alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32


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 China Armco Metals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kexuan Yao, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Fengtao Wen, Chief Financial Officer 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 our 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 result of operations of the Company.





August 13, 2010

/s/ Kexuan YaoKexuan Yao

CEO and Chairman

(Principal executive officer)





August 13, 2010

/s/ Fengtao WenFengtao Wen

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal financial and accounting officer)





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 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.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rubicon Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Raja M. Parvez, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, William F. Weissman, Chief Financial Officer 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, 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: November 8, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Raja M. Parvez                                  
|                       |  |     |  | Raja M. Parvez President and Chief Executive Officer
|                       |  |    
|Date: November 8, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ William F. Weissman                             
|                       |  |     |  | William F. Weissman Chief Financial Officer         

A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 9, 2015

d0831

Order 

Clerk

September 9, 2015

149530(25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149530

COA: 320021

Allegan CC: 01-012241-FC

KENNETH ROBERT BEAGLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 3, 

2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent SAVAGEAU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-14701

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 17, 2008.

Amy Lee Copeland, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savamiah, GA, Edmund A. Booth, Jr., Acting U.S. Attorney, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William C. Davison, Evans, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William Davison, appointed counsel for Vincent Savageau in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Savageau’s convictions and sentences are 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 the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20015

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN MANUEL RUIZ-MOTA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-545-1

--------------------

February 12, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Manuel Ruiz-Mota appeals his bench-trial conviction

for illegal re-entry after deportation following an aggravated

felony. He first argues that the dismissal of the original

indictment for Speedy Trial Act violations should have been with

prejudice. The district court properly considered the statutory

factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(1), and its supporting factual

findings are not clearly in error. United States v. Taylor, 487
No. 02-20015

-2-

U.S. 326, 337 (1988). Accordingly, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in dismissing the first indictment without

prejudice and in permitting reindictment. See United States v.

Blevins, 142 F.3d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 1998). 

 Ruiz also avers that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), which was used to

enhance his sentence based on his prior aggravated felony

conviction, is unconstitutional. Ruiz acknowledges that his

argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme

Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466,

490 (2000). 

 Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90, 496; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979,

984 (5th Cir. 2000). Ruiz’ argument is foreclosed. Accordingly,

the judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### Geneva MILLER, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 2006-3205.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 1, 2006.

Geneva Miller, pro se.

*954Before BRYSON, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

The court treats Geneva Miller’s correspondence concerning the timeliness of her petition for review as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s previous rejection of her petition for review as untimely. Miller moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On December 27, 2005, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued a final decision in *Miller v. OPM,*No. PH-831E-05-0276-1-1,101 M.S.P.R. 132, specifying that its decision was final and that any petition for review must be received by this court within 60 calendar days of receipt of the Board’s decision. A copy of the certified mail receipt reflects that Miller received the Board’s decision on December 29, 2005.* Miller’s petition seeking review of the Board’s decision was received by the court on March 1, 2006 and rejected as untimely.

Our review of a Board decision is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), which provides that “[notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review must be filed within 60 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” This filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” *Monzo v. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,*735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 1984). Thus, under the time provision of the statute, Miller’s petition for review was due in this court within 60 days of receipt of the Board’s final decision, i.e., by February 27, 2006. Because Miller’s petition for review was received on March 1, 2006, 2 days late, the court must dismiss Miller’s petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for reconsideration is denied. The petition for review is dismissed as untimely.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) Miller’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is moot.

*

 Miller stated in her petition for review that she received the decision on December 30, 2005. In her motion for reconsideration she states that she is "not positive” if she received it exactly on that date. Nevertheless, even assuming that she received the decision on December 30, her petition would still be untimely.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael L. Belliard, Appellant.

Submitted April 9, 2012;

decided April 26, 2012

Reported below, 89 AD3d 1443.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Timothy P Donaher, Esq., Monroe County Public Defender, 10 N. Fitzhugh Street, Rochester, New York 14614 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
_____________ No. 96-1686EA

_____________ Patricia L. Gaffney, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * of Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED] Administration, * *

Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: November 1, 1996 Filed: November 7, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Patricia L. Gaffney appeals the district court's grant of summar y judgment affirming th e Commissioner's decision to deny Gaffney disability insurance and supplemental security income benef its. After careful review of the administrative record, we conclude the administrative law judg e properly assessed the uncontradicted opinions of the examining physicians, car efullyapplied the analysis under Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320 , 1322 (8th Cir. 1984), and properly relied on the medical vocationa l guidelines despite evidence about Gaffney's none xertional impairments. We also conclude the Com missioner proved that substantial gainful employment was realistically within Gaffney's physical and mental capabilities. In sum, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Commissioner that Gaff neyis not disabled for Social Security purposes. We affirm th e district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1065 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 158
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1065

