alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<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 Aethlon Medical, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, James W. Dorst, 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, to the best of my
knowledge:

1. Such quarterly 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.

Date: November 14, 2005

By: /s/ James W. Dorst
    -----------------------
    James W. Dorst
    Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Aethlon Medical, Inc. and will be
retained by Aethlon Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Tamera Brown, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

City of Cincinnati, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18cv412

Judge McFarland

Magistrate Judge Litkovitz

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Defendants respectfully move for a 21-day extension of time to October 1, 2020

to file their Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation. The

deadline is currently September 10, 2020. This request is made due to the undersigned 

counsel’s other competing court-related deadlines between now and the end of 

September.

Counsel for the parties have conferred on this request and Plaintiffs’ counsel have

expressed that Plaintiffs do not object to an extension. Defendants have attached a 

proposed order to this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

ANDREW W. GARTH (0088905)

INTERIM CITY SOLICITOR

/s/ Shuva J. Paul

Shuva J. Paul (0088484)

Emily Smart Woerner (0089349)

801 Plum Street, Suite 214

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(513) 352-4551

shuva.paul@cincinnati-oh.gov

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 54 Filed: 09/04/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 672
emily.woerner@cincinnati-oh.gov

Trial Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 4, 2020, a true and accurate copy of the 

foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. No copies of this filing are being

mailed to any parties, as all parties are currently being served via the Court’s electronic 

filing system and thereby may access this filing through that system. 

/s/ Shuva J. Paul

Shuva J. Paul (0088484)

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 54 Filed: 09/04/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 673
ex10_30.htm


    
       EXHIBIT
10.30 

    

     

     Equity
Transferring Agreement 

    


    


     Party
A (Assignor): SinoHub SCM Shanghai Ltd. 

    


     Party
B (Assignee): SinoHub Electronics Shenzhen Ltd. 

    


     In
order to expand the logistic business in the east China, and better serve and
assist with the goods circulation in the eastern and southern area of China,
SinoHub Electronics Shenzhen Ltd. (Party B) invested RMB10,000,000 in Shanghai
in 2005 to establish SinoHub SCM Shanghai Ltd. (Party A), the business scope of
which involves the international trade and commissioned customs declarations.
Due to the policy restriction of the time being, only the domestic-funded
companies are authorized to be engaged in commissioned customs declarations for
import and export business; therefore, SinoHub SCM Shanghai Ltd. (Party A) was
only capable of being registered under domestic capital. As a matter of fact,
SinoHub Electronics Shenzhen Ltd. (Party B) is a fully foreign-capital-owned
company, its investment on Party A could only be entrusted to domestic personnel
for registration. Upon the approval of the board of directors of Party B, Ms.
Sailan Xu was entrusted to hold the equity of SinoHub SCM Shanghai Ltd. as
trustee under a declaration of trust agreement. Both parties agreed that SinoHub
Electronics Shenzhen would purchase the equity of SinHub SCM Shanghai Limited
for a nominal amount of money when it was regarded as proper by Party
B. 

    


     Party
A and Party B do hereby agree on changing the equity of Party A as
follows: 

    


     Now
Party B ratifies the necessity of withdrawing the administration of Party A, and
negotiates with Party A that Party A shall sell the equity under its investor
Ms. Sailan Xu to Party B at the price of RMB100, and Party A shall be liable for
all the rights and obligations from the day when Party B was funded to the day
when it was sold. The original investor and its legal representative of Party A,
Ms. Sailan Xu, shall not have any administrative rights and ownership of the
SinoHub SCM Shanghai Limited after January 17, 2008. 

    


     Upon
the signature of both parties on this Agreement, Party B shall set about the
relative issues concerning the equity transfer, and Party A shall assist with
all the procedures without reserve. 

    


    


    


    
      	
               Party
      A: SinoHub SCM Shanghai Ltd. 

               

            	
               Party
      B: SinoHub Electronics Shenzhen Ltd. 

               

            
	
               Legal
      representative: /s/Sailan Xu 

               

            	
               Legal
      representative: /s/Henry T. Cochran 

            
	
               January
      17, 2008 

            	
               January
      17, 2008
#### Crockett *v.*Missouri Pacific Railroad Company.

Opinion delivered May 13, 1929.

*529*John P. Vesey,*for appellant.

*E. B. Kinsworthy*and *R. E. Wiley,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the fac,ts). The undisputed testimony shows that appellant’s intestate, the person injured in the collision or accident, executed a full release to the railroad company fior all damages or injuries, including both known and unknown injuries and future developments thereof growing out of or in any way resulting from the accident or collision, describing it, for the consideration paid; and, there being no fraud alleged or proved in the procurement of the injured person’s acceptance of its terms, no mental incapacity alleged or shown, and no claim ¡of the injured person having executed the release in reliance upon the statement of a physician as to the extent of the injury suffered, both parties were necessarily bound by it, and the court did not err in directing the verdict. *Kansas City S. R. Co.*v. *Armstrong,*115 Ark. 123, 171 S. W. 123; *Francis*v. *St. Louis, I. M.*& *S. Ry. Co.,*102 Ark. 616, 145 S. W. 534; *St. Louis, I. M.*& *S. Ry. Co.*v. *Campbell,*85 Ark. 592, 109 S. W. 539; *Mo. Pac. Ry. Co.*v. *Elvins,*176 Ark. 737, 4 S. W. (2d) 528.

