alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Xinyinhai Technology, Ltd. (the “Company”) certify that:




1.           The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







August 16, 2010
/s/ Tian LingTian Ling (Chief Executive Officer)/s/ Du SongDu Song (Chief Financial Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41264 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE SAMUEL IPINA-IPINA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-1015-ALL

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Samuel Ipina-Ipina pleaded guilty to being found in the United States after previous deportation and was sentenced to 57 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Ipina-Ipina argues that the felony and aggravated felony provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. Specifically, he argues that the viability of Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), is in doubt in light of later Supreme Court cases.No. 05-41264 -2- Ipina-Ipina contends that the waiver provision contained in paragraph 2 of his plea agreement does not bar his ability to raise this issue on appeal. The Government states that there was no waiver of appellate rights in the plea agreement. The Government’s position is consistent with this court’s interpretation of this waiver provision. See United States v. Reyes-Celestino , 443 F.3d 451, 452 (5th Cir. 2006). Further, because the Government does not seek to enforce the waiver in this case, it will not be considered. See United States v. Lang , 440 F.3d 212, 213 (5th Cir. 2006). Ipina-Ipina’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres . Although Ipina-Ipina contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Ipina-Ipina properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,062
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,633
<INVENTORY>                                        895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,371
<PP&E>                                          16,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,321
<BONDS>                                         25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,385
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                    (22,991)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,832
<SALES>                                          8,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,035
<CGS>                                            3,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (59)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,746)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,746)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,746)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)
        

</TABLE>
# m8554.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.9.2017 C(2017) 6398 final To the notifying party: Subject : Case M.8554 - CIC / LOGICOR BUSINESS Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 16 August 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertaking China Investment Corporation ("CIC", China) indirectly acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the companies and assets comprising the Logicor business (" Logicor ", UK) by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - for CIC: China's sovereign wealth fund, which was established as vehicle to diversify China's foreign exchange holdings and seek maximum returns for its shareholder within acceptable risk tolerance. Via its wholly owned subsidiary CIC International Co., Ltd. , CIC invests in and manages overseas assets including public market equity and bond investments, hedge funds and real estate investments private equity fund investments, co-investments and minority investments as financial investor. - for Logicor : it owns and operates logistics warehouse assets across the EU. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( c ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
(S igned)
Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 280 , 24.08.2 017 , p. 3 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
Exhibit 2

Filed Under Seal

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 122-2 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 1
J.H., the Mother, and L.S., the Father, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Nos. 4D18-3803 4D19-6 4D19-540

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 23, 2019]

Thomas J. Butler of Thomas Butler, P.A., Miami Beach, for appellant J.H., the Mother.

Gary L. Pickett, West Palm Beach, for appellant L.S, the Father.

Andrew Feigenbaum of Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children and Families.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, Tallahassee, and Gillian N. Leytham of The Leytham Group, Tampa, for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Forst and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








This
certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report of Espre Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the
"Report").





I,
William Hopke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respect,
the financial condition and results of the operations of the
Company.





Date:
      October 8, 2008
              By:
              /s/   William
      HopkeWilliam
      Hopke, Chief Executive
Officer
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SCOTT J. SAGARIA (SBN 217981)

sjsagaria@sagarialaw.com

ELLIOT W. GALE (SBN 263326)

egale@sagarialaw.com

JOE ANGELO (SBN 268542)

jangelo@sagarialaw.com

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

3017 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 100

Roseville, CA 95661

408-279-2288 ph: 408-279-2299 fax

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Tracey McGiveny 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – OAKLAND DIVISION

TRACEY MCGIVNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERIWEST CREDIT UNION; et. al.,

 

 Defendants.

Case No.: 4:17-CV-00346-SBA

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT WITH 

DEFENDANT MERIWEST CREDIT UNION

TO THE COURT, CLERK OF COURT, AND ALL PARTIES:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT plaintiff Traey McGivney and defendant Meriwest 

Credit Union, by and through their respective counsel of record, have reached a settlement in 

principle of the above captioned case and are in the process of documenting said settlement. The 

parties anticipate that this matter will be dismissed within 30 days. 

Sagaria Law, P.C.

Dated: June 28, 2017 /s/ Elliot Gale 

Elliot Gale

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 4:17-cv-00346-SBA Document 36 Filed 06/28/17 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BETTY J. MURPHY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley,

Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-89-280, CA-01-858-1)

Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Betty J. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Betty Jean Murphy appeals from the district court’s order

denying her motion for modification of her term of imprisonment.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Murphy, Nos. CR-89-280; CA01-858-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 2001). 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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 6, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50172 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NORBERTO LOPEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-02-CR-234

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Court-appointed counsel for Norberto Lopez-Lopez (Lopez)
has moved for leave to withdraw from this direct appeal and has
filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 3 86 U.S. 738 (1967). Lopez has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief
and has filed a response but rai ses no potentially non-frivolous
issue therein. Our independent review of the brief and the record2

discloses no non-frivolous issue in this appeal. Accordingly, the
motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from
further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. S ee
5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Sheri Lou DESHANE, R.N., Petitioner, v. State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Respondent.

No. 1D18-4320

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADALBERTO AGUIRRE AYALA, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. No. 13-55966 D.C. No. 5:12-cv-00570-RNB
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Robert N. Block, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted August 18, 2014 ** Before: D.W. Nelson, Leavy, and Thomas, Circuit Judges. Adalberto Aguirre Ayala appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorneys’ fees under the Equa l Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Wereview the district court’s order 

# FILED
SEP 11 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).denying a motion for attorneys’ fees unde r EAJA for an abuse of discretion. Tobeler v. Colvin , 749 F.3d 830, 832 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. A court shall award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party other than the United States “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Tobeler , 749 F.3d at 832. In order to be substantially justified, the government’s position must have a “reasonable basis both in law and fact.” Tobeler , 749 F.3d at 832 (quotations omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the ALJ’s decision, though in error, was substantially justified. The ALJ reasonably relied on the testimony of a vocational expert in finding that Aguirre could perform other jobs existing in the national economy and was therefore not disabled. See Hardisty v. Astrue, 592 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the ALJ’s flawed credibility finding was substantially justified becau se “all of the inferences upon which it rested had substance in the record”). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding that the Commissioner’s litigation position was substantially justified. Before the district court, the Commissioner fairly conceded th at the ALJ erred in finding that Aguirre could perform work as a hand packager a nd assembler of plastic hospital products. 2Even so, the Commissioner’s position was reasonable and substantially justified on the alternate basis that Aguirre could perform the job of mail clerk. The issue of whether a claimant limited to simple, repetitive tasks can perform a job requiring Reasoning Level 3 has not been addresse d by the Ninth Circuit and involves an intercircuit conflict. Compare Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1176 (10th Cir. 2005) (finding apparent conflict between job requiring Reasoning Level 3 and claimant’s limitation to simple and routine work), with Terry v. Astrue , 580 F.3d 471, 478 (7th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (finding no conflict); and Renfrow v. Astrue , 496 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2007) (no conflict). AFFIRMED.

3
Exhibit
32.2


Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2008 (the “Report”) of United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (the “Registrant”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Howard Mah, the Chief Financial Officer of United States Commodity Funds LLC,
General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.




Date:  August
      18, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Howard MahName:
                  Title:
                Howard
      Mah
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
                  United
      States Commodity Funds LLC,
                  General
      Partner of United States 12 Month Oil Fund,
LP
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER OF GENERAL PARTNER OF HILAND PARTNERS, LPPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for three and six months endedJune 30, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Ken Maples, Chief Financial Officer, VicePresident-Finance and Secretary of Hiland Partners GP, LLC, the general partnerof Hiland Partners, LP (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.            The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.            The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 9, 2007 |   | /s/ Ken Maples                                  |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Ken Maples                                      |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President-Finance |
|                 |   | and Secretary                                   |

 

----
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE EXPERIAN INFORMATION

SOLUTIONS CREDIT REPORTING

LITIGATION

 /

No. C 16-05674 WHA

No. C 16-05676 WHA

No. C 16-05679 WHA

No. C 16-05694 WHA

No. C 16-05701 WHA

No. C 16-05704 WHA

No. C 16-06315 WHA

No. C 16-06335 WHA

No. C 16-06363 WHA

No. C 16-06372 WHA

No. C 17-00342 WHA

No. C 17-00343 WHA

No. C 17-00395 WHA

No. C 17-00397 WHA

No. C 17-00506 WHA

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO

ANSWER OR OTHERWISE

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Case 3:17-cv-00343-WHA Document 26 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In ten of the above-captioned cases, a combined motion to dismiss is scheduled for

hearing on March 23. This particular action, Grinder v. Experian, No. 3:17-cv-00343-WHA, is

not a part of that combined motion. Defendants in this action, however, shall have until 28

DAYS after the Court rules on the aforementioned combined motion to answer or otherwise

respond to the complaint. The pending stipulated request to extend the time for defendant

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to respond to the complaint (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED as inconsistent

with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00343-WHA Document 26 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD COTRELLE TIDWELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CARRINGTON REAL ESTATE

SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00437 WHA

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Edward Tidwell has voluntarily dismissed defendants Contra Costa County

(including the District Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office) (Dkt. No. 47) and the

Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa (Dkt. No. 49). Accordingly, those

defendants’ pending motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 40, 45) are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ REQUEST TO CONTINUE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ 

REQUEST TO CONTINUE FURTHER

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 223

The Court DENIES the parties’ request to continue the further case management 

conference to May 16, 2018. The Court is unable to accommodate the proposed date due to a 

scheduling conflict with the trial in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 11-CV01846-LHK. The Court may continue the May 9, 2018 further case management conference after 

receiving the parties’ joint case management statement on May 2, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 225 Filed 04/27/18 Page 1 of 1
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 29 

Electing Sonceria Ann Berry as Secretary of the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Electing Sonceria Ann Berry as Secretary of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That Sonceria Ann Berry of Maryland be, 

2 and she is hereby, elected Secretary of the Senate, effec3 tive March 1, 2021. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Richard JENNINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1699

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 20, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.