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**

 

I, Michael J. Sophie, do herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

 

•                  the QuarterlyReport of UTStarcom Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

•                  that the informationcontained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of UTStarcom, Inc.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Michael  J. Sophie   |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Michael J.  Sophie       |
|   | Title: | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to UTStarcom, Inc.and will be retained by UTStarcom, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

 

I, Michael T. Kennedy, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Radnor Holdings Corporation; 

 

2.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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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, theperiods presented in this report. 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer 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: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure 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 report based on such evaluation; and 

 

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

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7818

HAZEL STOUDEMIRE, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. A. J. PADULA, Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03272-HFF)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 29, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hazel Stoudemire, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Hazel Stoudemire seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Stoudemire has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Stoudemire’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002**

 

This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a part of theQuarterly Report of UTStarcom, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”).

 

In connection with the Report, we, Hong Liang Lu and Michael J. Sophie,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  May 7, 2004

 
| By:    | /s/ Hong Liang Lu                                                   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Hong Liang Lu                                                 |
|   | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer                        |
|   |                                                                |
| By:    | /s/ Michael J. Sophie                                               |   |
|   | Name: Michael J. Sophie                                             |
|   | Title: Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, D. James (Jim) MacKenzie, the Chief Executive Officer of Nordic Nickel Ltd., and John W. Jardine, the Chief Financial Officer of Nordic Nickel Ltd., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (Amendment No. 1) of Nordic Nickel Ltd., for the year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (Amendment No. 1) fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Nordic Nickel Ltd.

Date:     July 27, 2007.

|/s/ D. James (Jim) MacKenzie                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|D. James (Jim) MacKenzie 
President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director
|/s/ John W. Jardine                                                                                     
|John W. Jardine
Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Nordic Nickel Ltd. and will be retained by Nordic Nickel Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________
# C_2019288EN.01003501.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket v Combinova AB

(Case C-476/19)

(2019/C 288/42)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Göteborg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket

Defendant: Combinova AB

Question referred

A customs debt on importation or exportation incurred under Article 79 is to be extinguished in accordance with Article 124(1)(k) (1) if there is sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that the goods have not been used or consumed and have been removed from the customs territory of the Union. Does the term ‘used’ mean that goods have been processed or refined for the purpose for which authorisation was granted to a company for those goods, or does the term concern a use which goes beyond that processing or refining? Is it relevant whether the use takes place before or after the customs debt arose?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

---
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 2778 LT Case No s
. 2022

- CF

- 2006

2023

- CF

- 278

_____________________________ D OUGLAS A SHLEY L OFTON , Appellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for St

. Johns County. R. Lee Smith , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Def ender, and Betty Wy att, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley M oody, Attorney Gen eral, Talla hassee, and Bo nnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General , Daytona Beach , for Appellee. March 19, 202 4

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

. M AKAR , E ISNAUGLE , and P RATT , JJ., concur
.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 572 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 572

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the prohibition on 
 collective bargaining with respect to matters and questions regarding 
 compensation of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs other 
            than rates of basic pay, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2011

  Mr. Brown of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
   Franken, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Begich) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the prohibition on 
 collective bargaining with respect to matters and questions regarding 
 compensation of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs other 
            than rates of basic pay, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH RESPECT 
              TO COMPENSATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN RATES OF BASIC PAY.

    Subsections (b) and (d) of section 7422 of title 38, United States 
Code, are amended by striking ``compensation'' both places it appears 
and inserting ``rates of basic pay''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report), I, David W. Hitchcock,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my 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 Companies.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                           
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 14, 2008 |  | /s/    DAVID W. HITCHCOCK                 
|                      |  | David W. Hitchcock Chief Financial Officer

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
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 Dahua Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer
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:

  (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/ Hua Meng
-----------------------
Hua Meng
Chief Financial Officer

August 9, 2005



A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of - )

)

Kamaludin Slyman CSC ) ASBCA Nos. 62007, 62008

)

Under Contract No. H92237-12-C-0131 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Bryant S. Banes, Esq. 

Sean D. Forbes, Esq.

 Neel, Hooper & Banes, P.C.

 Houston, TX

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

 Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Christopher M. Judge-Hilborn, Esq.

Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PROUTY

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter judgment 

in favor of appellant.

It is the Board’s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties’ stipulation and agreement, that the appeals are sustained. In the nature of a consent 

judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $70,000.

Appellant has agreed to waive Contract Disputes Act interest.

Dated: June 8, 2021

J. REID PROUTY

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

(Signatures continued)
2

I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62007, 62008, Appeals of 

Kamaludin Slyman CSC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 14, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS 

REO, LLC

v.

MARIANNE MEHALSHICK AND 

MICHAEL A. MEHALSHICK

PETITION OF: MARIANNE MEHALSHICK

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 618 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20785

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO DELGADO CRUZ, also known as Mario Delgado, also known as Mario 

Cruz Delgado, also known as Daniel Delgado, also known as Mario CruzDelgado,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-168-1

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Delgado Cruz appealed following his guilty plea conviction and 

sentence for illegal reentry. He asserted that that the district court reversibly 

erred by convicting, sentencing, and entering judgment against him under 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based upon its determination that his prior Texas 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 2, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20785 Document: 00514665992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2018
No. 16-20785

2

conviction for burglary of a habitation qualified as a crime of violence under 

18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and, therefore, an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(43)(F). This court affirmed in United States v. Cruz, 692 F. App’x 

187, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, 

and remanded for further consideration in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. 

Ct. 1204 (2018). In Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. at 1210, 1223, the Supreme Court 

invalidated the § 16(b) crime of violence definition as unconstitutionally vague.

At our request, Cruz and the Government submitted supplemental letter 

briefs addressing the impact of Dimaya. They agree that in light of Dimaya’s 

invalidation of § 16(b), Cruz’s prior Texas conviction for burglary of a 

habitation does not constitute an aggravated felony for purposes of 

§ 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Godoy, 890 F.3d 531, 536-42 (5th Cir. 2018). 

As a result, the judgment erroneously reflects that Cruz was sentenced as an 

aggravated felon under §1326(b)(2). See id. at 542. 

Accordingly, we REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of 

correcting the judgment to reflect that the statutory sentencing provision is 

§ 1326(b)(1), not § 1326(b)(2), and for deletion of the incorrect description of the 

offense as “[i]llegal re-entry by a previously deported alien after an aggravated 

felony conviction.” In all other respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-20785 Document: 00514665992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2018
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU): Geneva, NY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Diversity Collections
                        Apple
                                    Brassica
                                    Buckwheat
                                    Celery
                                    Grape
                                    Hemp
                                    Onion
                                    Radish
                                    Squash
                                    Tart Cherry
                                    Tomato
                                    Other Seed CropsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Geneva, New York Plant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU) Docs About PGRU Clonal Propagated Crops







How to bud?headline bar 1 - Clonal Propagated Crops
               2 - Cryopreservation Process
                  3 - How to bud?  /ARSUserFiles/80600500/images/ImagesOtherlocations/Budding.PNG   Bud Cutting Tool << Previous

                        1
                        2
                        [3]


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov