alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

                                    XRG, INC.
                              COMPLETES FIRST PHASE
                                OF RESTRUCTURING

                      RICHARD S. FRANCIS STEPS DOWN AS CEO
                     AS IN-HOUSE G&A SERVICES REESTABLISHED

         FEBRUARY 21, 2006 - PITTSBURGH, PA - XRG, INC. (XRGI:OTCBB), announced
the re-establishment of its in-house general and administrative departments
which had been outsourced to R&R Express, Inc. as the initial phase of its
restructuring plan implemented last year. At that time, Richard S. Francis,
President and CEO of R&R agreed to also serve simultaneously as President and
CEO of XRG. With this move, G&A functions which were managed by R&R and Mr.
Francis at R&R's Pittsburgh headquarters will be transitioned back to XRG's own
department in Chattanooga, TN. As part of this transition Eddie R. Brown will
assume the CEO position effective immediately. Mr. Francis will remain as a
consultant to XRG on its continuing recovery and its future strategic growth
plans.

         Richard S. Francis, outgoing President and CEO, stated, "Our Pittsburgh
staff has worked diligently at the operational and administrative levels to
ultimately enable XRG to make this move. I am proud to say their performance
under challenging circumstances has resulted in facilitating this. The
transition back to XRG to be able to build, staff and manage its own back office
functions is a further sign of progress for the turn-around plans of XRG."

         "In order for XRG to stand on its own feet and stabilize its platform
for growth, a reunion with its administrative infrastructure was always an
eventuality. We thank Mr. Francis and his staff for their earnest efforts to
this point and in facilitating this transition at this time," commented Terence
F. Leong, a member of the XRG Board of Directors who is acting as a consultant
to XRG on its restructuring.

About XRG, Inc.
XRG, Inc. is a public company trading on the OTCBB under the symbol XRGI that
was established in November 2000 to provide truckload freight and transportation
logistics services nationally. In addition to organic growth, the company is
targeting expansion through terminal agreements, brokerage agreements and
acquisition of well-managed carriers.

Safe Harbor Statement
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor for
forward-looking information made on the company's behalf. All statements, other
than statements of historical facts which address the company's expectations of
sources of capital or which express the company's expectation for the future
with respect to financial performance or operating strategies, can be identified
as forward-looking statements. Such statements made by the company are based on
knowledge of the environment in which it operates, but because of the factors
previously listed, as well as other factors beyond the control of the company,
actual results may differ materially from the expectations expressed in the
forward-looking statements.

Contact:
Terence F. Leong
Walker Street Associates
TEL: 518-828-4988
Exhibit 32.1



Certification

of Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a),

As Adopted

Pursuant to Section 302 of the

Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned of the Company, certifies that:



(1)          He has reviewed this Amendment No. 1
on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of China HGS Real Estate Inc.; and



(2)          Based on his knowledge, this report does
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in the
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report.



|/s/ Xiaojun Zhu                                             | .
|----------------------------------------------------------- | -
|Name: Xiaojun Zhu                                           |  
|Title:  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |  
|January 27, 2012                                            |  



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished
to the SEC or its staff upon request. This exhibit is not “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided by applicable rules of the SEC.
Exhibit 99.7

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
(the Company) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and to the Oyu Tolgoi 2016 Technical Report with an effective date as of
October 14, 2016 (the Report).

I, Bernard Peters, on behalf of OreWin Pty Ltd., consent to the use
of our name and references to the Report, or portions thereof, as described in the 40-F and documents filed as part of the 40-F, and to the incorporation by reference of such information in the Companys Registration Statement on Form S-8
(333-160783).



|                                   |  | 
|---------------------------------- |  | 
|Sincerely,                         |  | 
|                                   | 
|/s/ Bernard Peters                 |  | 
|Name: Bernard Peters               |  | 
|Title: Technical Director  Mining |  | 
|Company: OreWin Pty Ltd.           |  | 

Date:   March 27, 2017
#### WARREN v. GUILFORD COUNTY

No. 293P98

Case below: 129 N.C.App. 836

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied and defendant’s additional issues dismissed as moot 8 October 1998.
#### STATE ex rel. LONG v. PETREE STOCKTON, LLP

No. 246PA98

Case below: 129 N.C.App. 432

Petition by plaintiff for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed as to constructive fraud issue 8 October 1998. Motions by defendants to dismiss petition for discretionary review allowed 8 October 1998. Motion by defendant (Iseman) to dismiss appeal dismissed 8 October 1998.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the filing of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the
Report) by CapSource Financial, Inc. (Registrant), I, Steven J.
Kutcher, the person performing the function of Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, 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, as amended, and
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. |  | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material           respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to CapSource Financial, Inc. and will be retained by CapSource Financial,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| | DATE:  August 9, 2005 | By:  /s/ Steven J. Kutcher                                                       
| | --------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                       | Name: Steven J. Kutcher
Person performing the function of Chief Financial Officer

---
#### Antonina Yavkina et al., Respondents, v New York City Police Department, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant. Federal Express Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 235]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant Federal Express Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated March 31, 2008, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, as the third-party defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *Adams v Lemberg Enters., Inc.,*44 AD3d 694 [2007]). “[O]wners of improperly parked cars may be held liable to plaintiffs injured by negligent drivers of *670other vehicles, depending on the determinations by the trier of fact on the issues of forseeability and proximate cause unique to the particular case” *(Reuter v Rodgers,*232 AD2d 619, 620 [1996]; *see Somersall v New York Tel. Co.,*52 NY2d 157, 167 [1981]). The issue of whether the third-party defendant’s employee was negligent in double-parking his delivery truck and, if so, whether the negligence was a proximate cause of the accident should be submitted to the jury *(see Ferrer v Harris,*55 NY2d 285, 293-294 [1982]; *Adams v Lemberg Enters., Inc.,*44 AD3d at 694; *Petrone v County of Nassau,*305 AD2d 569 [2003]; *Murray-Davis v Rapid Armored Corp.,*300 AD2d 96 [2002]; *Jordan v Aviles,*288 AD2d 347, 348 [2001]; *Giordano v Sheridan Maintenance Corp.,*38 AD2d 552, 553 [1971]).

The third-party defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur. *[See*19 Misc 3d 1111(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50641(U).]
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2436 

To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise the definitions 

of a ‘‘small business’’ and ‘‘small organization’’ for purposes of assessing 

the impact of the Commission’s rulemakings under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Mr. SAN NICOLAS (for himself and Mr. HUIZENGA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise 

the definitions of a ‘‘small business’’ and ‘‘small organization’’ for purposes of assessing the impact of the Commission’s rulemakings under the Investment Advisers Act 

of 1940. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Investment Adviser 

5 Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2436 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SMALL BUSINESS OF SMALL ORGA2 NIZATION. 

3 Not later than the end of the 1-year period beginning 

4 on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Securities 

5 and Exchange Commission shall revise the definitions of 

6 a ‘‘small business’’ and ‘‘small organization’’ under section 

7 275.0–7 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, to pro8 vide alternative methods under which a business or organi9 zation may qualify as a ‘‘small business’’ or ‘‘small organi10 zation’’ under such section. In making such revision, the 

11 Commission shall consider whether such alternative meth12 ods should include a threshold based on the number of 

13 nonclerical employees of the business or organization. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2
 ARCHSTONE-SMITH TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
AND PREFERRED SHARE DIVIDENDS
 (Dollar amounts in thousands)
 Years Ended December 31,2006(1)
    
    
    2005(1)
    
    
    2004(1)
    
    
    2003(1)
    
    
    2002(1)Earnings from operations
    
    $
    201,008
    
    
    $
    121,609
    
    
    $
    106,111
    
    
    $
    100,658
    
    
    $
    106,188Add:Interest expense
    
    
    245,895
    
    
    
    164,035
    
    
    
    125,108
    
    
    
    107,791
    
    
    
    107,978Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    446,903
    
    
    $
    285,644
    
    
    $
    231,219
    
    
    $
    208,449
    
    
    $
    214,166Combined fixed charges and
Preferred Share dividends:Interest expense
    
    $
    245,895
    
    
    $
    164,035
    
    
    $
    125,108
    
    
    $
    107,791
    
    
    $
    107,978Capitalized interest
    
    
    51,808
    
    
    
    39,111
    
    
    
    23,572
    
    
    
    26,854
    
    
    
    32,377Total fixed charges
    
    
    297,703
    
    
    
    203,146
    
    
    
    148,680
    
    
    
    134,645
    
    
    
    140,355Preferred Share dividends
    
    
    3,829
    
    
    
    3,831
    
    
    
    10,892
    
    
    
    20,997
    
    
    
    32,185Combined fixed charges and
Preferred Share dividends
    
    $
    301,532
    
    
    $
    206,977
    
    
    $
    159,572
    
    
    $
    155,642
    
    
    $
    172,540Ratio of earnings to
combined fixed charges and
Preferred Share dividends
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    1.2
 
 (1)
    
