alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 of Norquest Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for three month period ended March 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Philip Wainwright, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge 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.

Dated: May 5, 2009

                                         By:  /s/ Philip Wainwright
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Philip Wainwright
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)
                                              (Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2018182EN.01000901.xml

| 28.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Maria Vester v Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)

(Case C-134/18)

(2018/C 182/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Vester

Applicant:

Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

‘Are Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU infringed in the case where the last competent Member State refuses, upon commencement of incapacity for work, after expiry of a waiting period of 52 [Or. 9] weeks of incapacity for work, during which illness benefits were awarded, entitlement to invalidity benefit on the basis of Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and the other, previously competent Member State applies, for the examination of the entitlement to a pro-rata invalidity benefit, a 104-week waiting period in accordance with the national law of that Member State?

1

If that is the case, is it compatible with the right of free movement that the person concerned, during this waiting time gap, is dependent on social assistance, or do Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU oblige the previously competent Member State to examine the entitlement to invalidity benefits after expiry of the waiting period under the legislation of the last competent Member State, even if the national law of the previously competent Member State does not permit this?’

---

(1)  OJ 2004, L 166, p. 1.

1

---
|   | EXHIBIT 32.1. |
|--------|---------------|

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

I, C. Eugene Gronning, Chief Executive Officer of PMI Construction Group (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period September 30, 2007 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 

 (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 the Registrant.

 

|   | By: /s/ C. Eugene Gronning |
|--------|----------------------------|

|   | ------------------------------- |
|--------|---------------------------------|

|   | C. Eugene Gronning |
|--------|--------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

 

November 19, 2007

 

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to PMI Construction Group and will be retained by PMI Construction Group and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Supplement to the Fidelity**®**International SmallCap Fund September 4, 2002 Prospectus**

The following information updates the similar information on the cover of the prospectus:

**Fidelity**®**International Small Cap Fund**

(fund number 818, trading symbol FISMX)

<R>The following information replaces the third paragraph found under the "Principal Investment Strategies"heading in the "Investment Summary" section on page 3.</R>

- <R>Normally investing at least 80% of assets in securities of companies withsmall market capitalizations (which, for purposes of this fund, are those withmarket capitalizations of $5 billion or less).</R>  The following information replaces the similar information found in the "Fee Table" section on page 4:  B *Effective September 20, 2002, FMR has voluntarily agreed to reimburse the fund to the extent that total operatingexpenses (excluding interest, taxes, certain securities lending costs, brokerage commissions, and extraordinary expenses),as a percentage of its average net assets, exceed 1.80%. This arrangement may be discontinued by FMR at any time.*  <R>The following information replaces the second paragraph found under the "Principal Investment Strategies"heading in the "Investment Details" section on page 5.</R>  <R>FMR normally invests at least 80% of the fund's assets in securities ofcompanies with small market capitalizations. Although a universal definition ofsmall market capitalization companies does not exist, for purposes of this fund,FMR generally defines small market capitalization companies as those with marketcapitalizations of $5 billion or less. A company's market capitalization is based onits current market capitalization or its market capitalization at the time of thefund's investment. Companies whose capitalization is above this level afterpurchase continue to have a small market capitalization for purposes of the 80%policy. FMR normally invests the fund's assets primarily in common stocks.</R>  <R>ISC-03-02</R>		<R>March 18, 2003</R>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ALEJANDRO FLORES-SANCHEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D21-1251

September 29, 2021

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit 

Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. 

Alejandro Flores-Sanchez, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.

__________________________

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
V 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 976 

For the relief of Ibrahim Parlak. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2009 

Mr. UPTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Ibrahim Parlak. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR IBRAHIM 

4 PARLAK. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Ibrahim Parlak shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) 

12 or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 976 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Ibrahim Parlak 

2 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci3 fied in subsection (c), Ibrahim Parlak shall be considered 

4 to have entered and remained lawfully and shall be eligible 

5 for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immi6 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date 

7 of enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Ibrahim Parlak, the Secretary of State shall in16 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 

17 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi18 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun19 try of birth of Ibrahim Parlak under section 203(a) of the 

20 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, 

21 if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

22 made available to natives of the country of birth of 

23 Ibrahim Parlak under section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 

24 1152(e)). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 976 IH

1 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

2 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

3 parents, brothers, and sisters of Ibrahim Parlak shall not, 

4 by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi5 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of China Yuchai International Limited (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



By:

/s/ Phung Khong Fock ThomasName: Phung Khong Fock ThomasTitle: Chief Financial Officer


Date: April 17, 2017

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of ECO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, STEVE CONBOY, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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






/s/ Steve Conboy


Steve Conboy


President


Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





February 19, 2013
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-3727

_____________________________

TAVARES RUMPH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

January 11, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Nathan Robert Prince of the Law Office of Nathan Prince, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Toar Timothy TENDEAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-76989.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008 *.

