alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.12


 


Amended and
Restated Power of Attorney


 


I,
Yin Shenping , with ID number 320113196912054853 , am a shareholder who owns a 1.25% equity
interest in Beijing Baihengda Petroleum Technology Co., Ltd. (" Petroleum Technology ") (" My
Equity "). Since my equity interest in the Power of Attorney dated January 1, 2008 has been effectively canceled, I
hereby irrevocably authorize Recon Hengda Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. ( " Hengda Technology ") to exercise
the following rights during the validity period of this power of attorney:


 


To
authorize Hengda Technology to act as my sole and exclusive agent to exercise all rights on my behalf in my name on matters related to
my equity, including but not limited to the following rights: (1) participate in the shareholders’ meeting of Petroleum Technology
and execute the relevant shareholders’ resolutions on my behalf; (2) exercise all the shareholder rights that I have in accordance
with the law and the articles of association of Petroleum Technology, including but not limited to shareholders’ voting rights,
the right to sell or transfer or pledge or dispose of all or any part of my equity; and (3) as my authorized representative, designate
and appoint the legal representative, chairman of the board, directors, supervisors, general manager and other senior management personnel
of Petroleum Technology.


 


Hengda Technology will have
the right to sign the revised and restated exclusive right of purchase contract (I shall be a party to the contract) on behalf of me within
the scope of authorization, and perform the assignment contract as a party to the contract on the same day as this power of attorney.
The exercise of the revised and restated equity pledge contract and the revised and restated exclusive right of purchase contract signed
will not impose any restriction on the exercise of this authorization.


 


Except as otherwise stipulated
in this power of attorney, all actions of Hengda Technology regarding my equity can be made in accordance with its own judgment without
any oral or written instructions from me.


 


All acts of Hengda
Technology regarding my equity shall be regarded as my own, and all signed documents shall be deemed to have been signed by me, and I
will recognize it.


 


Hengda Technology has the right
to delegate, and can re-delegate other individuals or units on its own for the handling of the above matters and the exercise of its own
equity without notifying me or obtaining my consent in advance, but it shall notify me immediately afterwards, and such delegated rights
The exercise shall not harm my interests.


 


While I am a shareholder of
Petroleum Technology, this power of attorney is irrevocable and continues to be valid, starting from the date of signing this power of
attorney.


 


During the period of this power
of attorney, if I need to exercise all the rights related to my equity that have been authorized to Hengda Technology through this power
of attorney, I shall negotiate with Hengda Technology.


 


 


	 	Signed: Yin
    Shenping
	 	 
	 	/s/ Yin Shenping
	 	Yin Shenping
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Effective as of April 1, 2019
Case 1:06-cv-15007-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-464 (Second Review)]

      ( print page 70636)    

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on sparklers from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31537) and determined on September 7, 2005 that it would conduct an expedited review (70 FR 55164, September 20, 2005).

                    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on November 15, 2005. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3814 (November 2005), entitled                     *Sparklers from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-464 (Second Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: November 16, 2005.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 05-23014 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### Lynda J. BAKER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-15705.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Lynda J. Baker, Redding, CA, pro se.

Debora G. Luther, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lynda J. Baker appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of *152defendants on the grounds that Baker’s Title VII action was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and we review for an abuse of discretion its application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel. *See Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,*270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, Baker “is precluded from pursuing claims about which [s]he had knowledge, but did not disclose, during [her] bankruptcy proceedings ...” *See id.*The record shows that Baker knowingly failed to disclose her pending Equal Employment Opportunity claim as an asset in her bankruptcy schedules and financial statement. The record also shows that both the bankruptcy court and Baker’s creditors relied on the disclosure statements and schedules, and the bankruptcy was subsequently discharged. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on judicial estoppel. *Id.*at 782-83.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *152courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:06-cv-15033-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| I. | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| II. | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                      |                                        |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |                                      |
|   |                                      | /s/ Michael                  Mullarkey |
|   | Michael                  Mullarkey        |
|   | Chief                  Executive Officer  |
|   |                                      |
|   | Date: September 28,                  2006 |
EXHIBIT 99.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the
undersigned, John R. Gibson, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Pacific Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2002 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/    JOHN R. GIBSONJohn R. Gibson Chairman of the Board of Directors, President & Chief Executive Officer November 19, 2002
| Name:                                                 |         | State (or jurisdiction)in which Incorporated |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Web.com      Canada, Inc.                             |         | Canada                                                           |
| 1425      N. Washington Street, LLC                   |         | Washington                                                       |
| Web.com      Holding Company, Inc.                    |         | Delaware                                                         |
| Micron      Electronics International, Inc.           |         | Delaware                                                         |
| Micron      Electronics Asia-Pacific Holdings, Inc.   |         | B.V.I.                                                           |
| Micron      Electronics Asia-Pacific Operations, Inc. |         | B.V.I.                                                           |
| MEI      California, Inc.                             |         | California                                                       |
| CommuniTech.Net,      Inc.                            |         | Missouri                                                         |
| Wazoo      Web, Inc.                                  |         | Georgia                                                          |
| Perfect      Privacy, LLC                             |         | Connecticut                                                      |
| WSM      Holdco, Inc                                  |         | Delaware                                                         |
| Websource      Holdco, Inc.                           |         | Delaware                                                         |
| Web      Astro GP, Inc.                               |         | Delaware                                                         |
| Web      Astro LP, Inc.                               |         | Delaware                                                         |
| GlobeNetix,      LP                                   |         | Delaware                                                         |
| Trellix      Corporation                              |         | Delaware                                                         |
| Interland      Government Contracting, Inc.           |         | Delaware                                                         |
| HostPro,      Inc.                                    |         | Delaware                                                         |
| Eversites,      LLC                                   |         | Texas                                                            |
| Siteblast,      LLC                                   |         | Texas                                                            |
| US      Web Network, LLC                              |    | Texas                                                            |

