fax or telephone when placing a purchase order.

        2.      
        The above-mentioned prices are untaxed.

        3.      
        Delivery: package materials are received after the order is confirmed. Products shall be delivered in 14 days.

        4.      
        Package materials are not contained, such as labels, boxes and specifications.

        5.      
        The products shall be delivered to the specified address.

        6.      
        Payment: 30% down, 70% due after 60 days.

	Manufacturer	Signature of client
	
        Bioenergy Biotechnology Corp.

        Xiemeng Huang 0926-943092
	 


 


 


*This order sheet is made in Chinese and
English. If there is any conflict between the English version and the Chinese version in this sheet, the Chinese version shall
prevail.
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Superclick, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ending July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Sandro
Natale, 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, that:





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





Dated:
      August 26, 2009
              /s/ Sandro NataleName:  Sandro
      NataleTitle:
      President  & Chief Executive
  Officer
# C_2016265EN.01000102.xml

| 21.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8075 — Partners Group/Infrared Capital Partners/Merkur Offshore)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 265/02)

On 8 July 2016, 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 the English language 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 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 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 32016M8075. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8075. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3012 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3012

To provide a moratorium on all Federal research grants provided to any 
  institution of higher education or other research institute that is 
                 conducting gain-of-function research.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2021

 Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mr. Paul, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Tuberville, Mrs. 
Blackburn, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Braun, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Cotton, 
and Mr. Wicker) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide a moratorium on all Federal research grants provided to any 
  institution of higher education or other research institute that is 
                 conducting gain-of-function research.

    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 ``Viral Gain of Function Research 
Moratorium Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL RESEARCH GRANTS FOR INSTITUTIONS AND 
              RESEARCH INSTITUTES CONDUCTING GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH.

