alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Wisconsin Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

August 3, 2006
Jonathan E. BRUNSON, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., and the State of North Carolina, Defendants.

No. COA18-657

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Report) of NeoStem, Inc. (the Corporation) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Larry A. May, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Corporation.  Dated: April 5, 2011

          

          /s/ Larry A. MayLarry A. MayChief Financial Officer
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. 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 the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### IRVING M. MOLEVER and H. L. DERRICKSON, Individually and Doing Business as White Shield Nutrition Centers, Appellants, v. A. W. BURTON and DAWN BURTON, Respondents.

No. 9306

June 28, 1978

580 P.2d 124

[Rehearing denied August 25, 1978]

*Lionel Sawyer & Collins,*of Las Vegas, for Appellants.

*Pursel & Pursel, Ltd.,*of Las Vegas, for Respondents.

*385OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

We are requested to review a discretionary ruling of the district court denying defendants’ motion to set aside entry of default and default judgment. That judgment restored plaintiffs to the ownership and possession of a health food store business, and ordered the payment of damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

The fact-conflicts which emerge from a reading of the documents in support of and in opposition to the motion were resolved against the defendants. Consequently, it was permissible for the court to conclude that the defendants were not entitled to relief for mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. NRCP 60(b)(1); Intermountain Lumber v. Glens Falls, 83 Nev. 126, 424 P.2d 884 (1967).1

The defendants-appellants appeared to contend, alternatively, that the award of damages was improper in light of the rule approved in Kitchin v. Mori, 84 Nev. 181, 437 P.2d 865 (1968). they claim that as buyers of the health food store their payments upon the purchase price exceeded any damages sustained by plaintiffs-respondents, and that the plaintiffs-respondents were unjustly enriched by the judgment awarding damages. That contention was not tendered to the district court by the defendants-appellants whose burden it was to present it. Kitchin v. Mori, supra.

Affirmed.

1

Counsel for appellants in this appeal were not their counsel when default was entered and judgment taken.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

San Francisco, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0400

Issued: February 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On January 26, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a February 3, 2020 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0400.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the February 3, 2020 decision was August 1, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until January 26, 2023, more than 180 days after the

February 3, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0400 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0400, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0400 is dismissed.

Issued: February 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
# C_2007072EN.01002801.xml

| 29.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/28

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4503 — PBDS/Philips APM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 72/10)

On 16 February 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4503. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4503. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 12
                         JOSTENS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                   Six months
                                          Three months ended                Years ended               ended           Years ended
                                        ----------------------   -------------------------------   ------------   -----------------
                                         April 1      April 3     January 1  January 2 January 3   December 28     June 30  June 30
Dollars in thousands                      2000          1999        2000       1999       1998         1996          1996    1995
--------------------------------------------------------------   -------------------------------   ------------   ------------------
<S>                                     <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>            <C>        <C>
Earnings
Income from continuing operations
before income taxes                       $19,023     $13,518     $74,659    $83,520    $93,383         $   26     $87,479  $ 93,893

Interest expense
(excluding capitalized interest)            1,916       1,122       7,312      7,014      6,854          4,324       9,296     5,350

Portion of rent expense under
long-term operating leases
representative of an interest factor          322         398       1,483      1,233      2,133          1,070       2,103     2,100

Amortization of debt expense                   23           3         174         12         12              6         107       102
--------------------------------------------------------------   -------------------------------   ------------   ------------------
Total earnings                            $21,284     $15,041     $83,628    $91,779   $102,382         $5,426     $98,985  $101,445
==============================================================   ===============================   ============   ==================

Fixed charges
Interest expense
(including capitalized interest)          $ 1,916     $ 1,267     $ 7,713    $ 7,717    $ 6,854         $4,324     $ 9,296  $  5,350

Portion of rent expense under
long-term operating leases
representative of an interest factor          322         398       1,483      1,233      2,133          1,070       2,103     2,100

Amortization of debt expense                   23           3         174         12         12              6         107       102
--------------------------------------------------------------   -------------------------------   ------------   ------------------
Total fixed charges                       $ 2,261     $ 1,668     $ 9,370    $ 8,962    $ 8,999         $5,400     $11,506  $  7,552
==============================================================   ===============================   ============   ==================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges            9.4         9.0         8.9       10.2       11.4            1.0         8.6      13.4
</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Michels , 2023

- Ohio

- 1461.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

vs.
CHRISTOPHER MICHELS , Defendant

- Appell ant

. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C

- 22051 8

TRIAL NO. B

- 2200672

O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is : Reversed and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 3, 2023

Melissa A. Powers , Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Dono van , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff

- Appellee , Thomas W. Kidd , for Defendant

- Appellant.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2 Z AYAS , J udge. 