----
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

# Soldier Accounted For From Korean War (Thompson, D.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Exhibit 7.1

# Celanese AG

# Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

# (In millions, except ratios)

|                                                       | Years ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------
|
|Earnings:                                              |                         
|Earnings (loss) before income tax, minority interests, |                         
|discontinued operations and extraordinary expense      |                         
|Add -                                                  |                         
|Fixed charges as computed on bottom half of table      |                         
|Amortization of capitalized interest                   |                         
|Affiliate dividends                                    |                         
|                                                      
|Deduct -                                               |                         
|Affiliate Income                                       |                         
|Capitalized interest                                   |                         
|                                                      
|Earnings as defined                                    |                         
|                                                       |                         
|Fixed charges:                                         |                         
|Interest and debt expense                              |                         
|Capitalized interest                                   |                         
|Interest factor of rentals(a)                          |                         
|                                                      
|Fixed charges as defined                               |                         
|                                                       |                         
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                     |                         
|                                                       |                         

* Calculation of the ratio results
in an amount that is less than one. The amount of the earnings deficiency for the year
ended December 31, 1999 was 559, which includes a special charge of 538
associated primarily with product liability reserves and restructuring costs. Excluding
these charges, the Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges would have been 0.9.

** Calculation of the ratio results
in an amount that is less than one. The amount of the earnings deficiency for the year
ended December 31, 2001 was 478, which includes a special charge of 496
associated primarily with asset impairment and restructuring costs. Excluding these
charges, the Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges would have been 1.2.

(a) Represents one-third of rent
expense, which is deemed to be representative of the interest factor of operating
leases.
#### STATE v. WILLIAMS

No. 698P82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 549.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 March 1983.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60110

Summary Calendar

JULIO ARMANDO BRUNET,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:18-CV-456

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Armando Brunet, federal prisoner # 05079-104, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order releasing 

him from incarceration and directing the United States to pay him monetary 

damages.

A district court’s determination that it will not exercise its discretion to 

grant a petition for mandamus is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Newsome 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 30, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-60110 Document: 00515251854 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2019
No. 19-60110

2

v. E.E.O.C., 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002). “Mandamus is an extraordinary 

remedy that should be granted only in the clearest and most compelling cases.” 

In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1987). A party seeking mandamus relief 

must show both that he has no other adequate means to obtain the requested 

relief and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Brunet failed to pursue properly his opportunity to appeal his conviction 

and sentence that he challenges, and he continues to have an option of seeking 

postconviction relief. He is not entitled to mandamus relief because he failed 

to pursue remedies that were and may be available to him. Id. Further, 

Brunet has not shown a clear and indisputable right to relief. Id. He has failed 

to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying his 

petition for a writ of mandamus. The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-60110 Document: 00515251854 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2019
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 Annual Report of Salomon Smith Barney Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, 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 results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci                                     Jerry Pascucci Citigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

March 30, 2007                                        Date

----
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40513

Conference Calendar

__________________

ROBERT WAYNE MITCHELL,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FREDERICK L. BROWN, Sgt. of High Security

at Michael Unit,

HEROD NICHERSON, JR., CO III in High Security

at Michael Unit,

JIMMY E. ALFORD, Warden,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:94-CV-714

- - - - - - - - - -

December 20, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert W. Mitchell, a prisoner of the State of Texas,

appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing his

civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Mitchell

argues that his punishment for not obeying an order to remove his

hands from his pockets violated due process because he did not
No. 95-40513

-2-

have fair warning and that the officers' conduct violated the

Eighth Amendment because he suffered psychological injury. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Mitchell's motion to amend his

complaint is DENIED.

 On appeal, Mitchell can present no legal points arguable on

their merits, and the appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is

frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. We caution

Mitchell that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will

invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Mitchell

is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have

been previously decided by this court.

 APPEAL DISMISSED.