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

*634Kaaren L. Barr, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Eric W. Marsteller, M. Jocelyn Wright, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

. MEMORANDUM **

Toar Timothy Tendean, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention *635Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

We do not consider Tendean’s asylum claim because he failed to exhaust his challenge to the IJ’s time-bar finding, which is dispositive. *See Barron, v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tendean did not suffer past persecution. *See Nagoulko,*333 F.3d at 1016-18. Assuming, without deciding, that the disfavored group analysis set forth in *Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004) applies to Indonesian Christians and applies in the context of withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tendean failed to demonstrate that it was mox’e likely than not he will be persecuted on account of a protected ground if he x’eturned to Indonesia. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003). Finally, Tendean did not establish that the group to which he claims he belongs, Seventh Day Adventist Christians who have become Americanized, is subject to the systematic, government-sanctioned mistreatment that is required to show a “pattern or practice” of persecution. *See Kotasz v. INS,*31 F.3d 847, 852-53 (9th Cir.1994).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Tendean is not entitled to CAT relief because he has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1020 

Honoring the 95th anniversary of the signing of the Rocky Mountain National 

Park Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2010 

Ms. MARKEY of Colorado (for herself, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. SALAZAR, 

Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. LAMBORN, and Mr. COFFMAN of 

Colorado) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the 95th anniversary of the signing of the Rocky 

Mountain National Park Act. 

Whereas, on January 26, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson 

signed the Rocky Mountain National Park Act to establish Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) in the State 

of Colorado; 

Whereas, years ago, the foresight of so many Coloradans to 

set aside and conserve RMNP benefits so many of us 

today; 

Whereas, the fragile alpine tundra encompasses one-third of 

RMNP and is one of the largest examples of alpine tundra ecosystems preserved in the National Park System in 

the lower 48 States; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

HRES 1020 IH 

Whereas, RMNP remains a place for visitors to enjoy the 

Rocky Mountain West by hiking, backpacking, climbing, 

biking, picnicking, wildlife viewing, snowshoeing, crosscountry skiing, and horseback riding; 

Whereas, the National Park Service provides unique outdoor 

educational opportunities within RMNP and teaches visitors about the diverse park ecosystem, environmental 

stewardship, wilderness areas, and the principles of Leave 

No Trace so our recreational areas can be enjoyed by everyone; 

Whereas, RMNP is the highest national park in the United 

States with at least 60 mountains higher than 12,000 

feet including the highest summit, Longs Peak, at 14,259 

feet; 

Whereas, the Continental Divide runs through RMNP and 

the park contains the headwaters of several river systems 

including the Colorado River; 

Whereas, RMNP is consistently one of the top 10 visited national parks in the United States with approximately 3 

million visitors every year; 

Whereas, on March 30, 2009, 249,339 acres of RMNP’s total 

265,770 acres was designated as Wilderness Area, thereby conferring the highest level of conservation protection 

for Federal lands to protect the park’s majestic terrain 

from future development; and 

Whereas this designation marks the culmination of decades 

of work by many committed stakeholders, from the local 

communities to the Federal Government: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors 

2 the 95th anniversary of the signing of the Rocky Mountain 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

HRES 1020 IH 

1 National Park Act and commends the National Park Serv2 ice and so many Coloradans for their dedication to pre3 serving this region of the Southern Rocky Mountains for 

4 future generations to come. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CARLTON RICHARD NEBERGALL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2171

[December 22, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Jeffrey Dana Gillen, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2018-CF001621-AXXX-MB.

Michael Salnick, Law Offices of Salnick & Fuchs, PA, West Palm Beach, 

for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### LIFECARE INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CD MEDICAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, C.D. Medical, B.V., a Dutch corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 94-4595.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 31, 1996.

Daniel S. Pearson, Linda Ann Wells, Holland & Knight, Miami, FL, for Appellants.

James B. Tilghman, Jr., Stewart, Tilghman, Fox & Bianchi, P.A., Miami, FL, for Lifecare International.

*520Before EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, HILL, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLS *, District Judge.

*

 Honorable Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

BY THE COURT:

The motion to recall the mandate filed by Movant Craig Edward Stein is GRANTED.

We modify and supplement our opinion in this case with this observation:

> The statements by the Court in discussing the issues raised in this appeal concerning alleged bias on the part of Mr. Stein are based upon the record created by the parties to this case. As a nonparty, Mr. Stein was not entitled to present evidence or otherwise to respond to the allegations. Thus, the statements in the opinion should not be interpreted to represent conclusions of the Court about the actual conduct of Mr. Stein.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas LAW, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-5163.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2006.

Decided: June 9, 2006.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*299Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Law, Jr., appeals his eighty-four month sentence imposed following his guilty plea for possession of more than five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2000). Law challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, contending that it was longer than necessary because the sentencing court gave undue weight to his criminal history. We affirm.

Law’s sentence was within the properly calculated advisory guideline range and was well within the statutory maximum set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). In sentencing Law, the district court considered Law’s “significant” criminal history for a person of his age, in addition to other factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2000 *&*Supp.2005). Because the district court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the guideline range, and weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we cannot conclude that Law’s sentence is unreasonable. *See United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006) (finding sentence imposed within properly calculated advisory guidelines range was presumptively reasonable); *see also United States v. Johnson,*445 F.3d 339, 346 (4th Cir.2006) (finding district court’s “detailed inquiry into the various circumstances bearing upon [defendant’s] sentence” satisfied obligation to consider § 3553(a) factors).

Accordingly, we affirm Law’s sentence. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*