alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Telestone Technologies Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Han Daqing,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.





Dated: August
12, 2010




By:
                  /s/
      Han DaqingName:
                  Han
      DaqingTitle:
                  Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal ExecutiveOfficer)
# C_2023035EN.01002401.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — X v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht

(Case C-639/22)

(2023/C 35/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:

| — | whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?

| — | what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is? |
| --- | --- |

—

what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?

| — | to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate? |
| --- | --- |

—

to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 23



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-00973 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No.
333-100623 of Public Service Company of Oklahoma on Form S-3 of our reports
dated March 5, 2004 (which reports express unqualified opinions and include
an explanatory paragraph concerning the adoption of a new accounting
pronouncement in 2003), appearing in and incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Public Service Company of Oklahoma for the year
ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Columbus, Ohio
March 10, 2004
# C_2022368EN.01001101.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Lehliu-Gară (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against KN, LY, OC, DW

(Case C-230/22)

(2022/C 368/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Lehliu-Gară

Parties to the main proceedings

KN, LY, OC, DW

Question referred

Does Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (concerning respect for the principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights), in conjunction with Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, concerning the rights of the defence, and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, concerning the principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties, preclude national legislation which makes it a criminal offence to perform an act in breach of any law whatsoever, without expressly specifying the laws or legal provisions the breach of which gives rise to criminal liability?

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-51046

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISRAEL HERNANDEZ,

Defendant – Appellant

______________________________________

Cons w/ No. 13-51048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. 

ISRAEL HERNANDEZ, JR., also known as Jose Federico Garcia-Gonzalez, 

also known as Israel Hernandez-Garcia Jr.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-568-1

USDC No. 5:13-CR-572-1

USDC No. 5:12-CR-899-2

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 23, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-51046 Document: 00512779030 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2014
No. 13-51046

c/w No. 13-51048

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Israel Hernandez has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Hernandez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to 

allow us to make a fair evaluation of Hernandez’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without 

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir. 2014), petition for cert. filed (June 4, 2014) (No. 13-10484).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Hernandez’s responses. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the 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.

2

 

 Case: 13-51046 Document: 00512779030 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2014
H. R. 886 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To direct the Attorney General to establish and carry out a Veteran Treatment 

Court Program. 

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 ‘‘Veteran Treatment Court 

Coordination Act of 2019’’. 

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

It is the sense of Congress that veterans treatment courts 

are a successful program aimed at helping veterans charged with 

nonviolent crimes receive the help and the benefits for which the 

veterans are entitled. 

SEC. 3. VETERAN TREATMENT COURT PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Subject to the availability of appropriations, in coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the 

Attorney General shall establish and carry out a Veteran Treatment 

Court Program to provide grants and technical assistance to court 

systems that— 

(1) have adopted a Veterans Treatment Court Program; 

or 

(2) have filed a notice of intent to establish a Veterans 

Treatment Court Program with the Secretary. 

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Veterans Treatment Court 

Program established under subsection (a) is to ensure the Department of Justice has a single office to coordinate the provision 

of grants, training, and technical assistance to help State, local, 

and Tribal governments to develop and maintain veteran treatment 

courts. 

(c) PROGRAMS INCLUDED.—The Veterans Treatment Court Program established under subsection (a) shall include the grant programs relating to veterans treatment courts carried out by the 

Attorney General pursuant to sections 2991 and 3021 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10651, 

10701) or any other provision of law. 
H. R. 886—2 

(d) REGULATIONS.—The Attorney General shall promulgate 

regulations to carry out this section. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned officer of Harold's Stores,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended July 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



Date: September 30, 2005


/s/Jodi Taylor
-------------------
Jodi Taylor
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2022024EN.01004401.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/44

---

Action brought on 7 October 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-661/21)

(2022/C 24/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the implied decision of the defendant to refuse access to certain documents related to deforestation and forest degradation, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) and to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of the defendant to refuse access to certain documents related to deforestation and forest degradation, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) and to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies; (2)

| — | order the European Commission to pay the applicant's costs for conducting this proceeding including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the applicant's costs for conducting this proceeding including the costs of any intervening parties.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, according to which, as a result of the failure to address the applicant with an express decision regarding its request for access within the time-limits for processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.

