alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Amendment No. 1 tothe
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Emerald Dairy Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Shu Kaneko, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary 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 result of operations of the Company.
  Date:  January 30,
2009





By:
              /s/
      Shu KanekoName: 
      Shu KanekoTitle: 
      Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

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 CPS Technologies Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month and nine month periods ended September 25, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Grant C. Bennett, President and Treasurer 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.

Date:	November 9, 2010
/s/	Grant C. Bennett
Grant C. Bennett
President and Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07061]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-531-532 and 731-TA-1270-1273 (Review)]


Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin From Canada, China, India, 
and Oman

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the countervailing duty orders on 
polyethylene terephthalate (``PET'') resin from China and India and the 
antidumping duty orders on PET resin from Canada, China, India, and 
Oman would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on April 1, 2021 (86 FR 
17197) and determined on July 7, 2021 that it would conduct full 
reviews (86 FR 37343, July 15, 2021). Notice of the scheduling of the 
Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection 
therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and 
by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on October 20, 2021 
(86 FR 58101). The Commission conducted its hearing on January 27, 
2022. All persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to 
participate.
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on March 30, 2022. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5298 (March 2022), 
entitled Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from Canada, China, 
India, and Oman: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-531-532 and 731-TA-1270-1273 
(Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 30, 2022.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-07061 Filed 4-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Spotted WOLF, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30062

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Bryan Timothy Dake,. Assistant U.S. Attorney, USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Carl B. Jensen, Jr., Attorney, Law Office of Carl B. Jensen, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Spotted Wolf appeals the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence. *See United States v. Atalig,*502 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

*366Spotted Wolf contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his burglary conviction under the Major Crimes Act (“MCA”) because the government’s case relied almost solely on the testimony of his co-defendant, Ashley Solheim. He argues that, under Montana law, a conviction cannot rest solely on the testimony of an accomplice. Spotted Wolfs reliance on state law is misplaced. *See United States v. Pluff,*253 F.3d 490, 494 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he MCA’s incorporation of state law in defining and punishing crimes is limited to the applicable elements and sentencing schemes, and does not include all aspects of state law.”). Under federal law, a conviction “may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, if the testimony is not incredible or unsubstantial on its face.” *Darden v. United States,*405 F.2d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 1969) (internal quotations omitted). Solheim’s testimony as to Spotted Wolfs involvement in the burglary was neither incredible nor unsubstantial. Moreover, it was supported by the testimony of two other witnesses. The evidence was adequate to allow a rational trier of fact to find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. *See United States v. Nevils,*598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not-precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA
- 2011
- 0388 SNPRM **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010
-NM
- 004
- AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.
Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA
- IR
- M
- 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:

**ASE Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
#### Marion BEASLEY, Jr., a/k/a Marion Beasley El, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7637

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

*269Marion Beasley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marion Beasley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 29, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on December 13,. 2017.* Because Beasley failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 240

To authorize representation by Senate Legal Counsel.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 29, 1996

Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. FORD) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize representation by Senate Legal Counsel.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Byron C. Dale, et

al., Civil No. 95–1023, pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Northern

Division, the defendants have named Senator Robert J.

Dole as a codefendant in a counterclaim against the

United States;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(1) (1994), the Senate may direct its counsel

to defend its Members in civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it
2

SRES 240 ATS

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is author2 ized to represent Senator Dole in the case of United States

3 v. Byron C. Dale, et al.

Æ
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 13, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20697

Summary Calendar

 

LORETHA KANIDA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GULF COAST MEDICAL PERSONNEL, LP; 

NURSEFINDERS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-1770

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Loretha Kanida filed the instant suit to seek redress for,

inter alia, retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards

Act (FLSA) and failure to pay overtime. A jury found in favor of

the defendants, and that judgment was affirmed in a different

appeal. See Kanida v. Gulf Coast Medical Pers., LP, 363 F.3d 568,

572 (5th Cir. 2004).

The instant appeal concerns the district court’s denial of

Kanida’s FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. This
No. 03-20697

-2-

motion was based on the recent rediscovery of a cassette tape that

Kanida’s attorney lost within her office. Kanida argued in

pertinent part that she was entitled to relief based on excusable

neglect and because admission of the tape would have changed the

outcome of trial. The district court determined that the motion

was both untimely and substantively unavailing. Kanida argues that

the district court abused its discretion in reaching these

conclusions.

