alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Circuit Judge of the 8th Circuit, sitting by designation.

2 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

____________

No. 96-11411

____________

ALINDA FRANCINE CARTER-THOMAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; EL

CENTRO COLLEGE; JANET CHARLOTTE JAMES;

BROOKHAVEN COLLEGE,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV-0546-D)

October 8, 1997

Before JOHN R. GIBSON1, JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:2

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6. All pending motions

DENIED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert TAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-4109.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 19, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 5, 2011.

Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, SC, for Appellant. William Nettles, United States Attorney, M. Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, SC, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Tam pleaded guilty to embezzlement, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 657 (West Supp.2011). The *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(2009) called for a sentencing range of thirty-three to forty-one months, and Tam received a thirty-month sentence. Tam now appeals, claiming that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it failed to *68provide an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. *Gall v. United, States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). A sentence is procedurally reasonable where the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. *Id.*at 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586. The district court is not required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” *United States v. Johnson,*445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.2006). However, the district court “must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’ ” *United States v. Carter,*564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.2009) (quoting *Gall,*552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586) (internal footnote omitted).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court provided an adequate individualized assessment, taking into account counsel’s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing Tam’s thirty-month sentence. *See United States v. Lynn,*592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir.2010) (providing standard of review for properly preserved procedural sentencing error); *see also Gall,*552 U.S. at 46, 128 S.Ct. 586.

We accordingly affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.*
Exhibit 32.1





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 Amanasu Techno Holdings
Corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Atsushi Maki, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to and
solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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, 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: October 4,
2019


By:/s/ Atsushi
Maki


Atsushi Maki


Chief
Executive Officer
#### Gil Zinger, Appellant, v Service Center of New York, Inc., Doing Business as Bubu Carpet, et al., Respondents.

[941 NYS2d 496]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered August 5, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, in this action seeking recovery for services rendered, denied plaintiffs motion to compel production of responses to certain interrogatories and document requests, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of compelling disclosure of document requests numbered 1 and 2 and interrogatories numbered 1 and 2, limited to the period of September 30, 2003 to March 21, 2006, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff’s requests for vehicular insurance policies and governmental filings were irrelevant to his alter-ego claim against the individually named defendant. However, the requests concerning the corporate defendant’s bank accounts and credit cards seek documents and information of the type *483that would yield evidence of misuse of the corporate form *(see e.g. Horizon Inc. v Wolkowicki,*55 AD3d 337 [2008]). Accordingly, we find that such records and information, to the extent limited to the period of plaintiffs employment plus one year, are “material and necessary” for the prosecution of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.
exhibit-4_15.htm




 



 



Page - 1







 





 



 



Page - 2







 





 



 



Page - 3







 





 



 



Page - 4







 





 



 



Page - 5







 





 



 



Page - 6







 





 



 



Page - 7







 



 



 



 



Page - 8
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Howard Root, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |                                        
| | ---------------------------------------
|
|
| |                                        
| | Howard Root                            
| | Chief Executive OfficerOctober 25, 2005

---
# C_2019238EN.01000901.xml

| 15.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 April 2019 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Exter BV

(Case C-330/19)

(2019/C 238/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party: Exter BV

Question referred

Does Article 121(1) of the Community Customs Code (1) mean that a preferential tariff measure for the application of which the import goods were eligible at the time of their placement under the inward processing procedure using the suspension system may also be taken into account when determining the amount of the customs debt incurred when the goods were released for free circulation, whether or not in the unaltered state, if that tariff measure was suspended on the date of acceptance of the declaration for release for free circulation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1).

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 10, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 10, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0411. S.D.E. INC. v. TIMOTHY C. FINLEY, JR..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 14SCA3420
# C_2019280EN.01002401.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 May 2019 — ‘Unipack’ AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia ‘Dunavska’ of the Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-391/19)

(2019/C 280/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law:‘Unipack’ AD

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia ‘Dunavska’ of the Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria

Question referred

Does it constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 172(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (1) of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code, which would provide a basis for the granting of authorisation with retroactive effect pursuant to Article 211(2) of the Union Customs Code for the use of the end-use customs procedure pursuant to Article 254 of the Union Customs Code in relation to an import of products that took place before the date of acceptance of the application for authorisation and after the expiry of the validity of a BTI decision in favour of the holder of the procedure for those products due to an amendment to the Combined Nomenclature, if, in the period (of approximately 10 months) between the expiry of the validity of the BTI decision and the import for which the use of the end-use procedure was requested, several (nine) imports of products were made without the customs authorities having corrected the declared Combined Nomenclature code, and the goods were used for a purpose exempted from the anti-dumping duty?

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------




                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                   ------------------------------------------

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Betsy Henley-Cohn and John S.
Tomac, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer, respectively, of
BIW Limited (the "issuer"), do each hereby certify that the report on Form 10-K
accompanying this certification (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 that information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the issuer.




