alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SinoHub, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Henry T. Cochran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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.








Dated: August 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Henry T. CochranHenry T. CochranChief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF PIONEER SOUTHWEST ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, Richard P. Dealy, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Pioneer Natural Resources GP LLC, the general partner of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certify that the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to            Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Partnership fully complies with the requirements of that section.

 

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

                

 

|   |   |                                  |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | /s/ Richard P. Dealy                  |   |
|   | Name:  | Richard P. Dealy, Executive Vice      |   |
|   |   | President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | Date:  | November 9, 2009                      |   |
Agreement to Propose Internalization of Property Management



 Exhibit 10.28 

AGREEMENT TO PROPOSE INTERNALIZATION OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 

This Agreement to Propose Internalization of Property Management (“Agreement”) is made as of ____________, 2010, between US
FEDERAL TRUST PROPERTIES INC., a Maryland corporation, (“Company”), DANIEL K. CARR, an individual (“Carr”) and RICHARD D. BAIER, an individual (“Baier” and together with Carr, “Owners”), with reference to the
following facts: 
  

	 	A.	Company has engaged Lane4 Management Inc., a Missouri corporation (“Lane4 Management”) as the property manager of certain of Company’s real properties
pursuant to that certain Management Agreement dated ____________, 2010 (“Management Agreement”). 

  

	 	B.	Each of Owners owns one-third (1/3) of issued and outstanding stock of Lane4 and collectively they own two-thirds of the issued and outstanding stock of Lane4
Management. Each of the Owners is an officer and director of the Company. 

  

	 	C.	As a condition to the Company’s entering into the Management Agreement, Company has required owners to agree to propose the internalization of the property
management of the Company’s real properties managed by Lane4 Management pursuant to the Management Agreement when the aggregate rentable square footage of the Company’s portfolio of real properties owned by it or a subsidiary (the
“Portfolio”) reaches One Million Five Hundred Thousand (1,500,000) square feet (the “Portfolio Threshold”). 


Now, therefore, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the following promises, obligations and agreements, Owners and Company
agree as follows. 
  

	 	1.	Proposal Submission. Within thirty (30) days following the Portfolio reaching the Portfolio Threshold, Owners shall submit to the Company’s
board of directors (the “Board”) a commercially reasonable written proposal (“Proposal”) to internalize, inside the Company or a subsidiary thereof, all property management functions and services performed by Lane4 Management
whether pursuant to the Management Agreement or otherwise. The Proposal shall include the termination of the Management Agreement by Company in accordance with the terms of the Management Agreement. 


 

	 	2.	Miscellaneous. 

  

	 	a.	Counterparts; Electronic Delivery. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute
but one instrument. This Agreement may be delivered via facsimile or other electronic transmission. 

  

	 	b.	Amendment; Modification. This Agreement may not be amended or modified except by an agreement in writing signed by both parties hereto. 


[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written
above. 
  

	
	OWNERS:
	
	  
	Richard D. Baier
	
	  
	Daniel K. Carr

  

			
	COMPANY:
	
	US FEDERAL PROPERTIES TRUST, INC.,
a Maryland corporation
		
	By:	 	 
	Name:	 	Richard D. Baier
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer

 [Signature Page to
Agreement to Propose Internalization of Property Management]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy. 

# ACTION:

Subsequent arrangement.

# SUMMARY:

This notice has been issued under the authority of section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed “subsequent arrangement” under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy between the United States and Canada and Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). 

This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 110,436 kg of U.S.-origin natural uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride, 74,655 kg of which is uranium, from the Cameco Corporation, Ontario, Canada to Urenco Capenhurst, England. The material, which is now located at Cameco Corp., Port Hope, Ontario, will be transferred to Urenco for toll enrichment. Upon completion of the toll enrichment, the material will be transferred to the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., Burlington, KS for use as fuel. The uranium hexafluoride was originally obtained by the Cameco Corp. pursuant to export license number XSOU8744. 

In accordance with section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement is not inimical to the common defense and security. 

This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice. 

Dated: May 21, 2001. 

For the Department of Energy.

Trisha Dedik,

Director, International Policy and Analysis for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. 

