alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 24.3
POWER OF ATTORNEY
     The undersigned, a director of Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc., herebyconstitutes and appoints Stephen J. Tomassi and Gregory D. Waller, or either ofthem, his true and lawful attorneys and agents, each with full power andauthority to act as such without the other, to do any and all acts and thingsand to execute any and all instruments which either one of said attorneys andagents may deem necessary or advisable to enable said Corporation to complywith the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), as amended; and includingspecifically, but without limitation of the foregoing, full power and authorityto each of said attorneys and agents to sign the name of the undersigned to theForm 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003, and anyamendment(s) thereto, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to the requirements of the Act, the undersigned hereby ratifying andconfirming all that said attorneys and agents, or either of them, shall do orcause to be done by virtue hereof.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed and delivered thesepresents as of the 15th day of December 2003.     /s/ JAMES R. PARKSJames R. Parks
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-2 for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I,
Emile J. Jordan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
USC SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Emile J. Jordan
----------------------------------------
Emile J. Jordan, Chief Financial Officer



DATED AUGUST 23, 2004

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.



                                  End of Filing
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6214

CLARENCE TONEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN PAUL ADAMS,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00068-JPB)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Toney, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6214 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Toney, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Toney’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

petition in which he challenged the execution of his sentence. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Toney v. Adams, No. 1:21-cv-00068-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 10, 2022). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6214 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.1

                           Orion Power Holdings, Inc.
                            Seven East Redwood Street
                               Baltimore, MD 21202

April 1, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street NW
Washington, DC 20549

Re: Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2001;
Confirmation of Receipt of Assurances from Arthur Andersen LLP

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Orion Power Holdings, Inc. engages Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as its
independent public accountants. Andersen completed its audit work on our
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001 on February 19, 2002,
and Andersen's opinion with respect to our financial statements bears that date.
However, we did not file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2001 until after March 14, 2002.

     We are aware of the contents of Release Nos. 33-8070 and 34-45590 and the
Addition of Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X (the "Temporary
Note"). Because the audit of our financial statements was completed prior to
March 14, 2002, we are not certain that the Temporary Note applies to Orion
Power Holdings. However, in an abundance of caution, we have requested and
received from Andersen a letter to the effect that Andersen has represented to
Orion Power Holdings that its audit was subject to Andersen's quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with the professional
standards and that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel
working on audits, and availability of national office consultation. We do not
have foreign affiliates, so the assurance from Andersen as to foreign affiliates
is not relevant.

     Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Commission accept
Orion Power Holdings' financial statements as audited by Andersen in Orion Power
Holdings' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                        /s/ C. Ronald Greenman, Jr.

                                        C. Ronald Greenman, Jr.
                                        Principal Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Troy L. FRAZIER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30713

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 17, 2011.

Jennifer McDaniel Kleinpeter, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christopher Albert Aberle, Mandeville, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Troy L. Frazier pleaded guilty to distribution of 50 grams or more of cocaine base. The district court imposed the man*480datory statutory minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. Frazier argues that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010(FSA), Pub.L. No. 111-220, § 2(a)(1), 124 Stat. 2872 (Aug. 8, 2010), should be applied to cases on direct appeal and seeks to have his sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the provisions of the FSA.

The FSA, which became effective on August 3, 2010, amended the Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act by resetting the drug quantities required to trigger mandatory minimum sentences. FSA, Pub.L. No. 111-220, § 2(a)(1), 124 Stat. 2372 (Aug. 3, 2010). Among other things, it amended § 841(b)(l)(A)(iii), by increasing from 50 grams to 280 grams the amount of crack cocaine a defendant must possess before he is subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. *Id.*

In the instant case, there is no question that Congress repealed and replaced § 841 (b)(1)(A)(iii), by enacting the FSA. However, the FSA is silent on the issue of retroactivity. *See*FSA, Pub.L. No. Ill— 220, § 2(a)(1), 124 Stat. 2372 (Aug. 3, 2010). Frazier argues that the retroactivity issue has not been addressed in this circuit. Subsequent to the filing of Frazier’s brief, this court issued a published decision holding that the FSA does not apply to defendants who were sentenced prior to its enactment. *See United States v. Doggins,*633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *480the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommy ALEXANDER, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-20221

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 20, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Tommy Alexander, Sr., Coleman, FL, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tommy Alexander, Sr., federal prisoner # 07193-035, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal of the denial of his motion for a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and he requests permission to file a supplemental brief. The motion to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED. The district court denied Alexander leave to appeal IFP, but it did not certify that his appeal was not taken in good faith. *See*FED. R.App. P. 24(a). We may nevertheless dismiss the appeal sua sponte pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2 if it is apparent that the appeal lacks merit.