/s/ Betsy Henley-Cohn
---------------------------
Betsy Henley-Cohn
Chairwoman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
(chief executive officer)
BIW Limited

March 25, 2004




/s/ John S. Tomac
---------------------------
John S. Tomac
President and Treasurer
(chief financial officer)
BIW Limited

March 25, 2004
# C_2019328EN.01002502.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 July 2019 — NM, acting as insolvency administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH v ON

(Case C-530/19)

(2019/C 328/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant, respondent and appellant on a point of law: NM, acting as insolvency administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH

Applicant, appellant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: ON

Questions referred

| 1. | Is an air carrier which, under Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (the Flight Passenger Rights Regulation), (1) is required to offer assistance under Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation liable on the basis of that regulation for damage resulting from an injury incurred by the passenger as a result of the negligent conduct of employees of the hotel provided by the air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is an air carrier which, under Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (the Flight Passenger Rights Regulation), (1) is required to offer assistance under Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation liable on the basis of that regulation for damage resulting from an injury incurred by the passenger as a result of the negligent conduct of employees of the hotel provided by the air carrier?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative: | Is the air carrier’s obligation under Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 limited to providing the passenger with a hotel and covering the costs of the accommodation, or is the air carrier liable for the accommodation as such? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Is the air carrier’s obligation under Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 limited to providing the passenger with a hotel and covering the costs of the accommodation, or is the air carrier liable for the accommodation as such?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


                   Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Yonglin Du, President and Chief Executive Officer of Dahua Inc. (the
"Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the
year ended December 31, 2005 of the Company, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

     (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.



By: /s/ Yonglin Du
 ---------------------------
Yonglin Du, President & CEO

September 15, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Lee ROGERS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7693.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

*154Ernest Lee Rogers, Jr., Appellant pro se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

UNPUBLISHED

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Lee Rogers, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying motions he filed on September 28, 2010, in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) proceedings seeking to dismiss the indictment, or inspect the list of grand juror names and to dismiss for selective prosecution or, in the alternative, convene a federal grand jury and disclose grand jury transcripts. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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.*
#### James E. PIETRANGELO, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMI-BURLINGTON, INC., c/o John/Jon Eggleston, doing business as Anchorage Inn, William Winter, Anchorage Inn Night Clerk, City of South Burlington, Vermont, and Police Officers Ronald Piper, Shawn Demore, and Todd LeBlanc, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-1395-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2008.

James E. Pietrangelo, II, pro se, South Burlington, VT, for Appellant.

Samuel Hoar, Jr., Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, VT, for Appellees AMI-Burlington and Winter.

Joseph A. Farnham, McNeil, Leddy *&*Sheahan, P.C., Burlington, VT, for Appellees City of South Burlington and Officers Piper, Demore, and LeBlanc.

PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, Hon. JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, Hon. b.d. parker, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Plaintiff-Appellant James E. Pietrangelo, II, appeals from the April 2, 2007 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Niedermeier, *M.J.)*granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees, AMI-Burlington, Inc., doing business as the Anchorage Inn, William Winter, the Anchorage Inn night clerk, the City of South Burlington, Vermont, Police Officers Ronald Piper, Shawn Demore, and Todd LeBlanc (collectively “Defendants”), and dismissing Plaintiffs complaint (and various associated motions). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

We review the district court’s summary judgment decision *de novo. Roe v. City of Waterbury,*542 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir.2008).

In a thirty-three count complaint, Pietrangelo alleges a host of claims — constitutional and otherwise — arising from an incident regarding refrigerator trucks and the night desk clerk at the Anchorage Inn in South Burlington, Vermont. After conducting our own review of the record and the law, we conclude that viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, no reasonable jury could find for Plaintiff. Accordingly, we affirm the district court on the merits for substantially the same reasons laid out in Judge Niedermeier’s comprehensive opinion of March 30, 2007.

*489For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of Periodic Report   Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the undersigneds knowledge:  (1)
     the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
   Dated:August 6, 2010 /s/ Mary T. MinchName:
     Mary T. MinchTitle:
     Executive Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
   THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.


---
**CERTIFICATE
      OF AMENDMENT**


**OF**


**CERTIFICATE
      OF INCORPORATION**


**OF**


**SOLDNET
      INC**





Pursuant
      to Section 242 of the General Corporation


Law
      of
      the State of Delaware





The **** undersigned,
      pursuant to the provisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of
      Delaware, do hereby certify and set forth as follows:





FIRST:  The
      name
      of the corporation is Soldnet Inc.,





SECOND:
            
            The
                amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation to be effected hereby
                is as
                follows:





Article
      First of the Certificate of Incorporation, relating to the Name of the
      corporation is amended to read as follows:





“FIRST:
      The name of the **** corporation
      is Artfest International, Inc.





THIRD:   The
      amendment effected herein was authorized by **** the
      affirmative vote **** of
      the


holders
      of a majority of ****** the
      outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon at a **** meeting
      of **** shareholders
      pursuant **** to
      Section 242 of **** the
      General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





FOURTH:  The
      capital of **** the
      corporation will **** not
      be
      reduced under or by reason of this amendment.








**IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,** that **** I
      have
      hereunto set my ** hand
      and
      seal this 22 nd day of
      December A.D., 2002.





**Artfest
              International, Inc.**Dated:
              December 23 , 2005
            By:
            /s/ Joseph
              Walsh,Joseph
              Walsh,Chief
                Executive Officer