alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Solal Realty Company, Appellant, v Stanley P. Amelkin et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated March 7, 1985, which, after a *762hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), dated May 27, 1986, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to a variance from the requirements of Huntington Code § 198-70 (B), which provides that there shall be only one main building on a lot in commercial districts, is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion *(see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441), and is based on substantial evidence. The petitioner sought the variance in order to construct a free-standing office building on its property, which is presently improved by a mall. However, the petitioner failed to prove either that it would suffer a significant economic injury if the application for the variance was denied, or any practical difficulties which would entitle it to a variance *(see, Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*110 AD2d 135, *affd*67 NY2d 702). We reject the petitioner’s contention that because it could construct an office building similar in size to the proposed free-standing office building as an expansion of the mall (i.e., as part of the same physical structure of the mall) as of right and without violating Huntington Code article IX prohibiting construction covering more than 25% of the area of a plot of land, it was thereby entitled to the area variance in question. Although both the 25% maximum lot coverage requirement and the one main building per lot requirement regulate density, the provisions address different aspects of density, and compliance with one provision does not automatically waive the need to comply with the other provision.

Similarly, the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of the constitutionality of Huntington Code § 198-70 (B) as applied to its property by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the ordinance either destroyed the economic value of its property, or that the ordinance was an invalid exercise of the police power because it was not reasonably related to a legitimate public purpose *(see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492). Niehoff, J. P., Mangano, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6265 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prevent the approval 

of genetically engineered fish. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

prevent the approval of genetically engineered fish. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PREVENTING THE APPROVAL OF GENETICALLY 

4 ENGINEERED FISH. 

5 Section 512(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos6 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)) is amended by adding at 

7 the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of 

9 this section, a genetically engineered fish shall be 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6265 IH

1 deemed unsafe under this section, including for pur2 poses of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii).’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of UNOVA, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended April 3, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, LarryD. Brady, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Larry D. Brady         |     |
|----------------------------|----------|
| Larry D. Brady             |     |
| *Chief  Executive Officer* | * * |
| May 10, 2005               |     |

 

----
##### 



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 on Form 10-K of GoldSpring, Inc. (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Robert T. Faber, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my
best knowledge and belief, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) 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. /s/  robert t. faberRobert T. FaberChief Financial Officer June 17, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS 

MISC. NO. 02-23 

IN RE: RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGE

O R D E R

 Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1), eligible retired Judges of the Court may be recalled 

by the Chief Judge when further service is needed by the Court. Retired Judge William A. 

Moorman, having complied with 38 U.S.C. § 7257, is designated a recall-eligible retired Judge. The 

Chief Judge of the Court has determined that, if recalled, Judge Moorman would provide substantial 

service necessary to meet the needs of the Court. 

 Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

 ORDERED that, effective January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, recall-eligible retired 

Judge Moorman is recalled from retired status in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1). Judge 

Moorman shall have and exercise all the judicial powers and duties of the office of a Judge in active 

service and shall otherwise perform substantial service for the Court as requested by the Chief Judge. 

It is further 

 ORDERED that Judge Moorman shall serve in recalled status in calendar year 2023 to review 

and decide appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court and to perform other substantial service 

at the request of the Chief Judge and he shall so serve throughout the calendar year for up to 90 days 

or its equivalent. With his consent, Judge Moorman's service may be extended beyond 90 days. 

 

DATED: January 3, 2023 BY THE COURT: 

MARGARET BARTLEY 

 Chief Judge
Exhibit 23.02

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-66758, 333-102509,
333-109809, 333-112728, 333-133332, 333-141660, 333-149281, and 333-159211 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement
Nos. 333-140268 and 333-143989 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 16, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of PDF Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San
Jose, California
March 16, 2010

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1


                   WHITE CAP INDUSTRIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
            STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Six Months Ended         Three Months Ended
                                            September 30, 1997        September 30, 1997
                                            ------------------        ------------------
<S>                                         <C>                       <C>
Average common shares outstanding..........    1,044,000                   1,044,000

Common and common equivalent shares
  (including convertible preferred stock)
  issued during the twelve month period
  prior to the initial public offering at
  prices below the assumed public
  offering price (using the treasury stock
  method and the initial public offering
  price) in accordance with Staff
  Accounting Bulletin No. 83...............    5,737,242                   5,737,242

Effect of stockholder distributions........      586,833                     586,833
                                             -----------                  ----------

Shares used in pro forma per share
  calculations.............................    7,368,075                   7,368,075
                                             ===========                  ==========

Pro forma net income.......................   $    1,773                   $   1,157
Preferred stock dividend accretion.........          300                         150
                                             -----------                  ----------

Pro forma net income applicable to common
  stockholders.............................  $     1,473                  $    1,007
                                             ===========                  ==========

Pro forma net income per common and common
  share equivalent.........................      $0.20                        $0.14
                                                 =====                        =====
</TABLE>
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 Huifeng Bio-Pharmaceutical Technology, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jing’an Wang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Company.





Date:
      March 31, 2009/s/
      Jing’an WangJing’an
      Wang, Principal Executive
                  Officer
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Active Power, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John K. Penver, Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 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, to my knowledge:



|(1) | 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.



/s/ John K. PenverJohn K. PenverVice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryMay 15, 2007
Exhibit 32


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), The
undersigned, Kenneth E. Stinson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Michael J. Piechoski, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





 /s/ Kenneth E. Stinson
Kenneth E. Stinson
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2003





 /s/ Michael J. Piechoski
Michael J. Piechoski
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-149203, 333-145074, 333-139555, 333-125490, 333-121584, 333-121583 and 333-107238) of sanofi-aventis, of our reports dated March 5, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

Ernst & Young Audit 

Represented by Gilles Puissochet and Jacques Pierres 

Paris-La Défense, France 

March 5, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 02-2259

BARNEY O. PADGETT, APPELLANT,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY, IVERS, STEINBERG,

GREENE, KASOLD, and HAGEL, Judges.

O R D E R

On July 9, 2004, the Court issued an opinion that vacated the August 8, 2002, Board of

Veterans' Appeals decision, which had denied the appellant's claim for service connection for

osteoarthritis of the right hip, and remanded the matter for readjudication. On July 30, 2004, the

Secretary filed a timely motion for a full-Court decision. On August 6, 2004, the appellant, through

counsel, filed a motion for leave to file out of time a cross-motion for a full-Court decision. On the

same date, the Court received the appellant's cross-motion. On September 8, 2004, the Court granted

the appellant's motion for leave and filed his cross-motion for a full-Court decision.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that both the Secretary's motion and the appellant's cross-motion for a full-Court

decision are granted. It is further

ORDERED that the Court's July 9, 2004, opinion is withdrawn. The matter is referred to the

full Court for disposition.

DATED: September 14, 2004 PER CURIAM.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WENDY LISSETH HERNANDEZENRIQUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72999

Agency No. A098-436-267

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 23, 2014** 

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Wendy Lisseth Hernandez-Enriquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her

FILED

OCT 6 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

In denying Hernandez-Enriquez’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims, the agency found Hernandez-Enriquez failed to establish past persecution

or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and

BIA issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s

decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc),

Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750

F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. &

N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). 

Thus, we remand Hernandez-Enriquez’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537

U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach

Hernandez-Enriquez’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of her asylum

and withholding of removal claims at this time.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

2 10-72999
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 on Form 10-K of Alamosa Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
E. Sharbutt, as Chairman and Chief Executive 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, 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.





/s/ David E. Sharbutt
-------------------------------------------
Name:  David E. Sharbutt
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Date:  March 15, 2004



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### In the Matter of Kathleen Paolo (Admitted as Kathleen Marcel Paolo), an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

February 17, 1987

*2APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert H. Straus*for petitioner.

*Kathleen Paolo,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on March 15,1978, under the name Kathleen Marcel Paolo.

On August 28, 1986, the respondent was convicted after a jury trial in the Supreme Court, New York County, of grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law former § 155.35, a class D felony), and conspiracy in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 105.05, a class A misdemeanor).

Pursuant to Judiciary Law. § 90 (4), upon her conviction of a felony, the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. The respondent is disbarred and it is directed that the respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law forthwith.

Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Bracken, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 8**
**List of Subsidiaries of Metal Storm Limited**     **Name of Subsidiary** **Percentage Owned** **Jurisdiction of Formation**Metal Storm Inc. 100% (a) DelawareMetal Storm U.S.A. Limited 100% (b) DelawareProCam Machine LLC 100% (c) Washington
(a) Metal Storm Limited directly owns 49% of Metal Storm Inc. and officers of Metal Storm Limitedwho are U.S. citizens own the remaining 51% of the company through atrust.
(b) Metal Storm Limited directly owns 100% of Metal Storm U.S.A. Limited. Metal Storm U.S.A.Limited was incorporated in Delaware on March 31, 2004.
(c) Metal Storm Limited sold the ProCam business to Monroe Machine Products, Inc. on June 1,2005.
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 China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Qinan Ji, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Company.





Date: June 14, 2011





/s/ Qinan JiQinan Ji, Principal Executive Officer