    (a) Definition of Gain-of-Function Research.--In this section, the 
term ``gain-of-function research'' means any research that--
            (1) may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to 
        influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have 
        enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in any organism; or
            (2) involves the enhancement of potential pandemic 
        pathogens or related risky research with potentially dangerous 
        pathogens.
    (b) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
research grants supported by Federal funds may be awarded to 
institutions of higher education, or other research institutes, that 
are conducting gain-of-function research.
                                 <all>
```
Blend Process 

PMN Substance per Year

Dow Freeport, TX

CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR 2.201-2.215
---

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 Online Innovation,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Marlene C.
Schluter, Principal 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:                          | November 15, 2005 | 
|------------------------------ | ----------------- | 
|                               |                   | 
|                               |                   | 
|                               |                   | 
|/s/ Marlene C. Schluter        |                  
|Marlene C. Schluter, Director, |                  
|Principal Financial Officer    |                  

---
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00002

- CR

JASON PAUL TIJERINA

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Cause No. 15

- 03

- 28549

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered th is cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. May 31, 2018
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Deltic Timber Corporation
(the report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a14(b) or Rule 15d14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Ray C. Dillon, the Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth D. Mann, the Chief Financial Officer, each certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:



| | (1) | the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

condition and results of operations of Deltic Timber Corporation.



/s/ Ray C. DillonRay C. DillonChief Executive OfficerMarch 5, 2010/s/ Kenneth D. MannKenneth D. MannChief Financial OfficerMarch 5, 2010
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 22, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 22, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0155. IN THE INTEREST OF: U. R. AND J. R., CHILDREN (FATHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

161066 161065
12:00 P.M.

United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

February Crop Production

Executive Summary

Lance Honig, Chief

Crops Branch

February 9, 2017
USDA-NASS

2-9-17

Field Crops Fruit & Nuts Specialty Crops

Sugarcane Citrus

Contents
Arizona California Florida Texas

Lemons Oranges Oranges Oranges

Grapefruit Grapefruit Grapefruit

Tangerines Tangerines

Lemons

Citrus Estimating Program
USDA-NASS

2-9-17

Objective Surveys

(Size and Drop)

Fruit Maturity Row Count

Survey Type Field Observations Laboratory Tests Field Observations

Crops Included Oranges excl. Navels

Grapefruit

Royal and Honey 

Tangerines

Oranges excl. 

Navels

Oranges

Grapefruit

Royal and Honey 

Tangerines

Tangelos

Sample Size 1,511 Groves 277 Samples 148,412 Rows

Collection 

Period

January 12-25 January 26-27 January 26-27

Testing Period January 30

Survey Overview

Florida Citrus
USDA-NASS

2-9-17

February 2017 Crop Production

% Change % Change

From From

Crop Unit February Previous Previous

2017 Forecast Season 

Production

Oranges Mil Tons 5.35 -0.8 -9.5

Grapefruit Thou Tons 758 NC -5.6

Tangerines & 

Mandarins Thou Tons 993 +0.2 +4.2
12.7

13.7

9.80

13.0

12.2 12.4

11.5

12.9

9.30

9.02

7.63

10.1

9.10

8.24

8.91 8.98

8.27

6.77

6.35

5.91

5.35

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Million Tons

Orange Production

United States

USDA-NASS

2-9-17
USDA-NASS

2-9-17

February 2017 Crop Production

From From

February Previous Previous

2017 Forecast Season 

Production 

Sugarcane Mil Tons 33.0 NC +2.7

Crop Unit 
USDA-NASS

2-9-17

Release Date Report Title

February 17 Farms and Land in Farms

February 24 Cattle on Feed

Crop Values

February 28 Agricultural Prices

March 1

CAIRS: Cotton System

CAIRS: Cotton System Annual

CAIRS: Fats & Oils

CAIRS: Fats & Oils Annual

CAIRS: Grain Crushings

CAIRS: Grain Crushings Annual

March 9 Cotton Ginnings

Crop Production

March 30 Hogs and Pigs

March 31 Prospective Plantings, Grain Stocks and Rice Stocks

Upcoming Reports
United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

202-720-2127

800-727-9540

nass@nass.usda.gov
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1200

JUDY M. INGRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-108-2) Submitted: August 29, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore R. Dues, Jr., THEODORE R. DUES, JR., L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Michael L. Keller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia; Thomas J. Marshall, Acting ManagingCounsel, Legal Policy, Steven F. Hirsch, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Judy M. Ingram appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Ingram v. Henderson , No. CA-99-108-2 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 24, 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT FO R THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. DA 23-0191 IN THE MATTER OF: SH, A Youth In Need Of Care. ORDER Upon consideration of Mother a nd Appellant’s Motion For Extens ion Of Time (First), and with good cause shown, Mother and Appellant C .D.H. is hereby granted an extension of time until July 7, 2023 in which to pre pare, file and serve Mother and Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 26 2023

05/26/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0191
**Exhibit 31** **CERTIFICATION**     I, Matthew V. Booty, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on    Form 10-K    of Midway Games Inc.; and     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report. /s/  MATTHEW    V. BOOTY    Matthew V. Booty    Interim Chief Executive Officer     April 29, 2008

 
**CERTIFICATION**     I, Ryan G. O’Desky, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on    Form 10-K    of Midway Games Inc.; and     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report. /s/  RYAN    G. O’DESKY    Ryan G. O’Desky    Interim Chief Financial Officer     April 29, 2008
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00407-CR

FREDDIE WALLACE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 05-03424-CRF-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Freddie Wallace attempts to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for 

appointment of counsel pursuant to article 64.01(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(c) (West 2006). The decision to 

deny appointed counsel is not an "appealable order" under Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2010). Thus, we have no jurisdiction to consider Wallace’s claim that the trial court erred 

in denying his request for appointed counsel. Id.; see TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
Wallace v. State Page 2

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.1

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 7, 2016

Do not publish 

[CR25]

 

1 A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment or order of this Court is rendered. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. If the appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by the Court of 

Criminal Appeals, a petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within 

30 days after either the day the court of appeals' judgment was rendered or the day the last timely motion 

for rehearing was overruled by the court of appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

KEITH WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 10389

D.C. No.

2:14

- cr

- 00321

- GMN

- NJK

- 3

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 1 7 , 2022 * *

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Keith Williams appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his

guilty

- plea conviction and total 147

- month sentence for conspiracy to interfere

with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 ; three counts of

i nterference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2, 1951 ; and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 17

- 10389

brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § § 2, 924(c)(1)(A)

. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Williams ’ s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for

relief, al ong with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record . We have provided

Williams the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Williams waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Goodall

, 21 F. 4th 555

, 56 2

- 65 (9th Cir. 20 2 1 ). We accordingly dismiss

the ap peal

. S

ee id. at 565

.

However, we remand for the district court to amend the written judgment to

reflect the correct statute s of conviction for Count 13 : 18 U.S.C. § § 2 and

924(c)(1)(A)

.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED ; REMANDED with instructions.
#### Loring v. Hartman.

*Justice of the peace*— Appeal—Justice *as agent of appellant*— Forwarding *transcript*— Use *of mails.*

1. An arrangement with a justice of the peace by a defendant in a judgment for the former to send the transcript to him for purposes of appeal constitutes the justice his agent, and if the justice forwards the transcript by mail and it is never received, the defendant cannot perfect his appeal after the statutory period has elapsed.

2. The procedure on appeal is strictly statutory, and the court is without power to enlarge the time for action prescribed by the statute.

Motion for leave to perfect appeal *nunc pro tunc.*C. P. Lackawanna Co., Jan. T., 1922, No. 254.

*B. W. Bymer*and *C. B. Comegys,*for defendant.

Dec. 8, 1921.

Newcomb, J.,

July 1st, this year, defendant appealed in due form from the judgment of a magistrate. The appeal should have been perfected by transcript filed not later than Sept. 19th, the first day of the then next term of this court. But that was not done, and the omission is now accounted for, by appellant’s petition of Nov. 9th, as due to miscarriage by mail. It is alleged that, in accordance with their arrangement, the magistrate mailed the transcript to appellant’s address on Aug. 5th, but it was never received. That is the ground assigned for relief.

Manifestly it is of no avail. The arrangement with the magistrate was entered into at appellant’s risk. He is chargeable with knowledge of the time allowed by law for filing the transcript, and, therefore, it was for him to see that it was sent forward in due season, as he had simply made the magistrate his agent for that purpose.

What is more, the procedure is strictly statutory and the court is without power to enlarge the time for action prescribed by the statute.

It follows that the relief asked for is impracticable, and for that reason the rule to show cause is discharged. From William A. Wilcox, Scranton, Fa.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18490-18491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07845]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 9080]


Determination and Certification Under Section 490(b)(1)(A) of the 
Foreign Assistance Act Relating to the Largest Exporting and Importing 
Countries of Certain Precursor Chemicals

    Pursuant to Section 490(b)(1)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1961, as amended, I hereby determine and certify that the top five 
exporting and importing countries and economies of pseudoephedrine and 
ephedrine (China, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, India,

[[Page 18491]]

Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United 
Kingdom) have cooperated fully with the United States, or have taken 
adequate steps on their own, to achieve full compliance with the goals 
and objectives established by the 1988 United Nations Convention 
Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
    This determination and certification shall be published in the 
Federal Register, and copies shall be provided to the Congress together 
with the accompanying Memorandum of Justification.

    Dated: March 13, 2015.
Antony J. Blinken,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07845 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-17-P