[FR Doc. 01-13247 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
# C_2018142EN.01003602.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler

(Case C-131/18)

(2018/C 142/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vanessa Gambietz

Applicant:

Defendant: Erika Ziegler

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 6(3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the fixed sum of EUR 40 referred to in Article 6(1) of that directive is to be offset against external legal costs which have been incurred in connection with the pre-litigation instruction of a lawyer following late payment on the part of the debtor and are therefore reimbursable under Article 6(3) of that directive?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-37,964, TA-W-37,964A]

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on October 11, 2000, applicable to workers of Hampton Industries, Kinston, North Carolina. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 1, 2000 (65 FR 65330).                

At the request of the Company, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of Men's and boys' woven and knit shirts. New information shows that worker separations have occurred at the subject firms' Distribution Center located in Snow Hill, North Carolina. The Snow Hill, North Carolina location provided distribution services for Hampton Industries' production facilities including Kinston, North Carolina.

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to cover the workers of Hampton Industries, Distribution Center, Snow Hill, North Carolina.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Hampton Industries who were adversely affected by increased imports of men's and boys' woven and knit shirts.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-37,964 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Hampton Industries, Kinston, North Carolina (TA-W-37,964) and Distribution Center, Snow Hill, North Carolina (TA-W-37,964A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 20, 1999, through October 11, 2002, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of April, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-12566 Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
**Exhibit 99.7**

 

 
|   |   | ** **                         |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------|
|   |   | **PricewaterhouseCoopers   LLP**   |
|   |   | 111 5 Avenue SW,   Suite 3100 |
|   |   | Calgary, Alberta                   |
|   |   | Canada T2P 5L3                     |
|   |   | Telephone +1 403 509   7500        |
|   |   | Facsimile +1 403 781   1825        |
|   |   | www.pwc.com/ca                     |

 

** **

**Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP**

 

 

We hereby consent to (i) the inclusion in Encana Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010; and (ii) the incorporation by reference in registration statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-150453); and (iii) the incorporation by reference in registration statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-124218, 333-85598 and 333-140856); and (iv) the incorporation by reference in registration statement on Form F-9 (File Nos. 333-165626), of our Auditor’s Report dated February 16, 2011, relating to the Encana Corporation Consolidated Financial Statements as at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2010 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Encana Corporation as of December 31, 2010.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS  Calgary, Alberta

February 17, 2011

 

 

 

 

“PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, or, as the context requires, the PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other member firms of the network, each of which is a separate legal entity. 

 

----
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

David Salinas, Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00183

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 450th District Court of Travis County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. D

- 1

- DC

17

- 900141 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by replacing

“ STAT E JAIL DIVISION, TDC J ” with “ TRAVIS COUNTY JAIL ” in the section titled

“ P unishment and Place of Confinement, ” and under t he section titled “ Punishment Options, ” we
delete the “ X ” beside the paragraph titled “ Co nfinement in State Jail or Instit utional Division ” and place an “ X ” beside the paragraph titled “ County Jail

— Confinement/Confinement in Lieu of Payment. ” As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We note that the appellant, David Salinas, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUS T 1, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
143 So. 923

#### Ex parte A. C. DAVIS et al.

3 Div. 28.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 29, 1932.

Ball & Ball and John L. Goodwyn, all of Montgomery, for petitioners.

PER CURIAM.

Writ denied.
#### Felipe de Jesus HERNANDEZ-PADILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75291.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 2009.

Filed April 27, 2010.

Bernadette W. Connolly, Esq. Fax, Law Offices of Bernadette W. Connolly, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Kristin A. Cabral, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Michael *679Ferrara, Esq., U.S. Dept of Justice Criminal Div., Public Integrity Section, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CANBY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Felipe de Jesus Hernandez-Padilla petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of cancellation of removal. Because Petitioner’s case is in all relevant ways identical to the petitioner’s case in *Nunez-Reyes v. Holder,*602 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.2010), and in the petitioner’s case in *Rice v. Holder,*597 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.2010), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. As in *Nunez-Reyes,*we remand on an open record, and the government is free to raise any arguments not rejected in that opinion.

Petition GRANTED; case REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Untitled Page


		
			

				

				Exhibit 10.6

				

				

			

		

		
			GOLDEN GATE INVESTORS, INC.