Kanida’s arguments are unavailing. In light of the

circumstances presented, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in concluding that her motion was not filed within a

reasonable time. See First RepublicBank v. Norglass, Inc., 958

F.2d 117, 119 (5th Cir. 1992).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in

determining that Kanida’s substantive claims lacked merit. The

carelessness of Kanida’s attorney does not constitute excusable

neglect for FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1) purposes. See Lavespere v.

Niagra Machine & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir.

1990), abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37

F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); United States v. One

1978 Piper Navajo PA-31, Aircraft, 748 F.2d 316, 318-19 (5th Cir.

1984). Kanida also has not shown exceptional circumstances

sufficient to merit relief under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6). See Hess

v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 216 (5th Cir. 2002). We decline to

consider Kanida’s claim of fraud under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3)
No. 03-20697

-3-

because this claim was not presented to the district court. See

Fackelman v. Bell, 564 F.2d 734, 736 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977). 

Kanida has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion in denying her FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSENLLP 

 

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,as amended (the “Securities Act”), provides that if any part of a registration statement at the time such part becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact or an omission to state a material fact required to be statedtherein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may sue,among others, every accountant who has consented to be named as having prepared or certified any part of the registration statement, or as having prepared or certified any report or valuation which is used in connection with the registrationstatement. 

 

Arthur Andersen LLP(“Andersen”) audited the consolidated financial statements of Cotelligent, Inc. (“Cotelligent”) for the year ended March 31, 2000, as set forth in their report dated March 21, 2002 (the “Andersen Report”). Cotelligenthas incorporated by reference into this Registration Statement on Form S-8 the March 31, 2000 consolidated financial statements in reliance on the Andersen Report. After reasonable efforts, Cotelligent has been unable to obtain Andersen’swritten consent to the incorporation by reference into this Registration Statement of the Andersen Report. 

 

Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits Cotelligent to file this registration statement without the consentof Andersen. However, because of the omission of that consent, Andersen will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statement of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Andersen thatare incorporated by reference in this Registration Statement or for any omission of a material fact required to be stated in this Registration Statement.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

  

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to thatcertain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2014, by andamong Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as SpecialServicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wilmington Trust,National Association, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asCertificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent andCustodian, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2014-C19 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 ofthe Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1.  A review of theactivities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.  To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ovelia Yarilu TORRES-ARGUIJO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40507 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ovelia Yarilu Torres-Arguijo, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ovelia Yarilu Torres-Arguijo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Torres-Arguijo has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23(c)
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the 
Registration Statement on Form S-4 and related Proxy Statement/Prospectus of 
American General Corporation for the registration of shares of its common stock 
and preferred stock to be issued pursuant to the Merger Agreement among 
American General Corporation, AGC Life Insurance Company, and Independent
Insurance Group, Inc. and to the incorporation by reference therein of our
report dated March 1, 1995, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Independent Insurance Group, Inc. incorporated by reference in
Independent Insurance Group, Inc.'s Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1994, and our report dated March 29, 1995 with respect to the
related financial statement schedules included therein, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Jacksonville, Florida
January 26, 1996
<PAGE>
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the 
Registration Statement on Form S-4 and related Proxy Statement/Prospectus of 
American General Corporation for the registration of shares of its common stock
and preferred stock to be issued pursuant to the Merger Agreement among
American General Corporation, AGC Life Insurance Company, and Independent
Insurance Group, Inc. and to the incorporation by reference therein of our
report dated February 15, 1995, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of American General Corporation incorporated by reference in its
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1994, and our report
dated March 17, 1995 with respect to the related financial statement schedules
included therein, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Houston, Texas
January 31, 1996
Articles of Amendment
                                       to
                            Articles of Incorporation


                        China Direct Trading Corporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Name of corporation as currently filed with Florida Dept. of State)


                                  P04000056287
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   (Document Number of corporation (if known)

               NEW CORPORATE NAME (if changing): CHDT CORPORATION

                AMENDMENTS ADOPTED (OTHER THAN NAME CHANGE): N/A

         The date of adoption of each amendment(s) adopted: May 3, 2007
                      Adoption of Amendment: ______________

[_x_] The amendment was approved by a majority vote of  shareholders  by written
consent.  The number of votes cast for the  amendment  by the  shareholders  was
sufficient for approval.

Signature: ________/s/__Stewart Wallach__________

                  Stewart Wallach, Chief Executive Officer