Alexander argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his *405§ 3582(c)(2) motion because the court did not enter written findings or cite specific reasons to support its determination that he poses a danger to the community. He contends that he is a 60-year-old grandfather who has already served almost twenty years in prison and that the reduction of his sentence to one within the amended guideline range is unlikely to endanger the community.

The district court determined that Alexander was eligible for a reduction in sentence pursuant to Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, but it denied a reduction in the interest of community safety. *See Dillon v. United States,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-92, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). No further reasons were required. *See United States v. Henderson,*636 F.3d 713, 718 (5th Cir.2011).

As Alexander has not shown that the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion presents a non-frivolous appellate issue, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
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 Intermec, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended June 29, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lanny
H. Michael, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, 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/ Lanny
      H. MichaelLanny
      H. MichaelChief Financial
      OfficerAugust
      6, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Freddie Salcedo, Also Known as Diogenes Filpo, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kuffner, J.), rendered April 4, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), conspiracy in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in ruling that, should the defendant choose to testify, the People would be permitted to question him as to several of his prior convictions, including those for attempted robbery and arson. The fact that the defendant’s conviction for attempted robbery was over 11 years old, by itself, did not mandate preclusion of cross-examination with regard to that conviction *(see, People v Scott,*118 AD2d 881, *lv denied*67 NY2d 1056; *People v Crandall,*108 AD2d 413). Moreover, the arson conviction clearly reflected upon the defendant’s veracity and credibility inasmuch as it involved a scheme to eliminate the defendant’s business competitors *(see, People v Dudwoire,*95 AD2d 878), thus demonstrating a "willingness or disposition on the part of the * * * defendant voluntarily to place the advancement of his individual self-interest ahead of principle or of the interests of society” *(People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 377).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for our review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### Shirley C. Jenkins, Respondent, v County of Westchester, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the County of Westchester appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated December 9, 1986, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, we find that the appellant was informed of the nature of the petitioner’s claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day period for serving a timely notice of claim and there is no basis in the record for concluding that the appellant will be substantially prejudiced by permitting the service of a late notice of claim *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; *Beatty v County of*
      *809
      *Saratoga,*74 AD2d 662, *appeal dismissed*53 NY2d 939; *Matter of Wemett v County of Onondaga,*64 AD2d 1025). Moreover, the petitioner did offer a reasonable excuse for her delay in serving a timely notice of claim *(see, Matter of Wemett v County of Onondaga, supra; Matter of Edwards v Town of Delaware,*115 AD2d 205). We note that "[a]t issue here is not the merit of [the petitioner’s] claim, but whether [the Supreme Court] abused its discretion in granting permission to [serve] a late notice of claim. Since proof of the merit of [the petitioner’s] claim is not a stated criterion for permission to [serve] a late notice under subdivision 5 of section 50-e, [the petitioner was] under no obligation to present a prima facie case on this motion” *(Hamm v Memorial Hosp.,*99 AD2d 638, 639; *see, Passalacqua v County of Onondaga,*94 AD2d 949). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Baron McKenzie, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), both rendered October 4, 1985, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under indictment No. 4138/84, upon a jury verdict, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under indictment No. 4759/84, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.

*127Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The People sustained their burden of proving the defendant’s guilt under indictment No, 4138/84 beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). While there were certain inconsistencies in the People’s witnesses’ testimony, our review of the record shows that the inconsistencies were minor and did not render the testimony incredible as a matter of law. We therefore decline to disturb the jury’s determination of credibility in favor of the prosecution.