It is unnecessary, in view of this holding, to determine any other questions raised. The judgment is affirmed accordingly.
[J-100A&B-2016][M.O. - Wecht, J.] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

MARY ANN PROTZ, 

Appellant 

v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (DERRY AREA SCHOOL 

DISTRICT), 

Appellees 

MARY ANN PROTZ 

v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (DERRY AREA SCHOOL 

DISTRICT) 

APPEAL OF: DERRY AREA SCHOOL 

DISTRICT 

: No. 6 WAP 2016 

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered 

September 18, 2015 at No. 1024 CD 

2014, vacating the order of the Workers' 

Compensation Appeal Board entered 

May 22, 2014 at No. A13-0096 and 

remanding with instructions. 

: ARGUED: November 1, 2016 

: No. 7 WAP 2016 

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered 

September 18, 2015 at No. 1024 CD 

2014, vacating the order of the Workers' 

Compensation Appeal Board entered 

May 22, 2014 at No. A13-0096 and 

remanding with instructions. 

: ARGUED: November 1, 2016 

CONCURRING OPINION 

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: JUNE 20, 2017 

I support the core legal analysis contained in the majority opinion. At least in the 

absence of some sort of ongoing legislative or administrative review or oversight, I agree that prospective medical texts cannot be incorporated into a scheme affecting 

citizens' substantial rights. My differences with the majority opinion are more a matter 
of approach than substance, as, for example, I find it unnecessary to even consider that 

the American Medical Association might concoct anything, see Majority Opinion, slip op. 

at 10, or that the General Assembly may have acted on an avoidance rationale, see id. 

at 13 n.6. 

[J-100A&B-2016][M.O. - Wecht, J.] - 2
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, INC., 

POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA MESH 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

(PC) Greschner v. California Department of Corrections )

& Rehabilitation, et al., ) MDL No. 2846

S.D. Ohio, C.A. No. 2:18-00769 )

(E.D. California, C.A. No. 2:15-01663) )

SEPARATION OF CERTAIN CLAIMS

AND CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER

The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel, as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), that

remand to the transferor court of certain claims in the action on this conditional remand order is

appropriate. It appears that plaintiff has asserted two sets of claims in this action: (1) product liability

claims against defendants C.R. Bard, Inc., and Davol, Inc., for defective surgical hernia mesh; and (2) 

claims against other defendants, including constitutional law violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

negligence under California Civil Code §1714(a), and medical malpractice pursuant to California Civil

Code § 1714(a). The transferee court’s Order and Suggestion of Remand recommends that all claims

against the non-hernia mesh defendants be remanded. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims filed against any defendant other than C.R. Bard, Inc.,

and Davol, Inc., are separated and remanded to the transferor court.

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for filing

shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk

of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. This

order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Ohio. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for the

Southern District of Ohio with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be remanded.

FOR THE PANEL:

Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 114 Filed: 03/13/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 1722
### FW: mill count Michael Ling
to: Pam Long 05/13/2010 11:00 AM Show Details

OMB docket item

Michael Ling Associate Director Air Quality Policy Division U.S. EPA - OAQPS (919) 541-4729

-----Forwarded by Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/13/2010 10:59AM -----

To: Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov> Date: 04/27/2010 05:59PM Subject: FW: mill count

From: Hunt, Tim [mailto:Ti m_Hunt@afandpa.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:05 AM To: King, Heidi R. Cc: Hale, Rhea; Noe, Paul; Schwartz, Jerry Subject: RE: mill count

Heidi,

I should have mentioned that we represent about half the wood product industry so the aggregate numbers should be 2X – thus 200 wood pr oduct mills are still affected at the 75K level. On the paper side, we represent a much larger share.

Tim

From: Hunt, Tim 

### Page 1 of 3

5/13/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ p lon g \Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web3051.htmSent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:59 AM To: 'King, Heidi R.' Cc: Hale, Rhea; Noe, Paul; Schwartz, Jerry Subject: mill count

Heidi,

You asked yesterday about how many wood pr oduct mills might be caught by different thresholds. At 25K metric tons CO2 equivalent , 5 wood product mills are above based on fossil fuel emissions and 150 if you include biomass CO2 emissions. At 75K, no wood product mills would emit fossil fuel CO2 at that level but still 101 mills emit that much CO2 from biomass. This reinforces the point that the carbon neutrality princi ple approach is the only real way to avoid the unnecessary burdens that would befall the wood product industry. At 100K tons, 90 mills are still effected.

