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 September 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.





November 15, 2010

/s/ Kexuan YaoKexuan Yao

CEO and Chairman

(Principal executive officer)





November 15, 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.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41447 Summary Calendar

FRANKLIN JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant

v. CAPTAIN BUCK TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:14 -CV- 428

Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Franklin Jones, Texas prisoner # 1224452, appeals the magistrate judge’s final judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims with prejudice. 1
Jones does not challenge the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his claims against Grievance Officer Joe Hernandez and Assistant Warden Maria Ramirez or his claims for monetary damages against Captain Buck Taylor in his official

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c ). United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED March 28, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41447 Document: 00513928878 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2017No. 15

- 41447

2 capacity. These issues are therefore abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). Instead, Jones contends that the magistrate judge erred in granting Captain Taylor’s motion for summary judgment on qualified -immunity grounds . We review a grant of summary judgment de novo , using the same standard as that employed by the magistrate judge

. Carnaby v. City of
Houston , 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011). Contrary to Jones’s contention, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Captain Taylor placed him in handcuffs on October 17, 2013. Although Captain Taylor denied having done so in his November 10, 2013 , response to Jones’s grievance, Captain Taylor admitted this fact for purposes of his motion for summary judgment. Further, assuming that Jones suffered

a more than de minimis injury as a result of Captain Taylor’s too -tight application of the handcu ffs, he has failed to present any evidence showing that Captain Taylor’s actions were undertaken maliciously and sadistically to cause
harm rather than in a good- faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. See
Hudson v. McMillian , 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). Jones’s conclusory allegations that Captain Taylor’s actions were objectively unreasonable and that Captain Taylor applied the handcuffs maliciously and sadistically to cause him harm are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact precluding a summary judgment. See Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg , 564 F.3d 379, 382 (5th Cir. 2009); Hathaway v. Bazany , 507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir. 2007). These allegations are also contradicted by Jones’s assertion that Captain Taylor was not consciousl y aware of what he was doing. Therefore, Jones has failed to show that the magistrate judge erred in granting Captain Taylor’s motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-41447 Document: 00513928878 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2017
```

[Federal Register: March 26, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 16446]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26mr01-32]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m., Friday, April 6, 2001.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-7535 Filed 3-22-01; 2:39 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
|   | 1. | Aquair,      Inc., a California corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the      Company |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | OC      Energy Drink, Inc., a California corporation, a majority-owned subsidiary      of the Company |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | Aquair      Hong Kong Ltd, a company organized under the laws of Hong Kong, a      wholly-owned subsidiary of theCompany |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | Aquair      Asia Company Limited, a company organized under the laws of Thailand, a      wholly-owned subsidiary of theCompany |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Urban Barns Foods Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jacob Benne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 15thday of December, 2010.





/s/ Jacob Benne


Jacob Benne


Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7048** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ALBERT BETEMIT, a/k/a Juan Lopez, a/k/a Jose Ivan Torres, a/k/a Jose Frias , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appea l from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:95

- cr - 00064

- REP

- 1 )

Submitted : November 18 , 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Albert Betemit, Appellant Pro Se. Norval George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding prece dent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Albert Betemit appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for t he reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Betemit , No. 3:95

- cr - 00064

- REP

- 1 (E.D. Va. July 14, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
arg ument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Clark Richards

crichards@rrsfirm.com

816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200, Austin, Texas 78701 | Phone: (512) 476-0005 | Fax: (512) 476-1513 | Web: www.rrsfirm.com 

January 23, 2015 

(Via Efile) 

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk of Court 

Third Court of Appeals 

Price Daniel Sr. Building 

209 West 14th, Rm. 101 

Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Case No. 03-14-00116-CV; 

Steve Key et al. vs. Daniel R. Richards, as Receiver for Centex Freight Lines, LLC 

and Prudence Adams

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

In response to the Court’s notice dated January 21, 2015 regarding oral argument in the 

above referenced cause, please accept this as notice that Clark Richards will argue on behalf of 

Appellees. Also, please note that Russell Horton of George, Brothers, Kincaid & Horton, L.L.P. 

does not represent any party in this proceeding. 

Thank you for your attention. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARDS RODRIGUEZ & SKEITH, LLP

 

 Clark Richards 

cc: David Walsh (Via Fax & Email dmwalsh@chambleeryan.com)

Chamblee, Ryan, Kershaw & Anderson, P.C. 

2777 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1157 

Dallas, Texas 75207 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00116-CV

3880783

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/23/2015 2:19:51 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/23/2015 2:19:51 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14347]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-429-000]


Transwestern Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

June 1, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 25, 2001, Transwestern Pipeline Company 
(Transwestern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet; proposed to be 
effective June 25, 2001:

    Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 96

    Transwestern states that the revised tariff sheet adds another 
permissible type of transportation discount to Transwestern's General 
Terms and Conditions by providing for upward or downward adjustments to 
rate components to achieve an agreed-upon overall rate so long as all 
rate components remain within their respective minimum and maximum 
amounts.