In addition, the court correctly refused to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree since no reasonable view of the evidence would tend to establish that the defendant’s shooting of the victim was reckless *(see, People v Green,*56 NY2d 427, *rearg denied*57 NY2d 775).

Finally, the defendant’s sentences were appropriate in light of his criminal history and the circumstances involved. Mengano, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
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, 2009 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
guinnessexh10_3.htm








Exhibit 10.3


 


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 


 



	AMOUNT: $1,000,000.00 	November 19, 2009





 


 


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned, GUINESS EXPLORATION, INC. (the "Payor") acknowledges itself indebted to and promises to pay to or to the order of EAGLE TRAIL PROPERTIES INC., at 1140 Rose Street, Regina, Saskatchewan (the "Lender") or such other address as the Lender may designate from time to time in writing, the principal sum of ONE MILLION ($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS in lawful money of Canada as follows:


 


(a)     the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS on or before May 30, 2010; and


 


(b)     the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS on or before November 30, 2010.


 


In the event the Payor defaults in making any payment due pursuant to this Promissory Note, the Lender will have the option of declaring the entire principal balance of this Promissory Note to be immediately due and payable in full.


 


Interest on the unpaid balance of the aforesaid principal sum shall be paid at a rate equal to Eight percent (8%) per annum calculated annually, not in advance, computed from December 1, 2010 (as well after as before maturity and both before and after default and both before and after judgment), the said interest to be payable monthly on the first day of each and every month commencing January 1, 2011, so long as any principal sum remains outstanding.


 


The Payor hereby waives and renounces all rights of set-off, at law and in equity, it may now or hereafter have against the Lender.


 


The Payor hereby waives presentment and demand for payment, protest and notice of protest of non-payment and agrees that the holder of this Promissory Note may, without notice to and without releasing the liability of the Payor, compromise or release by operation of law or otherwise any right against and grant extensions of time to any endorsers.


 


This Promissory Note shall enure to the benefit of the Lender and its successors and assigns and shall be binding upon the Payor and its successors and assigns.


 


This Promissory Note shall be fully, completely and freely assignable by the Lender.


 


This Promissory Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Saskatchewan The Payor and the Lender hereby irrevocably attorn to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Saskatchewan.


 


.../2


 


2







  





  











  


















 


A facsimile signature on this Promissory Note shall be fully effective for all purposes and binding on the Payor, its successors and assigns.


 







DATED this 19th day of November, 2009


 







GUINNESS EXPLORATION, INC.


 


Per:


 







/s/ Alastair Brown                               


Name: Alastair Brown


 


Title: President and Director


 


I have the authority to bind the Corporation.
# Green Card for a Religious Worker (Minister or Non-minister)

Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in 1990 to create a special immigrant status for ministers and non-ministers in religious vocations and occupations.

To be eligible in the religious worker category, you must:
                    - Have been a member of a religious denomination that has a bona fide non-profit religious organization in the United States for at least two years before filing  Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant ;
                    - Have been working continuously for the past two years immediately prior to filing the immigrant petition:	 - As a religious minister;
- In a religious vocation in either a professional or non-professional capacity; or
- In a religious occupation in either a professional or nonprofessional capacity; and
 
                    - Seek to enter the United States solely to work as a minister or in the religious vocation or occupation of your employer’s denomination.

To apply for a Green Card while in the United States, you must file Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.

See the Checklist of Required Initial Evidence section of our Form I-485 page to see what evidence you must submit.

If you are outside the United States, please see our Consular Processing page.

10/29/2020

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
##### 



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: June 1, 2006
    /s/ Errol GinsbergErrol GinsbergPresident and Chief Executive Officer Date: June 1, 2006
    /s/ Thomas B. MillerThomas B. MillerChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENTAUDITORS**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the 2003 Stock Plan, Amended and Restated 2003 Equity Incentive Plan, 2000 Equity Incentive Plan and the EmployeeStock Purchase Plan of Renovis, Inc. of our report dated February 27, 2004, with respect to the financial statements of Renovis, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

 

 

Palo Alto, California 

March 26, 2004