alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Applied Graphics Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Fred Drasner, Chairman of the Board 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 the best of 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.


                               /s/ Fred Drasner
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Fred Drasner
                               Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
                               May 15, 2003

      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.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-21-00106-CR 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT 

V. 

IAN BILBREY, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 286th District Court 

 Hockley County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 21-02-9981, Honorable Pat Phelan, Presiding 

October 26, 2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

The State of Texas appeals from the trial court’s order granting the motion to 

suppress of Appellee, Ian Bilbrey. Now pending before this Court is the State’s motion to 

voluntarily dismiss the appeal. The motion is signed by the district attorney. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a). As no decision of the Court has been delivered, the motion is granted 
2

and the appeal is dismissed.1 No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our 

mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

1 Appellee’s pending motion for an extension of time to file a brief is rendered moot.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel BREMER Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1905

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 28, 2017

Filed: December 8, 2017

David Luna, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joel Bremer, Pro Se

Todd M. Schultz, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joel Bremer appeals from the sentence the District Court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver in Bremer’s plea agreement, and otherwise challenging the reasonableness of Bremer’s sentence. Bremer has filed a supplemental brief asserting that his attorney did not call his witnesses and misled him in advising him to plead guilty.

To the extent that Bremer argues that his plea was not knowing and voluntary •because counsel misled him, we conclude that the challenge is unavailing. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). Bremer stated at the plea hearing that he understood the terms of the agreement, including the appeal waiver; that he understood that the United States Sentencing Guidelines estimate was not binding on the court; and that he entered into the guilty plea willingly. See United States v. Bond, 135 F.3d 1247, 1248 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (“A defense counsel’s erroneous estimate of a guidelines sentence does not render an otherwise voluntary plea involuntary.”), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 961, 118 S.Ct. 2388, 141 L.Ed.2d 753 (1998); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that “the defendant’s representations during the plea-taking carry a strong presumption of verity”). Because the appeal waiver is valid, we further conclude that counsel’s challenge to the sentence is barred, as it falls within the scope of the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003). To the extent Bremer has raised ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that require development of matters outside the record, we do not address them in this direct appeal. See *615United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).

. Finally, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues. We enforce the appeal waiver as to the sentencing issue, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and otherwise affirm.

1

. The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri:
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6350 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6350

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for two years the 
              credit for energy-efficient existing homes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2016

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for two years the 
              credit for energy-efficient existing homes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT EXISTING HOMES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 25C(g) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2016.'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2018''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property placed in service after December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED



I, Joseph R. Rozelle, certify that:



1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Lunar Growth Corporation;



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;



3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  November 24, 2009



/s/    Joseph R. Rozelle

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

Joseph R. Rozelle

Principal Executive Officer

and Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 8.1
 List of Subsidiaries of Trina Solar Limited (the Registrant)
 Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries
 1.
    
    Top Energy International Limited, a Hong Kong company2.
    
    Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., a PRC company3.
    
    Trina Solar Korea Limited, a South Korean company4.
    
    Trina Solar (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., a Singapore company5.
    
    Mutual Luck Enterprises Limited, a Hong Kong company6.
    
    Trina Solar (Luxembourg) Holdings S.à.r.l, a Luxembourg company7.
    
    Trina Solar (Luxembourg) S.à.r.l, a Luxembourg company8.
    
    Trina Solar (Japan) Limited, a Japan company9.
    
    Trina Solar (Italy) S.R.L., an Italy company10.
    
    Trina Solar (Spain), Sociedad Limitada, a Spain company11.
    
    Trina Solar (Switzerland) Ltd., a Switzerland company12.
    
    Trina Solar (U.S.) Holding Inc., a U.S. company13.
    
    Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. , a U.S. company14.
    
    Trina Solar (Germany) GmbH, a Germany company
# C_2019399EN.01003901.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FIH Holding and FIH v Commission

(Case T-386/14 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Banking sector - Aid granted to FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the body responsible for guaranteeing financial stability - State aid for banks during the crisis - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Admissibility - Calculation of the amount of the aid - Manifest error of assessment)

(2019/C 399/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FIH Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) and FIH A/S, previously FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (Copenhagen) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, A. Bouchagiar and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 89).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by FIH Holding A/S and FIH A/S. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by FIH Holding A/S and FIH A/S.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YUNFANG CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-2004

Agency No.

A212-957-615

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 11, 2024**

Honolulu, Hawai‘i

Before: CALLAHAN, HURWITZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Yunfang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing an appeal from an 

order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her claims for asylum, withholding of 

* 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

JUN 13 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-2004

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. 

When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and also provides its own 

reasoning, we review both the BIA and IJ decisions. Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 

F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2020). We review the agency’s factual findings, including 

adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 

1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). Under this “highly deferential” standard, the agency’s 

factual findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Salguero Sosa v. Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 

1217–18 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 584 (2020)); 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 

We agree with the BIA that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding 

that Chen’s testimony was not credible. In affirming the adverse credibility 

determination, the BIA cited the specific bases upon which the IJ relied, including 

numerous inconsistencies and omissions in Chen’s testimony and documentation, 

Chen’s prior visa fraud and lack of candor regarding the fraud, the lack of 

corroborating evidence, Chen’s inconsistent statements during her asylum 

interview, and Chen’s lack of religious fervor, knowledge, interest, and devotion.

Once Chen’s testimony is treated as noncredible, the remaining evidence does not 

establish entitlement to asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. 
3 22-2004

DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 15242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05682]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than April 18, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Brent B. Hassell, Assistant 
Vice President) P.O. Box 27622, Richmond, Virginia 23261. Comments can 
also be sent electronically to or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d093bfbdbdb5bea4a3feb1a0a0bcb9b3b1a4b9bfbea390a2b9b3b8feb6a2b2febfa2b7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b684446464e455f58054a5b5b4742484a5f424445586b59424843054d59490544594c">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Citizens Bancshares Corporation, Olanta, South Carolina; to 
acquire Sandhills Holding Company, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire 
Sandhills Bank, both of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 14, 
2022.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-05682 Filed 3-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7529** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. CHRISTOPHER RAPHAEL WOODBERRY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from th e United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 4:02

- cr - 00040

- TLW

- 1 )

Submitted : March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher Raphael Woodberry, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Raphael Woodberry appeals the district court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by t he district
court. United States v. Woodberry , No. 4:02

– cr – 00040

– TLW

– 1 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 31, 2011 & entered Nov. 1, 2011 ). 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
Order Entered March 27, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 13
- 00732
- CV 

### IN RE ALBERT G. HILL III , Relator

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 11

- 04523
ORDER Before Justices Fillmore , Stoddart , and Whitehill 1 Order by Justice Stoddart
In accordance with the Court’s opinion of this date, Relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus i s DENIED

. We VACATE our March 31, 2014 order staying the trial court’s March 17, 2014 order granting the receiver’s fee application and our October 8, 2014 order staying hearings on the receiver’s fee applications. We ORDER that Relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.
We ORDER the Clerk of the District Court to release the full amount of the bond or cash deposit required by our April 3, 2014 order to Daniel L. Jackson, Receiver for Hill 3 Investments, LLC , or his attorney

. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE

1 Justice Kerry P. FitzGerald was a member of the original panel and participated in the submission of this case; however, he did not participate in this opinion due to his retirement. Justice Bill Whitehill has reviewed the record and the briefs in this case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.1(a).
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL AND EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lunar Growth Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Rozelle, President 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, to the best of my knowledge that:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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: October 7, 2009



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph Rozelle                                                  
|Joseph Rozelle
President
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  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, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.