    Transwestern further states that copies of the filing have been 
mailed to each of its customers and interested States Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims/htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14347 Filed 6-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Federal Register: September 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 59830]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24se02-35]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Membership of the Commission's Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Membership change of Performance Review Board.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Office of Personnel Management guidance
under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, notice is given that the
following employees will serve as members of the Commission's
Performance Review Board.
    Members: Madge A. Bolinger, Acting Executive Director, Chairman;
Andrea M. Corcoran, Director, Office of International Affairs; David R.
Merrill, Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel; Gregory G.
Mocek, Director, Division of Enforcement; and Patrick J. McCarty,
General Counsel, Office of General Counsel.

DATES: This action will be effective on September 18, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Office of Human
Resources, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Suite 4100,
Washington, DC 20581.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marsha E. Scialdo, Director, Office of
Human Resources, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., suite 4100, Washington, DC 20581, (202)
418-5003.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action which changes the membership of
the Board supersedes the previously published Federal Register Notice,
August 31, 2001.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 18, 2002.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-24226 Filed 9-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
# CE2012247EN.01004001.xml

| 17.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 247/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 247/40

---

Thursday 24 March 2011EC-Canada air transport agreement ***

P7_TA(2011)0107

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 March 2011 on the draft decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council on the conclusion of the Agreement on Air Transport between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Canada, of the other part (15380/2010 – C7-0386/2010 – 2009/0018(NLE))

2012/C 247 E/12

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council (15380/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council (15380/2010),

| — | having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and Canada on air transport (08303/10/2009), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and Canada on air transport (08303/10/2009),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2), Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v) and Article 218(8) first subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0386/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2), Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v) and Article 218(8) first subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0386/2010),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0045/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0045/2011),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the Agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Canada. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Canada.

---
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Small Business Industrial Innovation (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)—(61).                    

*Date/Time:*                         June 19-20, 2001, 8:30 am-5:00 pm.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                    

*Place:*                         Room 120, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Joseph Hennessey, Acting Director, Industrial Innovation, (703) 292-7069, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                    

*Purpose of Committee:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning research programs pertaining to the small business community.                    

### Agenda: June 19, 2001, Room 120

                        8:30 am—Introductions                              ( print page 30024)    

8:35 am—Welcome

8:45 am—Overview

9:00 am—COV Report and Discussion

10:30 am—Break

11:00 am—COV Report and Discussion (cont.)

12:00 noon—Lunch

1:00 pm—COV Response

2:30 pm—EPSCoR/SBIR Collaboration

3:00 pm—Break

3:30 pm—2001 Update

5:00 pm—Adjourn

### Agenda: June 20, 2001, Room 120

8:30 am—Preparation of Committee Report

10:00 am—Break

10:30 am—Feedback from the Committee

12:00 noon—Adjourn

Dated: May 29, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-13874  Filed 6-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### CARRIKER v. CARRIKER

No. 312PA98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 149

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 8 October 1998.
#### Vinod KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73373.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 5, 2010.

Filed Oct. 12, 2010.

Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Anna Benvenue, Law Office of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

*282William C. Erb, Jr., Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robin R. Taylor, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent.

Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Vinod Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA found that the government had sufficiently rebutted the presumption that Kumar has a well-founded fear of future persecution if he returns to India. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review, and we remand this matter to the BIA “to assess whether changed country conditions rebut the presumption based on the proper legal standards including an individualized determination.” *Lopez v. Ashcroft,*366 F.3d 799, 807 (9th Cir.2004).

Our case law requires that “the BIA ... provide an ‘individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioner’s situation.’” *Lopez,*366 F.3d at 805 (quoting *Borja v. INS,*175 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc)). Here, the BIA determined that Kumar no longer faced a well-founded fear of future persecution because of “(1) the current country conditions, including the end of the insurgency/counter-insurgency in Punjab; (2) changes in the police forces; and (3) the fact that the respondent is apolitical and is not a Sikh.” In addition, the BIA cited to specific sections in the Department of State’s country report (released March 31, 2003), which indicated there was a decrease in human right’s violations in the Punjab region. However, the BIA did not make an individualized analysis as to whether the changed country conditions would affect Kumar’s specific situation — a Hindu speaking out against police corruption in 1995 and 2000. Therefore, substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s decision.

Because Kumar’s claim for CAT relief and withholding of removal are based on the same evidence offered in support of his asylum claim, we remand both for further consider consideration consistent with this disposition.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 178.

#### Great Northern Ry. Co. *v.*Weeks, State Tax Commissioner, et al.

October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. F. G. Dorety*and *C. J.*

*Murphy*for petitioner,

*Mr. P. O. Sathre*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted.