alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bohai Pharmaceuticals Group, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2011, I, Hongwei Qu, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bohai Pharmaceuticals Group, Inc.





Dated: September 28, 2011





/s/ Hongwei QuHongwei QuChief Executive Officer and Chairman
Christopher Jay MCCOLLUM, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.

WD 81360

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: January 15, 2019

Jeffrey S. Eastman, Gladstone, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, and Morgan L. Brewington, Special Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Alok Ahuja, Presiding Judge, and Thomas H. Newton and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Christopher Jay McCollum appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, upholding the Director of Revenue's suspension of McCollum's driver's license under section 302.505.1 after his arrest for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Because a published opinion would have no precedential *748value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 May 2005

(2005/C 133/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
|   | (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, our financial condition and results of operations. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                  |                                              |                                              |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                  | SCAFFOLD PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.(REGISTRANT) |
|                  |                                              |                                              |
| Date: October 7, 2010 | By:                                               | /s/ Porfirio SimõesPorfirio Simões |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer                           |
Jason E. BROWNLEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106469

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: April 16, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Kevin B. Gau, Assistant Public Defender, 1010 Market St., Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, Dora A. Fichter, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Jason E. Brownlee appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
[No. 51796-1-I.

Division One.

April 19, 2004.]

#### Daryl Leroy Dahlquist, *Appellant,*v. The City of Kent, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-2-16879-8, Michael Heavey, J., entered January 10, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
[No. 51875-5-I.

Division One.

May 24, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. K.J.R., *Appellant.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-8-01877-9, Norma Smith Huggins, J., entered February 14 and March 5, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Appelwick, J., concurred in by Ellington, A.C.J., and Baker, J.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. QF09-261-000]

Take notice that on March 11, 2009, Lafarge Midwest, Inc., of 1435 Ford Avenue, Alpena, MI 49707 filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a notice of self-certification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility, pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(a) of the Commission's regulations.

The facility produces cement as its primary activity. Waste heat from this process is used to create steam, which serves as the primary energy source for the production of electricity. Five turbines are driven by the steam; each turbine is linked to a generator. The combined nameplate capacity of the cogeneration facility is 48.75 MW.

Excess power results from the aforesaid cogeneration process will be sold to Alpena Power Company, which is interconnected with the Qualifying Facility.

A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification provides notice that the entity making the filing has determined the Facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-6284 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE
NO. 12-10-00002-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JESUS RENTERIA,

APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation, and the trial court assessed 

punishment at imprisonment for twelve years. We have received the trial court’s 

certification showing that Appellant waived his right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(d). The certification is signed by Appellant and his counsel. Accordingly, the 

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered February 26, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of TNP Strategic Retail Trust, Inc.;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 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:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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):
    /s/
Wendy J. WorcesterWendy J. WorcesterChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# !WACKER 

# I

W<Jcker F ln<J I P r od u ct: S.i l

ia

me ru bber 

### c ompoou nd i n an

u nc ure d s tate, F>IUll i d e d to


### cu s

tom ers for 

### mol ' di n e a nd curlng l nt:o fi n i shed artic l es at

t h ei r produc tion f ad llt les**~X)()(** 

### XI CONFiiDENT I AL

Remova l of**empt~** 

### contai n ers lo r re cycli n g or lncl n ern tl o n**egl** P r es s , mold i ng,**cro ss-l** **n~ing**

and**in~** i n t o ..,lid



### ,.**el ~t:o** **c** 

### silicone rubber 

### I----E1 2 ----IIol**~rtldes ~X)()(**  

### XI CONF! I OENT I AL



### E q uipme nt clea n i n g operations, 

### s oiYe n t oc d ea n in.g agents s ent 

### fo :r tee'/( I i ng or I nCi n e r at i on**eal** F in a l Product ' l l n<:lustria l e nd -use a l!tid es , 

### l----u", 4 ----+l.. 

### cable d addine

. insu lators

. 