    Net earnings from discontinued operations have been reclassified for all periods presented
to conform with the list of communities in discontinued operations as of December 31, 2006.
NO. 07-99-0257-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	MAY 15, 2000

	______________________________

	PAUL AARON BAGWELL, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 252ND CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

	NO. 66336; HONORABLE LEONARD J. GIBLIN, JR., JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

	On February 24, 1994, appellant Paul Aaron Bagwell was indicted in Jefferson County of the felony offense of sexual assault of a child.  The indictment also alleged a prior felony conviction.  Pursuant to an agreed plea of guilt and judicial confession, the 252nd Criminal District Court of Jefferson County deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision.  On October 9, 1998, the State moved for revocation of appellant’s probation on the basis that he failed to report as required.  After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty on March 10, 1999, sentenced him to 20 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice and imposed a $1,000 fine in conformity with the plea agreement.  Appellant gave timely notice of appeal.

	Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he certifies that after diligently searching the record, he is convinced that no reversible error exists and the appeal is without merit.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969).  We have also been furnished with a copy of a letter in which he notified appellant that after his review of the record and research of the law, he was convinced there was no reversible error.  Appellant’s attorney has notified appellant by letter of his right to review the record and to file a pro se brief if he desired to do so.  Appellant has not filed any brief in the four months since the letter from his attorney.  The attorney has also filed with this court a motion to withdraw as counsel, and his motion is granted.

	We have also made our own careful examination of the record to determine if there are  arguable grounds which might support the appeal.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.App. 1991).  We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit and is, therefore, frivolous.  Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Lacy v. State, 477 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972).

	Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court must be, and is, affirmed.

							John T. Boyd

							 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Larry Dewayne White

, * From the 104 th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 20964B

.

Vs. No. 11

- 19

- 00 0 50

- C R * February 11 , 2021

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Bailey

, C. J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.

, Trotter , J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion,

t he judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Dale R. San Marco et al., Appellants, v Village/Town of Mount Kisco, Respondent.

Submitted March 22, 2010;

decided March 25, 2010

*791Motion by Defense Association of New York, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
[930 NE2d 765, 904 NYS2d 691]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fatin Johnson, Appellant.

Decided June 10, 2010

*919APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Center for Appellate Litigation,*New York City *(Abigail Everett*and *Robert S. Dean*of counsel), for appellant.

*Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Susan Gliner*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Upon remittal from this Court (10 NY3d 875 [2008]), the Appellate Division employed the proper legal standard when it rejected defendant’s argument that the verdict convicting him of depraved indifference murder was against the weight of the evidence (67 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2009]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the Appellate Division was not required to evaluate the elements of depraved indifference murder as they were interpreted in certain cases decided prior to his trial. Defendant voiced no objection to the court’s charge as given and failed to request that any specific judicial interpretations of the elements be presented to the jury. Thus, the Appellate Division properly refused to consider such information when it “weighted] the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the [jury]” *(People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
Exhibit 7
The following is an explanation of various ratios used in the Annual Report onForm 20-F of CanWest Media Inc. for its 2002 fiscal year.
The ratio of the net debt to total capitalization represents total long termdebt (including the current portion) as a percentage of the total of net assetsand total long term debt (including the current portion).
Fixed charge coverage represents the ratio of the total of interest expensesand amortization of deferred financing fees, the financing component of rentexpenses, and interest on junior subordinated floating rate notes (total fixedcharges) to the total of income before the following: income taxes, financingexpenses, the financing component of rent expense, interest in earnings ofequity accounted affiliates; and distributions from equity accountedaffiliates.
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.                  

###### Inter-American Foundation Board Meeting

# TIME AND DATE:

January 30, 2001, 10 a.m.-3 p.m. 

# PLACE:

901 N. Stuart Street, Tenth Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

# STATUS:

Open session except for the portion specified as closed session as provided in 22 CFR Part 1004.4 (f). 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    - Approval of the Minutes of the November 30, 2000, Meeting of the Board of Directors
    - Interim President's Report
    - Congressional Activities and Plans for Fiscal Year 2001
    - Expansion of the Advisory Council
    - Review of Business Sector Participation in Foundation Grants
    - Presentation of the Foundation's Results System and Indicators
    - Review of a Sample of Successful Closed-Out Grants
    - Closed Session To Discuss Personnel Issues. Closed session as provided in 22 CFR Part 1004.4 (f) 

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Carolyn Karr, General Counsel, (703) 306-4350. 

Dated: January 11, 2001. 

Carolyn Karr, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 01-1335 Filed 1-11-01; 12:49 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7025-01-P