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



Exhibit 99.1


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 Annual Report of IPC Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
I, Greg Kenepp, President 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, 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 Company.

| |                                    
| | -----------------------------------
|
| | By: /s/ Greg Kenepp                
| |                                    
| | Greg Kenepp
President
April 4, 2003
|




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to IPC Acquisition Corp. and will be retained by IPC
Acquisition Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### BECKER v. LAITIN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 28, 1898.)

Appeal—Harmless Error.

An appellant is not entitled to have a judgment reversed for error in admitting evidence which was in all respects favorable to the appellant, Who was in no way prejudiced thereby.

Appeal from Fourth district court.

Action by Louis Becker against Boney Laitin and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ.

Emanuel Hertz, for appellant.

Max D. Steuer, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant and respondents, having orally agreed to dissolve their partnership on certain terms, proceeded to give effect to such agreement. The respondents delivered the notes in question to the appellant, and, by an instrument in writing, released the appellant from any claim they might have against him, and .also assumed all of the outstanding co-partnership debts. No reference was made in this instrument to the notes. It did not, in fact, embody the agreement of dissolution, but is to be considered as a paper given in pursuance and in part execution of that agreement. It was not error, therefore, for the trial justice to admit parol evidence showing what the terms of the original agreement of dissolution were.

The objection now raised, that the defense upon which judgment was awarded in favor of the defendants was not properly pleaded, is well founded; but the point was not sufficiently raised below, and the matter seems to have been litigated before the trial justice with the *636assent oí both parties. It is evident that all the evidence which the-appellant could have offered was presented, and the case was submitted to the justice by both parties upon all the proofs. • Under thesecircumstances, it is too late to raise the question on appeal.

It was doubtless error to admit the evidence which was received with-respect to conversations between the witness Shultz and the defendants; but, as the testimony of the witness in that regard was in all respects favorable to the appellant, the latter was in no way prejudiced,, and is not therefore entitled to have the judgment reversed on that ground.

None of the other exceptions presents ground for reversal. The-defense to the note was good, if proven; and, as the trial justice, upon conflicting evidence, has found the facts in favor of the respondents, we should not disturb his judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         53,801
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,039
<ALLOWANCES>                                   278
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,564
<PP&E>                                         286,721
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,431,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          37,363
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     474,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,431,221
<SALES>                                        285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               18,790
<CGS>                                          61
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  42,429
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               16,052
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               150
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             15,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (39,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (39,691)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39,691)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
**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 China
      Agritech, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Li Jun
      Peng, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.




/s/
                Li Jun PengLi
                Jun Peng
              *Chief
                Financial Officer and
                Controller*





March
      27 **,** 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0183 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. LESLIE PAUL JONES ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 9 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 4 2020

11/04/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0183
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

I, Barry J. Susson, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of Deb Shops, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2006 (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.

Date: December 8, 2006

 

|        |   |   | /s/ Barry J. Susson, CPA                                                                    |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |  

 

 

Barry J. Susson, CPAChief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary |
Exhibit 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


I, Stephen  Couture,  Chief  Financial  Officer of XRG,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),
certify that:

         I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB Amendment No.1 of
XRG, Inc.

         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.

         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the periods, presented in the report.

         The Company'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 Company and have:

         (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which the periodic report is being prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the Company's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;
and

         The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Company's auditors and to the audit committee of the board of directors (or
persons fulfilling the equivalent function):


<PAGE>

         (i) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

         (ii) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control
over financial reporting.

Dated:    March 31, 2005


/s/  Stephen Couture
-----------------------------
Stephen Couture,
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 12.1
  STATEMENT
    REGARDING CALCULATION OF RATIO OF CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS TO
    CONSOLIDATED FIXED CHARGES
    (Dollars in thousands)
  Years Ended December 31,2008


2007


2006


2005


2004Pre-tax income, as reported

$
421,870


$
409,869


$
455,277


$
204,063


$
16,233Equity in (losses) earnings of
    investees1


(51,262
)


12,985



87,762



19,026



5,205Pre-tax income before adjustment for equity in earnings of
    equity investees


473,132



396,884



367,515



185,037



11,028Fixed charges:Interest expense


39,838



46,258



41,765



53,078



63,841Rentals representing interest


3,598



3,558



3,808



3,810



2,893Total fixed charges


43,436



49,816



45,573



56,888



66,734Distributed income of equity investees


1,890



5,487



87,670



9,148



7,255Pre-tax income before equity in earnings of investees plus fixed
    charges and distributed income of equity method investees

$
518,458


$
452,187


$
500,758


$
251,073


$
85,017Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


11.9x



9.1x



11.0x



4.4x



1.3x     1
    Equity in (losses) earnings of
    investees is in respect of those investments that are investment
    companies or similar equity method investees and, as such, are
    included as part of investment income on the consolidated
    statements of income.
#### BAYLEY, Appellant, v. CURTIS BROS. LUMBER CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Andrew Bayley against the Curtis Bros. Lumber Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed by default, with costs.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30739 Summary Calendar

JUVENTINO MUNOZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHN M. MAMOULIDES; LAWRENCE ALTERMAN, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-MC-1088

- - - - - - - - - - December 11, 1997 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The district court construed Juventino Munoz’s (Louisiana prisoner # 352797) civil rights complaint as a petition for habeas corpus. The court then dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. Munoz challenges the dismissal, arguing that the state waived the exhaustion requirement.No. 97-30739 -2- Because Munoz filed his complaint in May 1997, the provisions of the AEDPA are applicable. See Green v. Johnson , 116 F.3d 1115, 1120 (5th Cir. 1997). Under the AEDPA, Munoz cannot appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition unless the district court or this court grants him a certificate of appealability (COA). § 2253 (c)(1)(A); Muniz v. Johnson , 114 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir. 1997). Although this court will construe Munoz’s notice of appeal as a request for COA in this court, there was no request for or ruling on a COA in the district court. This case is therefore REMANDED to the district court according to Muniz for the limited purpose of obtaining a ruling on a COA.
REMANDED.
[No. 20469-0-II.