On the pulp and paper mill side, the issue is diffe rent. Most mills will be major emitters of fossil CO2 anyway but many of their pro j ects (boiler modifications and the like) would not be covered if biomass emissions retained their carbon neutral status. The quantify of biomass used on the paper side compare to the wood products side is significantly higher so hundreds of projects may be effected given that each major mill probab ly has two to four biomass based combustion systems.

Thanks again for meeting with us.

Timothy Hunt

Senior Director, Air Quality Programs AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION 1111 19th St NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036

tim_hunt@afandpa.org

202.463.2588 w

202.463.2787 f

www.afandpa.org 

### Page 2 of 3

5/13/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ p lon g \Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web3051.htm

### Page 3 of 3

5/13/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ p lon g \Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web3051.htm
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  Exhibit 99.03






Contact:  David Zynn, CFO
          SMT Health Services Inc.
          (412) 933-3300
          http://www.smthealth.com



                     SMT HEALTH SERVICES ANNOUNCES PURCHASE
                             OF NEW MOBILE MRI UNIT



Pittsburgh, PA, September 25, 1996 -- SMT Health Services Inc. (NASDAQ/NMS:
SHED, SHEDW) today announced that it has purchased a new 1.0 Tesla mobile MRI
unit which will begin operation on October 1, 1996.  The new unit represents the
Company's seventeenth mobile MRI unit and is the sixth new unit acquired this
year.  This unit will service hospitals located in West Virginia which the
Company recently signed to long-term service contracts.

Earlier this month, the Company took delivery and began operation of a new
mobile unit (which the Company had previously announced acquiring) to service
new hospital customers in North Carolina and South Carolina.  This unit
represents the Company's initial venture into the state of South Carolina, where
SMT expects to expand its operations further in months ahead.

SMT Health Services Inc., through its fleet of seventeen mobile units, provides
diagnostic imaging services to healthcare providers in Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky and South Carolina.



                                   #   #   #
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00543-CV

N. F., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-14-002979, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On August 27, 2015, appellant N.F., the children’s attorney/guardian ad litem in a

parental-termination case, filed a notice of appeal. Although N.F.’s notice of appeal appeared to be

an appeal from a final decree of termination, which was signed by the trial court on July 28, 2015,

the clerk’s record later filed in this Court indicates that the trial court granted a motion for new trial.

Upon review of the trial-court clerk’s record, the Clerk of this Court sent N.F. a letter informing her

that the Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal because we have no jurisdiction to hear

an appeal from a judgment that is not final, unless there is specific statutory authority permitting an

appeal before final judgment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012, .014(a). The Clerk

requested a response informing us of any basis that exists for jurisdiction. N.F. has not responded.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: October 16, 2015

2
Case: 2:18-cr-00173-EAS Doc #: 42 Filed: 05/31/19 Page: 1 of 8  PAGEID #: 138

Case: 2:18-cr-00173-EAS Doc #: 42 Filed: 05/31/19 Page: 2 of 8  PAGEID #: 139

Case: 2:18-cr-00173-EAS Doc #: 42 Filed: 05/31/19 Page: 3 of 8  PAGEID #: 140

Case: 2:18-cr-00173-EAS Doc #: 42 Filed: 05/31/19 Page: 4 of 8  PAGEID #: 141

Case: 2:18-cr-00173-EAS Doc #: 42 Filed: 05/31/19 Page: 5 of 8  PAGEID #: 142

Case: 2:18-cr-00173-EAS Doc #: 42 Filed: 05/31/19 Page: 6 of 8  PAGEID #: 143

Case: 2:18-cr-00173-EAS Doc #: 42 Filed: 05/31/19 Page: 7 of 8  PAGEID #: 144

Case: 2:18-cr-00173-EAS Doc #: 42 Filed: 05/31/19 Page: 8 of 8  PAGEID #: 145
Case: 1:18-cv-00361-MWM-SKB Doc #: 42 Filed: 06/30/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 304
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FISCAL YEAR
1997 QUARTER UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          25,372
<SECURITIES>                                    16,933
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                       756
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,244
<PP&E>                                          24,717
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,874
<SALES>                                         24,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,641
<CGS>                                           12,168
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,367
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (379)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,515)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,503)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,012)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,012)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.34)
        

</TABLE>
<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 Aethlon Medical, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, James W. Dorst, 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, to the best of my
knowledge:

1. Such quarterly 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.

Date: August 15, 2005.

By: /s/ James W. Dorst
    -----------------------
    James W. Dorst
    Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Aethlon Medical, Inc. and will be
retained by Aethlon Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

vs.

MAC PRINTING CO., LLC,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-427

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 9) 

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings and, on September 10, 2018, submitted a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 9). No objections were filed.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the 

Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety.

Accordingly: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED; 

2. The Court will issue a show cause order requiring Respondent Mac Printing 

Co., LLC and its President John McLaughlin to appear before the Court on 

May 28, 2019 and show cause why they should not be held in contempt.

Case: 1:18-cv-00427-TSB-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 04/26/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 33
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

4/26/19

Case: 1:18-cv-00427-TSB-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 04/26/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 34