				1795 UNION STREET, 3rd FLOOR

					SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94123

					TELEPHONE:  (415) 409-8703

					FACSIMILE:    (415) 409-8704

					E-MAIL: LJCI@PACBELL.NET

					LA JOLLA                                                                            www.LJCInvestors.com                                                               SAN FRANCISCO

				

				
December 16, 2005

				

				

			

		

		
			Robert M. Bernstein

				Material Technologies, Inc.

				11661 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 707

				Los Angeles, California 90049

				

				Re: Warrant Prepayment

				

				Dear Robert:

				
This letter will set forth our agreement for the prepayment toward future Warrant exercises under the Warrant Agreement dated as of December 16, 2005 by and between Material Technologies, Inc. (“Material”) and Golden Gate Investors, Inc. (“Holder”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the definitions set forth in the Convertible Debenture dated December 16, 2005 issued by Material to Holder.

				

				Once the Registration Statement is declared effective by the SEC and Material is able to issue registered Common Stock to Holder, Holder will immediately submit a $2,500 Debenture conversion and related $25,000 Warrant exercise. Within 2 business days of Holder’s receipt of the registered Common Stock from such Debenture conversion and Warrant exercise, Holder shall wire the sum of $50,000 to Material. Such funds shall represent a prepayment towards the future exercise of Warrant Shares under the Warrant Agreement. The timing of the application of the prepaid funds shall be at Holder’s sole discretion. Material shall not be able to prevent Holder from converting the Debenture and shall not be able to prepay the Debenture, regardless of the price of the Stock, in connection with the Debenture conversions associated with the Warrant prepayment.

				

				If this letter correctly reflects our agreement regarding the prepayment by Holder to Material toward Warrant exercises, please acknowledge your agreement by signing below.

				

				Sincerely,

				

				

				/s/  Travis W. Huff

				

				

				Travis W. Huff

				Portfolio Manager

				

				

				Material Technologies, Inc.

				

				By: __/s/ Robert M. Bernstein_________________

				

				Title: ___Chief Executive Officer_______________
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

CAPITOL ACQUISITION CORP.

This certification is
provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, of Capitol Acquisition Corp. (the Issuer).

I, Mark D. Ein, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of
my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                                                           
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 13, 2008 |  | /s/ Mark D. Ein                                                           
|                       |  | Mark D. Ein                                                               
|                       |  | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
#### United States *v.*Brighton Ranch Co. and another.

*Circuit Court, D. Nebraska.*

November 16, 1885.)

Public Lands—Fencing fob Cattle Hancii—Injunction.

The United States have a right to an injunction in a court of equity to prevent the enclosing ol' public lands, and where the legal title remains in the government in cases of pro-omplors, it can protect, those lands in the same maimer: except where the pro-emptor has given express license to build a fence on his land.

In Equity.

This is a suit on behalf of the United States to obtain a mandatory injunction against the Brighton Ranch Company to compel it to remove a barbed-wire fence, 57 miles long, inclosing 52,000 acres of tho public lands of the United States. The testimony disclosed that this fence stood partly on deeded lands, school lands, and lands entered under the homestead, pre-emption, and timber-culture laws of tho United States. The testimony further disclosed that the fence was erected on these entered lands with tho permission of the settlers. Inside the fence were a large number of acres of vacant public lands.

*G. M. Lambertion,*for complainant.

*J. M. Woolworlh,*for respondents.

Miller, Justice,

I am of opinion that the United States is entitled to its injunction mandatory as to so much of the fence complained of as exists, and prohibitory as to building any future fences, so far as either of them comes within the following principles: (1) There exists no right in the defendants to build any fence on the lands of the United States. (2) All lands are for this purpose lands of the United States so long as the *legal title*remains in the United States. (3) It is the right of the United States and its duty to protect all such lands from this misuse in cases where there have been any kind of entries, whether of pre-emption, homestead, or private entry, though the purchase money be paid, so long as the legal title remains in the United Stales; except where these latter parties build their own fences, or give express license to others to do it. In these cases it holds the title in trust, and can maintain this bill to remove the fence or prevent its erection. A decree should be entered based on these principles.