alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         49,195,805
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         13,025,341
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               3,736,922
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    244,407,125
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         3,081,439
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           3,130,620
<LOANS>                                        652,120,420
<ALLOWANCE>                                    7,061,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,101,258,413
<DEPOSITS>                                     837,007,773
<SHORT-TERM>                                   126,171,864
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            9,328,706
<LONG-TERM>                                    26,209,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,010,493
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,530,327
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 1,101,258,413
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                45,284,615
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              12,606,368
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               388,423
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               58,279,406
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             23,325,377
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             30,622,964
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          27,656,442
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  607,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (138,911)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                28,167,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,331,362
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,389,528
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,389,528
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.79
<LOANS-NON>                                    5,160,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   250,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                200,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               6,904,979
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  665,856
<RECOVERIES>                                   215,320
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              7,061,943
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           7,061,943
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0


</TABLE>
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4269 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 11:12:41 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4269 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 11:12:41 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4269 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 11:12:41 Page 3 of

3
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62793-62794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29835]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5341-8]


Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Operating Permits 
Program; Mariposa Air Pollution Control District, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim approval of the title V operating 
permits program submitted by the Mariposa Air Pollution Control 
District (Mariposa or District) for the purpose of complying with 
federal requirements that mandate that states develop, and submit to 
EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary 
sources and to certain other sources. Today's action also proposes 
approval of Mariposa's mechanism for receiving delegation of section 
112 standards as promulgated.
    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is 
promulgating interim approval of Mariposa's title V program as a direct 
final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this submittal as 
noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed 
rationale for this approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If 
no adverse comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no 
further activity is contemplated in relation to this rulemaking. If EPA 
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and 
all 

[[Page 62794]]
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting 
on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
January 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to: Sara 
Bartholomew, Operating Permits Section (A-5-2), Air and Toxics 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    Copies of the District's submittal, EPA's Technical Support 
Document, and other supporting information used in developing the 
proposed approval are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 
IX office during normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Bartholomew (telephone 415/744-
1170), Operating Permits Section (A-5-2), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule of the same title which is located in the Rules section of 
this Federal Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: November 13, 1995.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-29835 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2010-0069; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-15]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

                        This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         April 1, 2010 that establishes Class E airspace at Mt Pleasant Regional Airport-Faison Field, Mount Pleasant, SC.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         0901 UTC, June 8, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melinda Giddens, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P. O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Confirmation of Effective Date

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 16335), Docket No. FAA-2010-0069; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-15. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule                           ( print page 32269)                        where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 3, 2010. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date.                

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 27, 2010.

Barry A. Knight,

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.

[FR Doc. 2010-13637 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
EXHIBIT A-7 

Exhibit A-7 Page 223

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 1

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 224

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 2

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 225

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 3

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 226

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 4

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 227

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 5

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 228

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 6

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 229

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 7

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 230

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 8

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 231

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 9

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 232

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 10

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 233

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 11

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 234

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 12

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 235

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 13

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 236

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 14

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 237

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 15

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 238

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 16

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 239

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 17

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 240

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 18

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 241

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 19

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 242

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 20

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 243

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 21

of 22
Exhibit A-7 Page 244

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-8 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 22

of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 510 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:24:36 Page 1 of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 510 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:24:36 Page 2 of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 510 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:24:36 Page 3 of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 510 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:24:36 Page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus KAMAL MABREY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR-03-511-RDB) Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: June 16, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, John H. Chun, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland; Sherri Keene, Staff Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, John F. Purcell, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kamal Mabrey pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced him as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), to 188 months of imprisonment, the bottom of the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines range. We affirmed Mabrey’s conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). SeeUnited States v. Mabrey , 150 F. App’x 274 (4th Cir. 2005) (No. 04-5077) (“Mabrey I ”). On remand, the district court resentenced Mabrey to a 180-month prison term, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Mabrey appeals the sentence imposed on remand, asserting that the district court erred in concluding that his second-degree burglary conviction under Maryland law qualified as a violent felony for purposes of sentencing him as an armed career criminal and that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the predicate offenses were neither submitted to a jury nor admitted by him. Mabrey acknowledges, however, that he is precluded from raising these issues in this appeal because he litigated them in Mabrey I . In Mabrey I , we rejected the claims Mabrey now seeks to raise in this appeal. Thus, we find that Mabrey’s claims are barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine and that none of the- 3 - exceptions applies. See United States v. Aramony , 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto); see alsoS. Atl. Ltd. P’ship of Tenn. v. Riese , 356 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 2004) (discussing mandate rule). Accordingly, we affirm Mabrey’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARK D. BODDEN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2857

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 2, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pasco 

County; Kim Campbell, Judge.

