alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Mark A. Payne, President and Chief Financial Officer of Redline
Performance Products, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

                  (1)      the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
                           fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
                           Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
                           fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                           or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  June 27, 2003                       /s/ Mark A Payne
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                           Mark A. Payne
                                           President and Chief Financial Officer


         The foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-KSB or as separate disclosure documents. A signed original of this written
statement has been provided to Redline Performance Products, Inc. and will be
retained by Redline Performance Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT TYRONE COLBERT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-147)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 2, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Tyrone Colbert, Appellant Pro Se. John Granville Douglass,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Colbert, No. CR-92-147

(E.D. Va. Dec. 14, 1995). 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
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0607

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT LARRY WOOD,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuan t to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Luke Berger , District Judge . For the Court,

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

April 6 2022

04/06/2022
Case Number: DA 20-0607
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 03-14

IN RE: FEE SCHEDULE

O R D E R

ItisORDERED,pursuanttoRule45(f)oftheCourt’sRulesofPractice andProcedure,thatthe following

revised schedule of fees approved by the Court is announced. 

For filing Notice of Appeal or Petition for Extraordinary Relief in this Court, but

not when the Court orders case redocketing for its administrative convenience. $50.00

For filing Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(fee set by that Court, payable to this Court). $500.00#

For reproducing a paper copy from case documents or from microfiche, per copy page. $.50

For reproducing audio recording, including cost of materials. $15.00

For retrieval of a Court record from a Federal Records Center or National Archives. $35.00#

For certifying a document or paper, whether certification is made directly on the

document or by separate instrument. $5.00

For application for admission to practice before the Court. $100.00

For a certificate of admission to practice, suitable for framing. $25.00

For a certificate of good standing. $5.00

ALL FEES MUST BE PAID BY CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. CASH IS NOT ACCEPTED.

 DATED: May 27, 2014 FOR THE COURT:

/s/Gregory O. Block

 GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court

# Change effected by this Order.
(9 Misc. Rep. 223.)

#### MAHON v. BURNS.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

June 20, 1894.)

Master and Servant—Liability for Acts of Contractor.

The owner of a tenement house who contracted with a third person to-tile a floor of the hall way is not liable for injuries to a person passing through the hall way, caused by the negligence of the contractor.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Josephine Mahon against Patrick Burns for personal injuries. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, peals.

Affirmed.

Argued before FITZSIMOHS and COHLAH, JJ.

L. W. Bedington, for appellant.

Joseph Steinert, for respondent.

FITZSIMONS, J.

The defendant, the owner of a tenement house, contracted with one Huse to tile the ground floor of his said house. While the work was being done, the plaintiff was injured by striking her leg against a beam which was used,' in connection with other planking, to protect the newly-laid tile. She brings the action for the injuries sustained by her. The trial justice dismissed her complaint The tiling of the hallway by defendant was a lawful transaction. He had a right to give the work to another as contractor, and was not liable for the negligence of the contractor or his agents. The plaintiff had knowledge of the fact that a con*683tractor, and not defendant, was actually doing the work in question.. Her cause of action is against the contractor, and not the defendant. The complaint was therefore properly dismissed. See Maltbie v. Bolting, 6 Misc. Rep. 339, 26 N. Y. Supp. 903. Judgment is affirmed,, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6185 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6185

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 122 North Holderrieth Boulevard in Tomball, Texas, as the ``Tomball 
                        Veterans Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2010

  Mr. McCaul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 122 North Holderrieth Boulevard in Tomball, Texas, as the ``Tomball 
                        Veterans Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. TOMBALL VETERANS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 122 North Holderrieth Boulevard in Tomball, Texas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Tomball Veterans Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tomball 
Veterans Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Dorothy Ham, Respondent, v Rumsey Sheet Metal, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

— Kane, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 25, 1985, which awarded death benefits to claimant.

In September 1980, claimant’s decedent injured his right great toe while at work when he dropped a 150-pound piece of sheet iron on it. His foreman was aware of the incident and his employer was informed of the incident within the next two days. However, he did not seek medical attention until September 17, 1981 when he consulted a dermatologist, Dr. William E. Clack, for a persisting infection at the point of his *811injury. The initial diagnosis was fungus infection and the toe was treated accordingly until December, when it became apparent that a much more serious condition existed. A biopsy established the existence of a melanoma. The lymph nodes in the groin were swollen and although the toe was amputated, the carcinoma had metastasized and decedent died on May 26, 1982. The death certificate listed death caused by "hepatic metastases” due to "malignant melanoma right great toe”.

On November 13, 1981, decedent’s employer filed a report of the injury with the Workers’ Compensation Board. Dr. Clack had filed a C-48 report dated October 30, 1981 and decedent filed a claim for compensation, a C-3 form dated December 29, 1981, after amputation of his toe claiming inability to work since December 4, 1981.

On this appeal, the carrier seeks reversal for lack of substantial evidence of causal relationship between decedent’s injury and ultimate death and lack of proper notice of injury. First, we find substantial evidence present to sustain the award. There was conflicting medical evidence between Dr. Clack’s view that the death of decedent resulted from the melanoma directly caused by the trauma to decedent’s toe or the aggravation of a preexisting melanoma based upon statistical data and medical literature of the subject of the particular relatively rare subungual melanoma suffered by decedent. Although the carrier’s expert, a highly qualified surgical oncologist, was of a different view, he concluded that trauma to a preexisting melanoma would accelerate or aggravate its growth in some ways. In any event, it is not our function to weigh the conflicting testimony of medical experts *(Matter of Stein v New York Times Co.,*78 AD2d 757; *Matter of Jackson v Aarlin Realty Co.,*23 AD2d 598; *Matter of Lefkowitz v Silverstein,*11 AD2d 841).

As to the claim of lack of notice and resulting prejudice to the carrier, we note that the testimony of decedent’s employer conclusively establishes actual notice to the employer. Accordingly, the Board had the authority to excuse the lack of written notice to the employer *(see, Matter of Kempel v Nichols,*78 AD2d 759; *Matter of Kenny v County of Nassau,*58 AD2d 696).

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### IVES, Respondent, v. QUINN, Appellant.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894)

Action by Grace D. Ives against Peter Quinn.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

Ph. Carpenter, for appellant.

Wakeman & Campbell, for respondent.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 28 N. Y. Supp. 267.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Nelson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered March 9, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We further find that trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in discharging a juror whose wife had contacted the court and indicated that the juror was in Pittsburgh, making funeral arrangements for a relative, and was uncertain when he would return *(see, People v Page,*72 NY2d 69; *People v Polhill,*140 AD2d 462).

*712We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including his challenge to the propriety of the sentence, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5904 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5904

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 204 South Main Street in Seaboard, North Carolina, as the ``Louise 
                        Lassiter Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2010

 Mr. Butterfield (for himself, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Jones, Mr. McHenry, 
Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Kissell, Mr. Miller of North 
   Carolina, Mr. Watt, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Coble, Mr. McIntyre, and Mrs. 
   Myrick) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 204 South Main Street in Seaboard, North Carolina, as the ``Louise 
                        Lassiter Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LOUISE LASSITER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 204 South Main Street in Seaboard, North Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Louise Lassiter Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Louise 
Lassiter Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 14.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 of sanofi-aventis, dated December 21, 2006 (No. 333-139555), June 3, 2005 (No. 333-125490), December 23, 2004 (No. 333-121584 and 333-121583) and July 22, 2003 (No. 333-107238), of our reportsdated March 28, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements, and to management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofsanofi-aventis which appear in this annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

Neuilly-sur-Seine, France 

March 28, 2007 

PricewaterhouseCoopersAudit 

Catherine Pariset                Philippe Vogt
EXHIBIT 31.2

                        SECTION 302 CERTIFICATion OF CFO

I, Han  Yongbin,  Chief  Financial  Officer of China BAK Battery,  Inc.  (f.k.a.
Medina Coffee, Inc.), certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  report on Form  10-KSB/A of China BAK  Battery,  Inc.
(f.k.a. Medina Coffee, Inc.);

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  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  under our  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'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 report based on such evaluation; and

         c)  Disclosed  in this report any change in the  registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  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(s) and I have disclosed,  based on
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
or operation 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
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


 /s/ Han Yongbin
-----------------------
Han Yongbin
Chief Financial Officer
June 22, 2005
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ixia Pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) under the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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 16, 2007
    
    /s/Errol GinsbergErrol GinsbergPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    
    
    March 16, 2007
    
    /s/Thomas B. MillerThomas B. MillerChief Financial Officer
 86
CLYDE BAILEY, P.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

www.clydecpa.com                           Certified Public Accountant
clyde@clydecpa.com                         10924 Vance Jackson #404
                                           San Antonio, Texas 78230
www.clydebaileypc.com                      (210) 699-1287 (ofc)
clyde@clydebaileypc.com                    (888) 699-1287 (210)691-
2911(fax)
                                           Member: American Insitute of
                                                   CPA's
                                                   Texas Society of CPA's



Board of Directors
DrGoodTeeth.com





March 4, 2002


I consent to the use, of my report dated February 20, 2002, in
the Form 10KSB on the financial statements of DrGoodTeeth.com
dated December 31, 2001, included herein and to the references
therein made to me.



/s/ Clyde Bailey
EXHIBIT 99.2


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

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Pacel Corp. (the "Company") on
Form [10-Q/10- QSB] for the period ending  September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Khristina  McMahon,  Chief Financial Officer (or the equivalent  thereof) of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that,  to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

     (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/ David E. Calkins
------------------------------
David E. Calkins
Chief Financial Officer
(or the equivalent thereof)
November 14, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6196 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6196

   To amend title 23, United States Code, to modify the deadline for 
    filing a claim seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or 
      approval issued by a Federal agency for a highway or public 
        transportation capital project, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2010

Mr. Young of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Coble, and Mr. 
 Graves of Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition 
  to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 23, United States Code, to modify the deadline for 
    filing a claim seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or 
      approval issued by a Federal agency for a highway or public 
        transportation capital project, 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. DEADLINE FOR CLAIMS RELATING TO HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC 
              TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS.

    Section 139(l) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``180 days'' in each of paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting 
``90 days''.
                                 <all>
```