### {¶1} Christopher Michels appeals the three

- year driver’s

- license suspension imposed after a guilty plea to two counts of child e ndangerment

. For the following reason, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for resentencing consistent with this opinion

. 

### {¶2} Michels pled guilty to violating R.C. 2919.22(C)(1), which prohibits operating a vehicle in violation of R.C . 4511.19(A) while children under 18 are present in the car. R.C. 4511.19(A) prohibits operating a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol

. 

### {¶3} For a violation of R.C. 2919.22(C)(1), the trial court may impose “a class seven suspension of the of fender’s dri ver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit or nonresident operating privilege from the range specified in division (A)(7) of section 4510.02 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 4510.02(A)(7) specifies a suspension for “a definite period not to exce ed one year. ” 

### {¶4} Here, the trial court imposed a three

- year suspension which exceeds the range specified in R.C. 4510.02(A)(7). The state concedes the error. 

### {¶5} Accordingly, we s ustain the assignment of error, reve rse the imposition
of the three

- year driver’s

- l icense suspe nsion, and remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing with respect to the imposition of the license suspension

. T he trial court’s judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Judgment reversed and cause remanded

.

C ROUSE , P.J., and K INSLEY , J., concur
.

Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5598 

To exclude from gross income compensation provided by BP, PLC for victims 

of the explosion on and sinking of the mobile offshore drilling unit 

Deepwater Horizon and the discharge of oil in the Gulf of Mexico 

caused by such explosion and sinking, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2010 

Mr. MELANCON (for himself and Mr. BOYD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To exclude from gross income compensation provided by BP, 

PLC for victims of the explosion on and sinking of 

the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon and 

the discharge of oil in the Gulf of Mexico caused by 

such explosion and sinking, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Oil Spill Tax Relief 

5 Act of 2010’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5598 IH

1 SEC. 2. GULF OIL SPILL COMPENSATION EXCLUDED FROM 

2 GROSS INCOME. 

3 For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 

4 1986— 

5 (1) the explosion on and sinking of the mobile 

6 offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon and the 

7 discharge of oil in the Gulf of Mexico caused by such 

8 explosion and sinking shall be treated as a qualified 

9 disaster under section 139(c) of such Code, and 

10 (2) any compensation provided by BP, PLC to 

11 a victim of such disaster shall be treated as a quali12 fied disaster relief payment under section 139(b) of 

13 such Code. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
# L_2007139EN.01001901.xml

| 31.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 139/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 139/19

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 590/2007

of 30 May 2007

on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector (tomatoes)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables (2), and in particular Article 6(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 134/2007 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 134/2007 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued.

| (2) | In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for tomatoes will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for tomatoes will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector.

| (3) | To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for tomatoes after 30 May 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for tomatoes after 30 May 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for system B export licences for tomatoes submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 134/2007, export declarations for which are accepted after 30 May and before 1 July 2007, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 31 May 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 May 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 548/2007 (OJ L 130, 22.5.2007, p. 3).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 42, 14.2.2007, p. 16, as corrected by OJ L 52, 21.2.2007, p. 12.

3

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cruz NORIEGA-CISNERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50905.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Cruz Noriega-Cisnero raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, *618118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
#### Lilies LANIWATI LOKAJAYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73943, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Cindy S. Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Susan Houser, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

*872MEMORANDUM***

Lilies Laniwati Lokajaya, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Lokajaya failed to file her application for asylum within one year of her admission to the United States, *see*8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3); *Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001), and that no extraordinary circumstances excused the late filing, *see Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002).

Lokajaya, represented by counsel, made no argument in her opening brief regarding the denial of her application for withholding of removal or protection under CAT. Accordingly, she has waived the right to challenge those determinations. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Lokajaya’s claims that her due process rights were violated, and that the IJ erred in failing to obtain an individual advisory opinion from the Department of State, because she did not exhaust these issues before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.