Mark D. Bodden, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CRENSHAW, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

EXHIBIT C 

EXPENSE SUMMARY 

FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2019 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2019 

EXPENSES AMOUNTS

Computerized Research $19,445.13 

Court Reporting $7,699.20 

CourtCall $110.00 

Duplicating $4,989.32 

Firm Messenger Service $272.38 

Meals $2,827.82 

Transportation $6,766.35 

Travel $36,762.12 

Total Expenses Requested: $78,872.32 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5315-3 Filed: 01/09/20 Entered: 01/09/20 11:14:21 Page 1

of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6734

ROBIN EUGENE LAND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUSAN WHITE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (3:13-cv-00681-FDW)

Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robin Eugene Land, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robin Eugene Land seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Land has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 508 

To extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program for five years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2013 

Mr. GRIMM (for himself, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. 

ROSS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. DUFFY, and Mrs. MCCARTHY of 

New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program for five 

years. 

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 ‘‘Terrorism Risk Insur5 ance Act of 2002 Reauthorization Act of 2013’’ or the 

6 ‘‘TRIA Reauthorization Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 508 IH

1 SEC. 2. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TERRORISM RISK INSUR2 ANCE PROGRAM. 

3 (a) PROGRAM YEARS.—Section 102(11)(G) of the 

4 Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 

5 note) is amended by striking ‘‘2014’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘2019’’. 

7 (b) TIMING OF MANDATORY RECOUPMENT.—Section 

8 103(e)(7)(E)(i)(III) of such Act is amended by striking 

9 ‘‘2017’’ and inserting ‘‘2024’’. 

10 (c) TERMINATION DATE.—Section 108(a) of such 

11 Act is amended by striking ‘‘2014’’ and inserting ‘‘2019’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Emma C. Gaige, Respondent, v. The Grand Lodge of the Ancient Order of United Workmen of the State of New York, Appellant.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Haight, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27

ART. 5 FDS FOR 3RD QUARTER 10-Q

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 1998 (Unaudited) and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Nine Months ended September
30, 1998 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                         $ 1,227,829
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                   10,697,074
<ALLOWANCES>                       226,112
<INVENTORY>                      7,313,347
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                20,054,106
<PP&E>                           4,974,122
<DEPRECIATION>                   2,255,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  28,440,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           12,050,586
<BONDS>                                  0
<COMMON>                         1,681,904
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                             83
<OTHER-SE>                       9,546,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    28,440,913
<SALES>                         31,184,850
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                31,184,850
<CGS>                           26,282,583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   32,204,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  (180,565)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 342,407
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (1,181,173)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (1,181,173)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,181,173)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.07
        

</TABLE>
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

April 04, 2008

Mr. Blake Bradford Thompson

The Thompson Law Office

260 N. Belknap

Stephenville, TX 76401

Mr. Lance Hall

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 168

Sweetwater, TX 79556

Ms. Mary A. Keeney

Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody, P.C.

401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200

Austin, TX 78767-0098

RE:Case Number:  06-0814

Court of Appeals Number:  11-05-00098-CV

Trial Court Number:  20,371

Style:TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

PAULA LEDBETTER, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES WADE LEDBETTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF DUSTIN WADE LEDBETTER, A MINOR, AND TONJA LEDBETTER AND JAMIE LEDBETTER, INDIVIDUALLY

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  The Motion for Emergency Relief from Declaratory Judgment Action is dismissed as moot.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0814Page 2**
Advanced BioMedical Technologies Inc.-10k


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 of Advanced BioMedical Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Kai GUI, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Dated this 15th day of February , 2011./s/ Kai GUIKai GUI, Director, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer