alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.3


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

     We  consent  to the use in the Pre  Effective  Amendment  No. 1 on Form S-4
Registration  Statement of Magnum Hunter Resources,  Inc. ("The Company") of our
reports dated April 23, 1997 and April 3, 1996,  respectively,  accompanying the
historical summaries of revenues and direct operating expenses of the Properties
to be Acquired April 30, 1997, and the consolidated  financial statements of The
Company contained in such Registration Statement; and our report dated August 2,
1996  accompanying  the  historical  summaries of revenues and direct  operating
expenses of the Properties Acquired June 28, 1996 incorporated by reference into
such Registration Statement,  and to the use of our name and the statements with
respect to us, as  appearing  under the heading  "Experts"  in the  Registration
Statement.


/s/ HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP
- ----------------------------
HEIN + ASSOICATES LLP
Certified Public Accountants



October 16, 1997
Dallas, Texas
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF deCODE genetics, Inc.

1.
Islensk erfdagreining ehf., an Icelandic private limited company (English name: deCODE genetics ehf.)

2.
MediChem Life Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation

SUBSIDIARIES OF ISLENSK ERFDAGREINING EHF.

1.
Islenskar lyfjarannsoknir ehf., an Icelandic private limited company (English name: Encode ehf.)

2.
Islenskar krabbameinsrannsoknir ehf., an Icelandic private limited company (English name: deCODE Cancer ehf.)

3.
UVSUrdur, Verdandi, Skuld ehf.an Icelandic private limited company (acquired in January 2006)

SUBSIDIARIES OF MEDICHEM LIFE SCIENCES, INC.

1.
deCODE biostructures, Inc., a Washington corporation

2.
ThermoGen, Inc., an Illinois corporation

3.
Emerald BioSystems, Inc., a Delaware corporation

4.
deCODE Chemistry, Inc., an Illinois corporation

5.
MediChem Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Marcus Segal, Chief
Financial Officer of Star Energy Corporation (the Company), certifies, under
the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: August 20, 2007 | /s/ Marcus Segal
Marcus Segal
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Xinhua  China  LTD.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Xianping Wang,  President and 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, to my 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 operations
          of the Company.


Date: November 13, 2007



                                        By: /s/ XIANPING WANG
                                            _____________________________
                                                Xianping Wang
                                                President and  Chief Executive
                                                Officer
Confidential Business Informatio n received from True Manufacturing on August 5 , 2014.

For more information

, please contact Margaret Sheppard by phone at 202

- 343

- 9163 or by email at sheppard.margaret @epa.gov.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350


(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of AMASYS Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:





(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies 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 Company.





Date: September 28, 2009











/s/ C.W. GILLULYC.W. GillulyPresident and Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
Order entered April 25 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00052
- CV HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL., Appellant s V. ALI GANJAEI , Appellee On Appeal fr om the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 19
- 20539

O RDER This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a ppellee’s special appearance. Subsequently, the trial court, on March 21, 2022 , signed an order
par tially striking appellee’s special appearance and appellants’ brief was filed with that order in place. The trial court has now indicated that the March 21 order was signed in error and it intends to vacate it. Before the Court is the parties’ April 20, 2022 corrected joint motion to suspend the briefing schedule and for leave for appellants to file an amended brief.We GRANT the motion as follows. We SUSPEND the deadline for appellee’s

brief. We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to fil e , WITHIN TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order , a supplemental clerk’s record containing either the trial court’s order vacating its March 21 order or written verification that no such order exists. Should we receive a supplemental clerk’s
record with th e trial court’s order vacating the March 21 order, appellants shall file
an amended brief within ten days of the filing the supplemental clerk’s record. Should we receive written confirmation that no such order exists, appellee shall file its brief within ten days of the filing of the supplemental clerk’s record.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Gena Slaughter, Presiding Judge of the 191st Judicial District Court; Ms. Pitre; and , all parties.
/s/ ROBERT D. BUR NS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
October 21, 2015

Mr. Pierluigi Lanciotti

104 Windchase Drive

Lafayette, LA 70508

Dear Mr. Lanciotti:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

part 21 and §§ 91.203(a)(b), 45.23(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a)(b), 

61.113(a)(b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, and 91.151(a) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your July 7, 2015 exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2943, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
Exhibit 32.1

Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),
each of the undersigned officers of Western Transitions, Inc. (the Company),
does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the
Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: August 13, 2005

/s/ Daniel Hodges
-------------------
Name: Daniel Hodges

Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 13, 2005

/s/ Daniel Hodges
-------------------
Name: Daniel Hodges

Title: Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
a separate disclosure document.
Douglas Johnson

2705 Adeline Dr.

Burlingame, CA 94010

A petition to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption 

part 21 subpart H,§§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.109, 

91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a),91.203(a) and (b), 91.205(b), 91.215, part 91 

subpart E of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption 

would allow the petitioner to operate the DJI Phantom Vision 2 and the DJI 

F550 unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to conduct aerial photography for 

real estate, surveying and marketing.

The petitioner proposes to operate the DJI F550 plus Zenmuse H43D gimbal 

as well as a Phantom Vision UAS to conduct short duration (>30 minute)

aerial photography and videography for homeowners, realtors, home builders, 

and home contractors for real estate marketing and inspections of home 

exteriors.

Operation will use the AMA safety code as a minimum standard for safe 

operation. All flights will be in reasonably controlled environments with only 

crew and client allowed on location during operation.

Doug Johnson is a member in good standing of the AMA member number 

1035203

Doug Johnson has worked in video and film production for 30 years and has 

the skill, experience and wisdom to safely operate UAS. This experience will 

be a benefit to consumers of aerial video and the public by combining 

experience in video/film production with the safety of operating with 

minimal exposure to the public for short duration flights.

The UAS used commonly fits into the model aircraft category and In 

consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with 

the unmanned aircraft and its operation, Doug Johnson’s operation of the DJI F550

and Phantom Vision UAS meets the conditions of Section 333 and will not require 

an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60061

Summary Calendar

 

DAN MCGREW, Father and Next Friend

of Kosher McGrew, a minor,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN F. WHITAKER, in his official and individual

capacity; COPIAH COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; COPIAH COUNTY, MS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:96-CV-61WS

- - - - - - - - - -

December 8, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of Copiah County, Mississippi, Deputy Sheriff

John Whitaker; the Copiah County Sheriff’s Department; and Copiah

County. We find no error in the district court’s consideration

of Deputy Whitaker’s affidavit explaining his prior deposition

testimony. See S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d
No. 97-60061 

-2-

489, 496 (5th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s false-arrest claims fail

because Deputy Whitaker had probable cause to arrest Kosher

McGrew. See Fields v. City of South Houston, Tex., 922 F.2d

1183, 1189 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court did not err by

entering summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claim of

defamation. See Blake v. Gannett Company, Inc., 529 So.2d 595,

602 (Miss. 1986). 

AFFIRMED.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Sanuarp 88, 1939 

Hon. f. L. Shelton 

county Auditor 

Cleburne, Texas 

Dear Mr. Shelton: 

tion: tion: 

four four reqlert requert for for an an 0 0 

“Whether the 0 

ralarlea 02 count 

fixed then In the 

ourt may ehangc ce

they have moo 

3” 

has been reoelved 

the Coarmisslo 

in erfect that 

r 

pulation of 

t en one bunng to the last 

thorlzed and lt ahsll be the 

t to tix the salaries of all 

tirther provides that eaah oi 

money an annual salary In 

vfd\be;’ \ ) )’ 

arter service has bien rendered, or a eontract has 

been entered into, and performed In Mole or in part; 

nor pay, nor authorize the payment of, any al&la 

created against any oounty or munlcipalltg of the 

State, under any agreement or contract, made without 

authority of law.’ 
. . ’ 

Hon. 2. L. Shelton, fanuary 28, 1999, Page t 

In tlew of 'the foregoing rtatute and section of 

the Constitution quoted, it Is the opinion of this Department and you are respeatfully advised that it Is the duty 

of the Gommlesloners* Court in sounties with the population as 

above mentioned to ilr maid salaries and that arter they are 

tired they cannot be changed. 

Truatingthat the foregoing amwers rour Inquiry, 

m remd.n 

Very truly yours 

mToRmY ata!RAL OF TEXAS 

BY 

b8Istent
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-11-0000713 30-JUN-2014 02:06 PM
Exhibit 32. 1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

The following certification shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any filings.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

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 on Form 10-Q of Advanced Analogic
Technologies Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, for the first quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of the undersigned officers of Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his respective knowledge:

(1) the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the first quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully complies 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 Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated for the periods presented therein.

Date: April 29, 2008



/s/ Richard K. WilliamsRichard K. WilliamsChief Executive Officer


Date: April 29, 2008



/s/ Brian R. McDonaldBrian R. McDonaldChief Financial Officer


A signed original of the above certification has been provided to Advanced Analogic
Technologies Incorporated and will be retained by Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/6/97 TENTH CIRCUIT EUGENE T. FOUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, and MARY ANN JOHNSON FOUST, and MARGARET ANN JOHNSON, an alleged deprived child, Plaintiffs, v. ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY; ORAL ROBERTS; RICHARD ROBERTS; CLARENCE BOYD; MICHAEL YOAKUM; SCOTT SMITH; GARY L. GIBSON; LARRY JOHNSON; and GINA M. CHOROST, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-5046 (D.C. No. 92-C-909-C) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY , Circuit Judges.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Mr. Foust is a pro se civil litigant. Mr. Foust fi led this action and appealed an adverse decision granting defendants summary jud gment. We affirmed in an unpublished decision. See Foust v. Oral Roberts University , No. 93-5169 (10th Cir. Apr. 5, 1994). Mr. Foust then returned to district court and filed a motion to remand this case to the state court system. The district courtdenied the motion, and Mr. Foust now appeals. The law of the case bars this appeal. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED . Entered for the Court WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07834]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

[Docket Number DARS-2015-0017]

48 CFR Part 216


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical 
Amendment

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial 
changes.

DATES: Effective April 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Manuel Quinones, Defense 
Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6088; 
facsimile 571-372-6094.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends the DFARS at 216.401-
70 to delete the reference to PGI 216.401-70, which has been removed.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 216

    Government procurement.

Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR part 216 is amended as follows:

PART 216--TYPES OF CONTRACTS

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 216 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.


216.401-70   [Amended]

0
2. Amend section 216.401-70 by removing ``In order to comply with this 
statutory requirement, follow the procedures at PGI 216.401-70.''

[FR Doc. 2015-07834 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.38


 


Maximum Pledge Contract


 


Contract No.:2012JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI12140696


 


Pledgor : Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd


 


Pledgee : CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


 


Signing Date : August 30, 2012


 


Pledge Definition :   To ensure multiple loans Party
B (Pledgee) has lent to Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd., Party A (Pledgor) is willing to provide the Maximum Pledge Guarantee
hereunder for Party B.


 


Maximum Amount: RMB65, 000,000


 


Pledge Term : From August 30, 2012 to August 30, 2013


 


Collateral: The assets Party A pledges to Party B as Collateral
are listed in Maximum Pledge Contract (No. 2012JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI12140696-01). The appraised value of the Collateral is RMB 1,703,658,992.05