---
#### IN the INTEREST OF: R.I.L., a Minor

732 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

9/27/2017

CP-51-AP-0001289-2016, CP-51-DP-0002627-2014

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5603]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Research and Development Programs Meeting Agenda

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides the agenda for a public meeting at which 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will 
describe and discuss specific research and development projects.

DATES AND TIMES: As previously announced, NHTSA will hold a public 
meeting devoted primarily to presentations of specific research and 
development projects on March 11, 1997, beginning at 1:30 p.m. and 
ending at approximately 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Suites, Detroit Metro 
Airport, 8600 Wickham Road, Romulus, Michigan 48174.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice provides the agenda for the 
sixteenth in a series of public meetings to provide detailed 
information about NHTSA's research and development programs. This 
meeting will be held on March 11, 1997. The meeting was announced on 
February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7293). For additional information about the 
meeting consult that announcement.
    Starting at 1:30 p.m. and concluding by 5:00 p.m., NHTSA's Office 
of Research and Development will discuss the following topics:

Status of air bag aggressiveness and advanced air bag research, 
including child restraint/air bag interaction (CRABI) dummy testing,
Demonstration of CD ROM for child restraint/vehicle compatibility,
Status and plans for the 1997 calendar year for the National Automotive 
Sampling System Crashworthiness Data Base (NASS CDS),
Special crash investigation studies of air bag cases, Status and plans 
for anti-lock brake systems research, and Status of research on 
restraint systems for rollover protection.

    NHTSA has based its decisions about the agenda, in part, on the 
suggestions it received by February 21, 1997, in response to the 
announcement published February 18, 1997.
    As announced on February 18, 1997, in the time remaining at the 
conclusion of the presentations, NHTSA will provide answers to 
questions on its research and development programs, where those 
questions have been submitted in writing by February 27, 1997, to Ralph 
J. Hitchcock, Acting Associate Administrator for Research and 
Development, NRD-01, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
Washington, DC 20590. Fax number: 202-366-5930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita I. Gibbons, Staff Assistant, 
Office of Research and Development, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, 
DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-4862. Fax number: 202-366-5930.

    Issued: March 3, 1997.
Ralph J. Hitchcock,
Acting Associate Administrator for Research and Development.
[FR Doc. 97-5603 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9422-9423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5104]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP97-220-003 and RP89-183-071]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

February 25, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 20, 1997, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, Second Substitute Third Revised Sheet Nos. 8C and 
8D, with the proposed effective date of February 1, 1997.
    WNG states that on December 31, 1996, it filed, pursuant to Article 
14 of the General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, its first quarter 1997 report of take-or-pay 
buyout, buydown and contract reformation costs and gas supply related 
transition costs, and the application or distribution of those costs 
and refunds. Revisions were made January 13, 1997 and January 21, 1997 
to revise Schedule 4 of the original filing to reflect certain 
customers' January MDTQ's which were not finalized at the time of the 
filings.
    WNG states that the instant filing is being made at a customer's 
request to show its regulated and nonregulated business as separate 
line items. All other aspects of WNG's December 31, filing are 
unchanged.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all participants 
listed on the service lists maintained by the Commission in the dockets 
referenced above and on all of WNG's jurisdictional customers and 
interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 381.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public

[[Page 9423]]

inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5104 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6379]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Intent to Grant Exclusive Patent License; Clever Ideas Co.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of intent to 
grant to the Clever Ideas Company, a revocable, nonassignable, 
exclusive license in the United States to practice the Government owned 
inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 5,495,416 entitled ``Audio 
Information Apparatus for Providing Position Information,'' issued 
February 27, 1996 and U.S. Patent No. 5,552,993 entitled ``Audio 
Information Apparatus for Providing Position Information,'' issued 
September 3, 1996.
    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has 60 days 
from the date of this notice to file written objections along with 
supporting evidence, if any. Written objections are to be filed with 
the Office of Naval Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower One, 800 North 
Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. R.J. Erickson, Staff Patent 
Attorney, Office of Naval Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower One, 800 
North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660, telephone (703) 
696-4001.

