alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS

As independent engineering consultants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports and data extracted therefrom (and all references to our Firm) included
in or made a part of this Form 10-K Annual Report to be filed on or about April
15, 1999, and to the incorporation by reference of this Form 10-K Annual Report
(including the use of our report and references to our Firm herein) into that
certain Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed by Costilla Energy, Inc. with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, file number 333-70357, and those certain
Registration Statements on Form S-8 filed by Costilla Energy, Inc. with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, file numbers 333-16513, 333-16515, and
333-16517 covering the Bonus Incentive Plan of Costilla Energy, Inc., the
Outside Directors Stock Option Plan of Costilla Energy, Inc., and the 1996 Stock
Option Plan of Costilla Energy, Inc., respectively, and file numbers 333-38747
and 333-38751 covering additional shares under the Outside Directors Stock
Option Plan and the 1996 Stock Option Plan, respectively.


                                       WILLIAMSON PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS, INC.




Houston, Texas
April 15, 1999
Description of Mosaic Synergy Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.iii.i. 
  
 Description of Mosaic Synergy Incentive Plan 
  
 The Mosaic Company (“Mosaic”) expects annual, pre-tax operating synergies from the business combination (the
“Combination”) between IMC Global Inc. and Cargill Crop Nutrition of $145.0 million by the end of the fiscal year ending May 31, 2007. Capital investments to implement the synergies are estimated to be between $80 and $100 million. In
addition, Mosaic is incurring operating expenses such as severance costs and other costs to implement these synergies. In order to motivate key employees, including executive officers, to achieve or exceed the expected levels of synergies, in
addition to the Mosaic Incentive Plan, Mosaic has a Synergy Incentive Plan for each of its first three fiscal years (ending May 31, 2007) pursuant to which key managers, including executive officers, are eligible for additional annual cash incentive
compensation. The Synergy Incentive Plan is designed to more directly align the interests of key employees with the interests of stockholders in achieving synergies from the Combination. Under the Synergy Incentive Plan, a pool available for bonuses
is established for each fiscal year based upon attainment of levels of annual pre-tax synergies from the Combination that have been pre-established by the Board, upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee. Individual bonuses are payable
from the pool based upon the assessment, by the Compensation Committee of Mosaic’s Board of Directors, in the case of executive officers, and by the Company’s Senior Leadership Team, in the case of other participants, of business unit and
individual contributions towards achieving Mosaic’s synergy goals.
Ex-10.2



 






EXHIBIT 10.2




First Amendment

to the

Bowater Incorporated

Mid-Term Incentive Plan




     WHEREAS, Bowater Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), established the
Bowater Incorporated Mid-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), and



     WHEREAS, the Corporation has granted the power to amend the Plan to the Human Resources and
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”),



     WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan;




     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of January 25, 2005 (the “Effective Date”), the first sentence of
Section 7 of the Plan shall be deleted and restated as follows:



“Section 7. Change in Control




     Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, if a Change in Control of the Company shall
have occurred, the Company shall pay each Participant an Award which equals his annual base salary
rate as of the date of the Change in Control times one-half the Maximum Payout Percentage Award for
each Plan cycle that has begun, subject to proration in the manner provided under provisions of
Section 6.1 for Participants whose employment terminated before the Change in Control under the
circumstances described in Section 6.1, but not to the proration provisions of Section 4.2.”



     Subject to the foregoing, the remaining provisions in Section 7 and in all other Sections in
the Plan shall remain in full force and effect on and after the Effective Date. Capitalized terms
not defined in this amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Plan.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Bowater Incorporated has caused this First Amendment to be executed by a
duly authorized officer of the Corporation on behalf of the Committee.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BOWATER INCORPORATED

 	 
	 	By:  	
/s/ James T. Wright
 	 
	 	 	James T. Wright 	 
	 	 	Senior Vice President — Human Resources

Date Signed: 5/13/2005
MECKLENBURG COUNTY v. ROZUMNY DEVELOPMENT, LLC

No. COA04-1718.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Mecklengburg (02CVS14113, 02CVS16147).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21


                           MARKWEST HYDROCARBON, INC.
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
          NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                    TYPE OF ENTITY                     RELATIONSHIP
          ------------------                    --------------                     ------------
<S>                                    <C>                                   <C>
1) MarkWest Michigan, Inc.             Colorado Corporation                  Wholly-owned subsidiary

2) West Shore Processing Company, LLC  Michigan Limited Liability Company    Wholly-owned subsidiary

3) Basin Pipeline, LLC                 Michigan Limited Liability Company    Wholly-owned subsidiary

4) MarkWest Resources, Inc.             Colorado Corporation                 Wholly-owned subsidiary

5) 155 Inverness, Inc.                 Colorado Corporation                  Wholly-owned subsidiary
</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LILIA BEDROSIAN, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 10-72401 Agency No. A097-629-496
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 6, 2014 ** Pasadena, California Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Lilia Bedrosian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the BIA’s order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s ("IJ") decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Reviewing for substantial evidence the 

# FILED
MAR 10 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).IJ’s factual findings, including the advers e credibility determination, Cortez-Pineda v. Holder , 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny in part and dismiss in part. 1. Substantial evidence, id. , supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The forensic expert’s testimony concerning Petitioner’s driver’s license and political party membership card and the consular investigation report on Petitioner’s medical records provide substantial evidence to support the finding that these documents were fraudulent. Because the genuineness of at least one of the documents proffered by Petitioner went to the heart of Petitioner’s claims about persecution on account of political opinion and physical mistreatment at the hands of the authorities, the IJ permissibly deemed Petitioner’s testimony not credible. Desta v. Ashcroft , 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible testimony or other credible corroborating evidence, Petitioner fails to meet her burden to establish her withholding of rem oval or CAT claim. Farah v. Ashchroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2003). We therefore deny the portions of the petition concerning withholding of removal and CAT relief. 2. Petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that her application for asylum was filed within one year after the date of her arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Where, as here, the BIA
2determined that Petitioner failed to meet th at burden, we lack jurisdiction to review that determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); see also Gasparyan v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that, where our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3) and 1252(a)(2)(D), we are limited to reviewing only those cases in which the underlying facts are undis puted). We therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the petition concerning Petitioner’s application for asylum. DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

3
CANTY v. HAYES MEMORIAL UNITED HOLY CHURCH, INC.

No. COA05-1054.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Guilford, (04CVS9633).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.
HENDERSON v. APAC-ATLANTIC, INC.

No. COA05-1141.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 18, 2006.

Certification Date August 7, 2006.

Appeal from Iredell (04CVS1262).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
# L_2012302EN.01000701.xml

| 31.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 302/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/7

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1007/2012

of 25 October 2012

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Fränkischer Karpfen / Frankenkarpfen / Karpfen aus Franken (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany's application to register the name ‧Fränkischer Karpfen / Frankenkarpfen / Karpfen aus Franken‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany's application to register the name ‧Fränkischer Karpfen / Frankenkarpfen / Karpfen aus Franken‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 October 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 30, 3.2.2012, p. 10.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.7.   Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom

GERMANY

Fränkischer Karpfen / Frankenkarpfen / Karpfen aus Franken (PGI)

---
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3598

___________

LINDSWORTH BROWN-SESSAY, Petitioner

VS.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A076-576-183)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Leo A. Finston

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 22, 2013

Before: SCIRICA, JORDAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 28, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Lindsworth Brown-Sessay (“Sessay”)1petitions for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) August 24, 2012 decision upholding the Immigration 

 

1 Brown-Sessay’s filings refer to himself as “Sessay,” and we will do the same here.
2

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering Sessay’s removal to Jamaica. While this case was at the 

briefing stage, Sessay moved the BIA to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA 

subsequently granted that motion and remanded the administrative record to the IJ for 

further proceedings.

In light of the BIA’s grant of reopening, both parties now argue that Sessay’s 

petition for review should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We agree. Our 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) is limited to the review of “final order[s] of 

removal.” Although the BIA’s August 24, 2012 decision constituted a final order of 

removal at the time Sessay filed his petition, the BIA’s subsequent grant of reopening 

effectively vacated that decision. See Bronisz v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir. 

2004); Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002) (order). Because there 

is no longer a final order of removal before us, we will dismiss Sessay’s petition for lack 

of jurisdiction.

2

 

2

Sessay’s brief, filed before the BIA’s grant of reopening, included requests for 

miscellaneous relief. To the extent Sessay continues to seek that relief, those requests are 

hereby denied.
Exhibit 32.2
Section 1350 Certification

In
connection with the annual report of Puradyn Filter Technologies Incorporated
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Cindy Lea Gimler,
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:

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.

|                |                                                                       
|--------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|April
 10, 2009 | /s/   Cindy Lea Gimler                                                
|                | Cindy Lea Gimler                                                      
|                | 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 18 U.S.C. 1350


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




In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of ZHONGPIN INC. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), Xianfu Zhu, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date:
            November 9, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Xianfu ZhuXianfu
      ZhuChief
      Executive Officer




This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.


Ex.
32.1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             956
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,100
<PP&E>                                         227,217
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 496,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,511
<BONDS>                                        225,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,162
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   496,753
<SALES>                                        514,790
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               514,790
<CGS>                                          438,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  477,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (557)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,227
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,624
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,397)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  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 of Marketing Worldwide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Winzkowski, 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, to my
knowledge 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/ MICHAEL WINZKOWSKI
---------------------------
Michael Winzkowski
Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2006


                                       24
ROOKER v. FOOD LION

No. COA04-1384.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 18, 2005.

Certification Date November 7, 2005.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 37982).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Tony Eugene HOWELL.

No. 136P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Tony Eugene Howell, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 14th day of March 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."
IN RE T.R.

No. COA05-1363.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
# L_2021129EN.01016101.xml

| 15.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 129/161 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 129/161

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) No 509/2012 of 15 June 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 156 of 16 June 2012
  )

On page 31, in Table IX.A1. Materials, chemicals, ‘micro-organisms’ and ‘toxins’, No IX.A1.003:

for:

‘Dichloromethane, (CAS 75-09-3)’,

read:

‘Dichloromethane, (CAS 75-09-2)’.

---