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 the Annual Report of COUNTRYSIDE REVIEW INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Lisa Zumpano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 16th day of March, 2004.

| | /s/ Lisa Zumpano
Lisa Zumpano
Chief Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------









---
Exhibit
31


CERTIFICATION


I,
Hideyuki Shiraishi, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Amanasu Technologies
Corporation;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;





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





4. I am
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 annual 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 annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


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





5. I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of 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





6. I have
indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in
internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.





Date:
April 13, 2005





________________


Hideyuki
Shiraishi


President
and


Principal
Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 25, 2016

No. 04-15-00297-CV

Hetul BHAKTA DBA Budget Inn,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND BALLENGER 

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-04-15888-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice 

The panel has considered the appellant’s motion for rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of May, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Figueroa, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 532]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William A. Kelly, J), rendered May 25, 2010, as amended June 28, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to concurrent terms of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its resolution of any alleged inconsistencies in testimony.

There was no violation of defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of the trial. The court spoke to the jury foreperson in the presence of counsel, but in defendant’s absence, about matters concerning the functions of the foreperson. It is evident from the totality of the colloquy that it only *588involved ministerial matters *(see People v Ochoa,*14 NY3d 180, 187-188 [2010]), and there is no indication that the foreperson wanted to raise any substantive concerns.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                    OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    956
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             406
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                             1,342
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        3,111
<PP&E>                                  5,354
<DEPRECIATION>                          3,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     752
<BONDS>                                    75
<COMMON>                                  428
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4,726
<SALES>                                 2,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2,929
<CGS>                                   1,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           2,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             6
<INCOME-TAX>                                2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         4
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                4
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .00
                                  

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 523 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 523

 To provide for enhanced criminal penalties for individuals who file a 
           SEVP certification petition under false pretenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2011

 Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mrs. 
  McCaskill, and Mr. Tester) introduced the following bill; which was 
       read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for enhanced criminal penalties for individuals who file a 
           SEVP certification petition under false pretenses.

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

SECTION 1. VISA FRAUD.

    (a) Criminal Penalty.--Chapter 75 of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1548. Filing of certification petition under false pretenses
    ``Any person who knowingly, and for pecuniary gain, while 
representing himself or herself as a principal, officer, or director of 
an educational institution, files a petition for certification or 
recertification with the Student and Exchange Visitor Program for 
attendance at such institution of nonimmigrant students under 
subparagraph (F)(i) or (M)(i) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) under false pretenses, or 
attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title, 
imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 75 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``1548. Filing of certification petition under false pretenses.''.

SEC. 2. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

    Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United 
States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the 
Federal Sentencing Guidelines and policy statements to reflect the 
penalties applicable to persons convicted of violating section 1548 of 
title 18, United States Code, as added by section 1.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w55






Exhibit
10.55


SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE ESCO TECHNOLOGIES INC.

INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS




     WHEREAS, ESCO Technologies Inc. (“Company”) previously adopted the ESCO Technologies Inc.
Incentive Compensation Plan for Executive Officers (“Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company retained the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section IX thereof; and



     WHEREAS, effective November 12, 2009, the Company desires to amend the Plan solely for the
purpose of clarifying its compliance with the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Code”) relating to the exception for performance based
compensation;



     NOW THEREFORE, effective November 12, 2009, the Plan is amended as follows:



1. Section VIII of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




     VIII. VESTING.




     A participating employee must (subject to specific Committee action to the
contrary as hereinafter set forth in this Section VIII) be an employee of the
Company on the date the award is payable pursuant to Section V hereof. The final
determination as to Awards to be granted and if so, the amount of such Awards, shall
be made by the Committee. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, and in
accordance with this Section VIII, in the event a participating employee who is a
Covered Employee terminates or is terminated by the Company before or after the end
of the Fiscal Year for any reason other than death, disability or Change in Control
(as defined in Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended), such
participating employee shall not be entitled to receive any Award under this Plan
for such Fiscal Year unless the Committee decides otherwise in its sole discretion
to provide a pro rata payment adjusted to reflect the employee’s participation
during the Fiscal Year. In the event (i) a participating employee other than a
Covered Employee, or (ii) a participating employee who is a Covered Employee and who
terminates by reason of death, disability or Change in Control, terminates or is
terminated by the Company before or after the end of the Fiscal Year for any reason,
the Committee shall have the sole discretion as to whether any Award shall be paid.
In either case, the Committee shall have the sole discretion as to the time such
Award shall be paid, but not later than the date described in, and subject to any
deferral election under, Section V. Any payment to a Covered Employee shall be
subject to the provisions of Section IV, and in no event shall a participating
employee who is a Covered Employee and whose employment terminates due to reasons
other than death, disability or a Change in Control receive a pro-rata payment in
the Committee’s sole discretion under this Section VIII unless the applicable
performance objectives have been met.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Amendment was adopted on the 12th day of November, 2009 by
the Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of ESCO Technologies Inc.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Malcolm Carpenter

*William H. Narwold,*in support of the petition.

*RitaM. Shair,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided November 1, 1989

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 19 Conn. App. 48, is denied.
VI 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 663 

For the relief of Al-Housseynou Ba. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2011 

Mr. LEVIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Al-Housseynou Ba. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

5 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

6 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Al-Housseynou Ba shall be eligible 

7 for an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that 

8 of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 

9 upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant 

10 visa under section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or 

11 for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 663 IS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Al-Housseynou Ba 

2 enters the United States before the filing deadline set 

3 forth in subsection (c), Al-Housseynou Ba shall be consid4 ered to have entered and remained lawfully in the United 

5 States and shall be eligible for adjustment to lawful per6 manent resident status under section 245 of the Immigra7 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date 

8 of the enactment of this Act. 

9 (c) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub10 sections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for 

11 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

12 are filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

14 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

15 Upon granting immigrant visas or lawful permanent resi16 dent status to Al-Housseynou Ba, the Secretary of State 

17 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, during 

18 the current or next following fiscal year, the total number 

19 of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 

20 the country of birth of Al-Housseynou Ba under section 

21 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

22 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)). 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT - 32.1

TIENS BIOTECH GROUP (USA), INC.


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

In connection  with the annual  report of Tiens  Biotech Group (USA),  Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period  ending  December  31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  each of
the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted  pursuant to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the
best of their knowledge:

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

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

/s/ LI Jiyuan
-------------------------------------
LI Jiyuan
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
April 27, 2004

/s/ JIAO Wenjun
-------------------------------------
JIAO Wenjun
Chief Financial Officer
April 27, 2004

A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED  BY  SECTION  906,  HAS BEEN  PROVIDED  TO  GENERAL  MOTORS  ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION  AND WILL BE FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  COMMISSION OR
ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2091 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2091

  To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methoxy-2-methyldiphenylamine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methoxy-2-methyldiphenylamine.

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

SECTION 1. 4-METHOXY-2-METHYLDIPHENYLAMINE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.55      4-Methoxy-2-        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         methyldiphenylami                                                  31/2008
                         ne (CAS No. 41317-
                         15-1) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2922.29.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Order filed November 5, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00870

- CV

____________ ZELENI GRISSMORE , Appellant

V. TARGET CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12

- CV

- 1424



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed October 24, 2013. Our review has determined
that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain the motion for new trial filed July 22, 2013

. The Galveston County Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record
on or before November 12 , 2013, containing the motion for new trial filed July 22,
2013

.If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 22, 2013∗

 Decided August 27, 2013

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 12-3073

CARL GALLO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ADRIAN FEINERMAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Southern District of Illinois.

No. 07-cv-32-SCW

Stephen C. Williams, 

Magistrate Judge.

Order

Gallo v. Feinerman, No. 09-3575 (7th Cir. Nov. 3, 2010) (nonprecedential), held that 

Carl Gallo had made out a constitutional claim against Adrian Feinerman, one of his 

prison physicians, by alleging that Feinerman prescribed a drug known to have side 

effects that were, for Gallo, worse than his condition (gastroesophageal reflux disease), 

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

1

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

2
No. 12-3073 Page 2

while withholding a medication that Feinerman knew would treat the disease without 

side effects.

On remand, a jury trial was held and ended in a verdict for Feinerman. Gallo 

presents a single argument on appeal: That the district court should have allowed him 

to question Feinerman about what happened to his medical license after he retired from 

practice. Gallo asserts that the DEA suspended Feinerman’s license “for improperly 

prescribing drugs.”

Though represented by counsel at trial, Gallo did not make an offer of proof and 

therefore has not preserved this issue for appellate review. See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(2). 

The Drug Enforcement Administration does not license people to practice medicine, 

though it does control physicians’ ability to prescribe drugs such as opiates that are on 

federal schedules of controlled substances. For all this record reveals, the DEA 

concluded that Feinerman has prescribed painkillers excessively. Such a conclusion 

would have no bearing on the question whether, in choosing how to treat Gallo’s acid 

reflux disease, Feinerman made appropriate medical judgments. Without an offer of 

proof, neither the district court nor this court could evaluate the evidence’s relevance or 

accurately apply Rules 403 and 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

AFFIRMED