Division Two.

September 12, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jonathan J. Wingard, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 94-1-03230-7, Thomas A. Swayze, Jr., J., entered March 1, 1996. *Remanded*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Hunt, J.
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-31187

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HENRY LEE, SR.,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. CR-89-295-I

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henry Lee, Sr., appeals from the district court's denial of

his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). Lee has not identified a retroactive guideline

amendment that would lower his sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, the district court's denial of Lee's

motion is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
4.4

    

    


    November
24, 2009

    


    Fidus
Mezzanine Capital, L.P.

    190 S.
LaSalle Street

    Suite 2140

    Chicago,
IL 60603

    


     Re: Issuance of
Series C Convertible Preferred Stock

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    Pure
Earth, Inc. (the “Company”)
proposes to issue Series C Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series C
Shares”) to Fidus Mezzanine Capital, L.P. (“FMC”).  The
Series C Shares are convertible into the Company’s common stock at FMC’s option
and, under certain circumstances, at the Company’s option (i.e., a mandatory
conversion).

    


    In order to minimize your state
reporting burdens, we have agreed that the Company will not effect a mandatory
conversion of your Series C Shares to the extent that doing so would result in
your holding greater than 4.9% of our issued and outstanding common stock after
giving effect to any such mandatory conversion.

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                	 
      	
                        Sincerely,

                      
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                        PURE
      EARTH, INC.

                      
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                        By:

                      	
                        /s/ Brent
  Kopenhaver

                      


              

            

          

        

      

    

    


    Acknowledge
and Agreed:

    


    FIDUS
MEZZANINE CAPITAL, L.P.

    


    By:   Fidus
Mezzanine Capital GP, LLC, its General Partner

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                	
                        By:

                      	
                        /s/ Edward H. Ross

                      
	
                        Printed Name:  
      

                      	
                        Edward H. Ross

                      
	
                        Title:

                      	
                        Managing
Partners

                      


              

            

          

        

      

    

    


    One
Neshaminy Interplex, Suite 201 ∙ Trevose, PA 19053 ∙ Phone 215 639 8755 ∙ Fax
215 639 8756

    www.pureearthinc.com
#### HEBREW PUB. CO., Respondent, v. REIBSTEIN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by the Hebrew Publishing Company against Emil Reibstein.

PER CURIAM.

Motion to strike case from calendar and return it to the Trial Term for resettlement and amendment granted, without costs. This motion is granted because of the conflict on a question of fact between the coun*1130sel as to whether or not Exhibit 1 is correctly printed with the alterations complained of. We express no opinion on that question, and leave it to the trial justice to determine.
Order entered June 27, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00695-CV

YURIDIA RAMOS AND MARGARITA GALINDO, Appellants

V.

ALEXANDER MYERS HANSEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 001-02047-2012

ORDER

The Court has before it the clerk’s June 25, 2013 request for an extension of time to file 

the clerk’s record because the appellants have not paid for the record. We GRANT the request 

and ORDER appellants to provide documentation that they have paid for the clerk’s record or 

made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record within ten days of the date of this order. If 

appellants do not do so, this case may be dismissed without further notice.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
# 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 , a nd 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
#### In the Matter of Arthur F. Smith, Petitioner, v Henry G. Williams, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to ECL article 24 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner, dated July 13, 1983, which denied petitioner freshwater wetlands permits, or, if the determination denying the permits is upheld, then for judgment declaring the denial to be a taking without just compensation (ECL 24-0705 [7]).

Determination confirmed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to *Spears v Berle*(48 NY2d 254, 261) and *Matter of Haines v Flacke*(104 AD2d 26, 36) to determine “whether the wetlands regulations, considered together with the denial of the permit[s] would work an unconstitutional taking of petitioner’s property”.

The subject of this proceeding is three parcels. Petitioner’s brief states in pertinent part: “One caveat should be mentioned here, however. It is petitioner’s position that the DEC’s [Department of Environmental Conservation] refusal to grant a permit for Parcel 1 was clearly not supported by substantial evidence in light of the findings that it could be developed. Parcels 2 and 3 are primarily freshwater wetland and it cannot be seriously argued that the DEC lacked any basis to deny permits for them”.

*856We find that the determination under review, as to all the parcels in issue, had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence *(Matter of Haines v Flacke,*104 AD2d 26, *supra),*and therefore should be confirmed. The confiscation issue cannot be decided on the administrative agency record made on the permit application. Accordingly, the proceeding is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for consideration of that issue *(see, Matter of Haines v Flacke, supra).*Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7400

MACHIAVELLI FARRAKHAN SIBERIUS, I , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, INC.; PRESSLEY RIDGE; WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston

. Joseph R. Goodwin , District Judge. ( 2:18

- cv
- 01125 )

Submitted : April 20, 2020 Decided: May 6, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Machiavelli Farrakhan Siberius, I, Appellant Pro Se. Dara A. DeCourcy, Greensburg, Pennsylvania , Joseph W. Selep, ZIMMER KUNZ PLLC, Pittsburg h , Pennsylvania ; Victor Flanagan, Katie LeeAnn Hicklin, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN & POE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURI AM: Machiavelli Farrakhan Siberius, I, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Siberius v . Am

. Pub

. Univ . Sys., Inc. , No. 2:18

- cv
- 01125 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 13, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AF FIRMED