### etc.

Key :**~X)(J(XI** OONF! I OENT I A L



### ()amount of 

### new substance
meg**nt~g igible**  

### amount

Not e : 

### During prod uct rure th e n<!'W' 

### subst:ance wl l l become:an i n ext rl"' b le part o f 

### t h e**~** 

### n is h e d elastcmenc a rtic l e:s

.**CON~ DEN** **TI AL**
First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employees' Retirement Program Part I



 Exhibit 10.6.a 
 FIRST AMENDMENT OF 
 FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT PROGRAM  
 PART I SALARIED AND NONUNION HOURLY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT PLAN

 WHEREAS, FMC Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the FMC Technologies, Inc. Employees’
Retirement Program Part I Salaried and Nonunion Hourly Employees’ Retirement Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2002 (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company now deems it necessary and desirable to amend the Plan in certain respects to comply with the terms of the IRS favorable determination letter issued on November 6, 2009;
and 
 WHEREAS, this First Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are
inconsistent with the provisions of the amendment; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the powers reserved to
the Company under Section 11.1 Plan Amendment or Termination of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended in the following respects.: 
 1. Effective January 1, 2002, Section 3.5.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to add a new subsection (vii) which shall read as follows: 
  

	 	(vii)	For purposes of this Section 3.5.1, the term “compensation” means compensation as defined in Code Section 415(c)(3) and the term “monthly
compensation” means compensation divided by 12. 

 2. Effective January 1, 2002, the term “Present
Value” set forth in Section 13.1 is hereby amended to replace the phrase “separation from service” with the phrase “severance from employment.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by a duly authorized representative this 2nd day of
February, 2010. 
  

			
	FMC Technologies, Inc.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Maryann T. Seaman
	Its:	 	Vice President, Administration
Ronald S. COLEMAN, Sr., Appellant, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

No. ED 106718

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: February 19, 2019

Charles R. Wooten, Jonathan W. Doss (Co-Counsel), 10438 Highway 21, P.O. Box 888, Hillsboro, MO. 63050, for appellant.

Tyler C. Thompson, 800 Northwest Plaza Drive, St. Ann, MO. 63074, for respondent.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Ronald S. Coleman ("Coleman") appeals from the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of American Family Mutual Insurance Company ("American Family") on Coleman's action seeking underinsured motorist coverage pursuant to the automobile insurance policy issued to him by American Family. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2018).
520 W.Lake Mary Blvd,Suite 100,Sanford, FL 32773 Office:(407)732-7710 Fax: (610)728-7184

August 25, 2015

Department ofTransportation Docket Management System West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington,DC 20590-001 Re: Amendment to Exemption No. 11779 Docket FAA-2015-0911 Dear Sir or Madam: We petition to add two (2) Inspire 1 UAVs,as well as the Century Neo 660 to the exemption issued to RKC Media Solutions, Inc. (Exemption No. 11779; Docket ID: FAA-2015-0911)(the "Exemption"). The associated (required) manuals for the three UAVs are enclosed. The other terms and conditions ofthe Exemption remain the same. There have not been (nor will there be)any changes in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original Exemption. Sincerely,

Randy C. Zachary,President RKC Media Solutions, LLC 520 W Lake Mary Blvd., Suite 100 Sanford, FL 32773 Enclosures

01290961 8/25/2015

### Regulations.gov - Your Receipt Page 1 of2



# Your comment was submitted successfully!

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)Other: Instructions on Filing a Submission to FAA for applications/petitions/exemptions and anv other items for which a Docket does not exist. For related information, Open Docket Folder 10 

### (2) Your Receipt

Your Comment Tracking Number: ljz-8kr9-jav4 Your commentmay be viewable on Regulations.gov once the agency has reviewed it. Thisprocess is dependent on agencypublic submission policies/procedures andprocessing times. Use your tracking number to find outthe status ofyour comment. 

### of Your email receipt was sent successfully
Your comment: Comment: Randy C. Zachary, President RKC Media Solutions, LLC 520 W. Lake Mary Boulevard, Suite 100 Sanford, FL 32773 (407) 732-7710 rzachary@RKCSolutions.com Submitter's Legal Representative Anna H. Long, Esq. Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A. 800 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, FL 32803 (407)841-1200, Ext. 6120 along@deanmead.com Uploaded File(s) (Optional http://www.regulations.gov/ 8/25/2015

### Regulations.gov - Your Rec&- nt Page 2 of2

• 01291601.PDF:success • 01291595,PDF: success • 01291596.PDF:success
This information will appear on Regulations.gov: First Name: Randy Last Name: Zachary Organization Name: Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, PA This information will not appear on Regulations.gov: 

### Submitter's All information will be displayed Representative: on Regulations.gov Anna H. Long, Esq.

http://www.regulations.gov/ 8/25/2015
Steven J. MAPLES, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. SD 35622

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Filed: February 13, 2019

Attorney for Appellant - Gwenda Renee Robinson of St. Louis, MO.

Attorneys for Respondent - Eric S. Schmitt (Attorney General), Mary H. Moore of Jefferson City, MO.

Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, J.

Steven J. Maples ("Movant") pled guilty to the class C felony of domestic assault in the second degree, a violation of section 565.073.1 He was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment in the Department of Corrections. He filed an amended motion pursuant to Rule 24.035, asking the court to vacate his plea and sentence. He claims that his trial counsel promised that he would receive 120-days shock treatment or long-term treatment and the possibility of his release on probation, and that he would not have pled guilty had he not been told by his attorney that he could receive 120-day shock for his plea.

Movant's claim was rebutted by his trial attorney, who testified that the night before Movant's plea, he talked about whether Movant would accept the State's seven-year plea offer. During that conversation, he told Movant, "[I]t's the arraignment, we have plenty of time, we can try to get something better worked out[,]" and Movant responded, "[N]o, I want to take it tomorrow." Movant was specifically asked if he was positive he wanted to enter the plea. Trial counsel further stated that Movant was unusually cordial about taking seven years and that they did the math together on when he would be eligible for parole. Movant had no further questions, shook his attorney's hand, and thanked him for his hard work.

Trial counsel testified that Movant only received one plea offer for seven years because the victim was adamant that Movant not receive probation for her serious injury. Further, the prosecutor opposed anything less than seven years on a "C" felony in part because Movant made the statement to the police officer that the only reason Movant stopped hitting Victim with the chair was because the chair broke.

The motion court found Movant's claim to be not credible and the plea counsel and prosecutor to be credible.2 Those findings doom Movant's appeal. We defer to the motion court's superior opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. ***Barton v. State*** , 432 S.W.3d 741, 760 (Mo. banc 2014). The point is denied.

The judgment is affirmed.

Don E. Burrell, P.J. - Concurs

Gary W. Lynch, J. - Concurs

1

All references to statutes are to RSMo 2016, and all rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2018), unless otherwise specified. We note that section 565.073 was amended effective January 2017; however, Movant's offense was committed in 2015.

2

The court also noted that the original charge was an "A" felony.
NUMBER 13-12-00030-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ALAMEX, NV

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Alamex, NV, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for 

emergency stay in the above cause on January 19, 2012. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of 

mandamus and the motion for emergency stay, is of the opinion that relator has not 

shown itself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

 

1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but 

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

mandamus and motion for emergency stay are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 20th

day of January, 2012.
EXHIBIT 31-2

Certification pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael C. Markwell, Principal Financial Officer of Karma Media, Inc., certify that:

1.

This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant;

2.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Karma Media, Inc.;

3.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report ("Evaluation Date"); and

c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

6.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors [or persons performing the equivalent function]:

a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

7.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:

May
16, 2005

By:

/s/Gerard Keenan

Gerard
Keenan, Principal Financial Officer