    Dated: February 20, 1997.
D. E. Koenig, Jr.,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-6379 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
p. 1



# OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 238 ) IV-E-11 3 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/20082:42:59PM

Sheet 238of 242

## 01-24-9 4 04:39PMFROMEPARDS D ANH'YRBOR " 

## '^T O 17202-26H01 1 P001/00 3 P. 2 

## \V*E-U 3

-^ t (99 3 MBMORANTCITM TO » onboar dW«£uelxa g Emissio ncontro l Docke t FROM : Steve nSl^vm-man , Offic e o f Genera l Counse l S $ RE : Meetin g wit hIndustr yOfficials , Peoembe r 22 , 199 3

O nDec«mhe r 22. 19¥3 , offjciial s o f Pord , GM , Chryale r an d ch e America nAutomobil e Manufacturer s Aflcociationma t wit hKP A official s regardin g th e statu s o t th e rulemakin g regardin g onboar demissio ncontrols , flnattendanc e iie t i s attached , Tn e t-Jiie f focu s o f th a n«et.in g wa s whethe r a nonboar dreauirenem : ahoul d appl yt o truck s {bot hUJV s an dHDTs) , an di f so , when .

G M(Srtt u Leonard ) argue da t snm nlengt htha t ther e uhovld b e n o onboar drequirement , fo r trucks , Th e argumen t goe s tha t Staq e I I system s wil l b e i nplac e anywayb y199 8 andthes e system s wil l provid e adequat e contro l o f tru« k
_refualiu g emission s i nnonattainmen t areas . BP A(Dic k Wilson ) indicate d tha t ou * initia l view , a a ejqpresaed i nth e recen t F Rnotice s an d t.h « An nArbo r publi c hearing , i o tha t truck s aucoun t fo r a substantia l portio no f refuelin g eraLsaJon s an d e o warrant , control , andtha t i t doe s not . mak e Sfcn9 e t o hav e tw o type s O f system s to r controllin g refuelin g emissions
. Sinc e onboar d controls * fo r truck s ar c considered)! ymor e cost-effectiv e (an d mor e efficient ) tha nStag e I I control s (whlciii control o wouj.d , moreover , b e redundan t fo r cars ) th * staff' s inclinatio ni s t o requixi a onboar d control s tt.*rtruck s a s wel l a s cars .

Al l u £ th e industr yrepresentative s argue dtha t ther e shoul db o a longe r 3«a d tim e tha nInitia l applicatio ni nth e 199 8 mode l year . The yindicate dtha t i na tim e o f downsizing , the y bsv u limite dresource s t o desig nsystems . Th e problem , i nthei r view , i s exacerbaLe d becaua o o f numerou s othe r rcqulatory < requirement s tak e effec t durin g roughl yth e sam e tlm « period
. I n addition , non e o f th e mawufacturer a Hav e devote dmuc heffor t t o thi s poin t t o onboar dsystem s fo r trucks , becaus e th e chie f focu s o f thei r effort e hav e bee nCo r cars . "Mae yprefe r tha t anylead

tim e requiremen t follo wth e phase-i nfo r wars . GH an d vor d a1« o note dtha t the yproduc e mos t o t th e heav y truck s an ds o th e 190 8 M5 f lea dtim e effect s the m disproportionately
. Al l o f th e manufacturer s «ai d tha t i t wa s not clea r tha t a nonboar dsyste mfo r txuek s woul dtoe integrate d wit hevaproratlv o controls , a o tha t extr a engineerin g effor t coul dh e involved
. Th e manufacturer s a" ! n o reiterate dth e concern s the yha dvoice da t th e publi c hearin g abou t onboar d control s o ninconqplet e vehicles
. cc ; Do nZinge r Gler u Pasavan t .aKwwattsKfLEasS? .

—uw^V*» 5 tt

-TPmlY 

# Sstz3tnz & J7 J -IVJLJ.IWSMWH1 . Xv a

(ari l c o Mgu w»«< »



### LVR D0CKE1_

.