                          [Report No. 111-411]

   Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory limit on the public 
                                 debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2010

   Mr. McGovern, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory limit on the public 
                                 debt.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
45) increasing the statutory limit on the public debt, with the Senate 
amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention 
of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, 
a motion offered by the Majority Leader or his designee that the House 
concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be 
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or 
their designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. The question 
of adoption of the motion shall be divided between concurring in the 
matter preceding title I of the Senate amendment and concurring in the 
matter comprising titles I and II of the Senate amendment. The first 
portion of the divided question shall be considered as adopted. If the 
second portion of the divided question fails of adoption, then the 
House shall be considered to have made no disposition of the Senate 
amendment.
                                                 House Calendar No. 158

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1065

                          [Report No. 111-411]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory limit on the public 
                                 debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            February 3, 2010

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
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 Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. 

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2001-9725.                 

*Date Filed:*                     May 21, 2001.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*                     PTC31 SOUTH 0106 dated May 18, 2001. Expedited South Pacific Resolutions r1-r4. Intended effective date: August 1, 2001.                 

Andrea M. Jenkins, 

Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 01-14100 Filed 6-4-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fabian Alexandro RIVERA GAUCIN, also known as Fabian Alexandro Rivera, also known as Fabian Rivera, also known as Fabian A. Rivera, also known as Fabian Alejandro Rivera-Gaucin, also known as Fabian Alejandro Rivera Gaucin, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20181

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fabian Alexandro Rivera Gaucin has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Rivera Gaucin has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel *13is excused from further responsibilities herein, 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.
S07Y0081.

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM C. CAMPBELL.

(637 SE2d 705)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on William C. Campbell’s petition seeking voluntary surrender of his license to practice law in the State of Georgia based on his criminal conviction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on three counts of felony tax evasion. See 26 USC § 7206 (1). It is a violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to be convicted of a felony (Rule 8.4 (a) (2)), and the maximum penalty for such conduct is disbarment. Rule 8.4 (d). Campbell conditions the voluntary surrender of his license, which is tantamount to disbarment, on the requirement that his license be reinstated should his convictions be overturned in his appeal currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In light of Campbell’s condition to the voluntary surrender of *317his license, we treat his petition as one seeking voluntary suspension of his license to practice law pending the resolution of his appeal. See Rule 4-106 (f), Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct; *In the Matter of Haugabrook, 275*Ga. 201 (563 SE2d 844) (2002); *In the Matter of Frederick,*274 Ga. 120 (549 SE2d 709) (2001); *In the Matter of Gormley, 272*Ga. 366 (529 SE2d *612) (2000); In the Matter of Kendall,*271 Ga. 166 (517 SE2d 323) (1999).

Decided November 20, 2006.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Lord, Bissell & Brooks, Michael V. Coleman,*for Campbell.

Accordingly, Campbell is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Georgia pending termination of his appeal of his felony convictions. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c) to timely notify clients of his inability to represent them, to take all actions necessary to protect the interests of his clients, and to certify to this Court that he has satisfied the requirements of the rule.

*Voluntary suspension of license until further order of this Court.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1177 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1177

    Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit 
   congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff 
                               benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2010

   Mr. Minnick (for himself and Mr. Simpson) submitted the following 
        resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit 
   congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff 
                               benefits.

    Resolved, That (a) clause 9 of rule XXI is amended by striking 
paragraphs (a) through (d), by redesignating paragraphs (e), (f), and 
(g) as paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), respectively, and by inserting 
before paragraph (b) the following new paragraph:
    ``(a) It shall not be in order to consider--
            ``(1) a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee if 
        it or the accompanying report contains a congressional earmark, 
        limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit;
            ``(2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by a 
        committee if it contains a congressional earmark, limited tax 
        benefit, or limited tariff benefit;
            ``(3) an amendment to a bill or joint resolution if it 
        contains a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or 
        limited tariff benefit; or
            ``(4) a conference report to accompany a bill or joint 
        resolution if it or the accompanying joint explanatory 
        statement prepared by the managers on the part of the House on 
        the part of the Senate contains a congressional earmark, 
        limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.''.
    (b) Clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
the following: ``, or a rule or order that would waive clause 9(a) of 
rule XXI''.
                                 <all>
```