alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 1, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Ullrich E. Porzig, Senior Vice President — Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date: June 7, 2004           /s/     Ullrich E. Porzig    Ullrich E. Porzig   Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Ex parte Kerrance Ramone BROWN.

No. 07-96-0101-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

May 20, 1996.

*112Waters, Holt & Fields, David E. Holt, Pampa, for appellant.

John Mann, District Attorney, Pampa, for appellee.

Before REYNOLDS, C.J., and DODSON and BOYD, JJ.

BOYD, Justice.

Appellant Kerrance Ramone Brown, pursuant to a letter from his attorney which, for the purpose of our discussion we will assume, arguendo, is sufficient to constitute a notice of appeal, has filed a transcript in this court. Examination of the transcript reveals he is attempting to appeal the trial court’s March 19, 1996 refusal of his application for habeas corpus.

An appeal from a denial of *relief*pursuant to the issuance of a pretrial writ of habeas corpus in which the appellant alleges that a trial on the merits will subject the defendant to double jeopardy is now an appropriate procedure. *Stephens v. State,*806 S.W.2d 812, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); *Ex parte Rathmell,*717 S.W.2d 38, 34 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); *Ex parte Robinson,*641 S.W.2d 552, 555 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). This is the procedure appellant seeks to utilize.

When the trial court is presented with an application for a writ of habeas corpus, it may hold a hearing on limited questions of whether to issue the writ or simply deny the application. After such a hearing, no appeal lies from the refusal to issue the writ. *Ex parte Noe,*646 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); *Ex parte Walker,*813 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd).

Whether a trial court issues a writ of habeas corpus is a matter of discretion. *Ex parte Fowler,*573 S.W.2d 241, 244 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). The issuance of the writ is a necessary step for the trial court to hear the basis for the relief sought. *Walker,*813 S.W.2d at 571. Thus, a trial court’s ruling on an application for writ of habeas corpus is only appealable when the trial court issues the writ and then rules upon the merits of the question presented, denying the relief sought. *Ex parte Moorehouse,*614 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).

In this case, the trial court denied appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons we have stated, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain his attempted appeal. Accordingly, this appeal must be, and is hereby, dismissed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 3, 2017

NO. 03

- 17

- 00156

- CR

Veronica Trevino, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYE AR, FIELD, AND BOURL AND

AFFIRMED

— OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction r en d ered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Bec ause appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is

made.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: In re Patti J. Wagner, as Guardian of Jenny Wagner, an Incapacitated

Adult

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00774

- CV

Trial court case number: 2009

- 40925

Trial court: 269th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: January 22, 2018

Party filing motion: Real Parties in Interest, Four J’s Community Living Center, Inc. and

Anthonia Uduma

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

Acting Individually Acting for the Court

The en banc c ourt consists of Chief Jus tice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland,

Massengale, Brown, and Caughey.

Justice Lloyd , not participating.

Justice Massengale

, voting to grant en banc reconsideration and dissenting from the denial of en

banc reconsideration with separate opinion.

Date: July 1 2 , 2018
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 17384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8478]



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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Notice of Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, April 7, 1995.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
Virginia 22314-3428.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Administrative Action under Section 205 of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii), and 
(9)(B).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone (703) 518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-8478 Filed 4-3-95; 2:56 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
#### Marian Dunn, Respondent, v Irving Dunn, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated May 27, 1988, as, upon granting his motion to dismiss the first cause of action asserted in the complaint, granted the plaintiff wife leave to replead that cause of action.

*434Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the provision thereof granting the plaintiff leave to replead is deleted.

The plaintiff wife opposed the defendant husband’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss her cause of action for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment only orally through counsel. The nature of that opposition is not set forth in the record and there is no indication that the plaintiff requested leave to replead or that she disclosed evidentiary facts which would justify the granting such a request *(see,*CPLR 3211 [e]; *Bardere v Zafir,*63 NY2d 850; *cf., Sanders v Schiffer,*39 NY2d 727). Under the circumstances, it was error for the Supreme Court to afford the plaintiff leave to replead the first cause of action. Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
ex1019.htm


Exhibit 10.19



 


Supply Agreement


 







PartyA: Ren Yanhuai


PartyB: Yangling Dongke Madisen Pharmaceutical co.,ltd 


Address: 8 Xinqiao Road Yangling Demonstration Zone


 


Based on the mutual trust and understanding, two parties reach the following agreements:


 


1 Both sides establish long term cooperation relationship in raw materials of Chinese medicine.


2 Party A purchases necessary raw materials from Party B with the current price.


3 Party B will provide the required raw materials (including variety, quantity, price and date)


4 Party A gives feedbacks to Party B within 10 days after receiving the goods. PartyB is responsible for the quality of the goods or return.


5 Payment term: rolling settlement, the 60%-70% payment of the goods is payable in the next month, but at the end of the year the debts should not exceed 450 thousand RMB.


6 Party B is in charge of delivering the raw materials to the PartyA’s designated warehouse and the transport expenses.


7 The agreement shall remain in force for the period of one year from the date of signature, unless one party terminates it.


8 If one party requires to terminate the contract, it must inform the other party in writing 30 days ahead.


9 the two parties could deal with the uncovered items friendly.


10 This agreement has two copies which have the same effect.
























  





  











  
















Party A(signature):


 


                                                      January 10, 2009


 


PartyA: Yangling Dongke Madisen Pharmaceutical co.,Ltd


Address: 8 Xinqiao Road Yangling Demonstration Zone


Zip Code: 712100


 


PartyB:Ren Yanhuai


Address: East house on the second floor Unit 3 Century Road No.7 Building Xiangyang Shaanxi.
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 Destination Maternity Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Judd P. Tirnauer, Senior Vice President & 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ JUDD P. TIRNAUER                           
|Judd P. Tirnauer                               
|Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
|December 14, 2010
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Nancy J. Baker, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Cymer, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)     all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)    any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:   March 16, 2004            |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        | /s/ NANCY J. BAKER |   |
| Nancy J. Baker                              |
| Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6137

SA Recycling LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6814]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice of the filing 
of the following agreement(s) pursuant to section 5 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984.
    Interested parties may inspect and obtain a copy of each agreement 
at the Washington, DC office of the Federal Maritime Commission, 800 
North Capitol Street, NW., 9th Floor. Interested parties may submit 
comments on each agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days after the date of the 
Federal Register in which this notice appears. The requirements for 
comments are found in Sec. 572.603 of title 46 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Interested persons should consult this section before 
communicating with the Commission regarding a pending agreement.
    Agreement No.: 202-011375-016.
    Title: Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement.
    Parties:
    Atlantic Container Line AB
    Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd.
    Sea-Land Service, Inc.
    A.P. Moller-Maersk Line
    Nedlloyd Lijnen BV
    Hapag Lloyd AG
    Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A.
    DSR-Senator Lines
    Polish Ocean Lines
    Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd.
    Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
    Neptune Orient Lines Ltd.
    P&O Containers Limited
    Nippon Yusen Kaisha
    Tecomar S.A. de C.V.
    Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment adds a new Article 14.4--
Independent Action, which provides for individual service contracts to 
commence no sooner than January 1, 1996, and terminate on or before 
December 31, 1996, except under specified circumstances. This provision 
complies with the Commission's Order Conditionally Approving Settlement 
(dated March 2, 1995) in Fact Finding Investigation No. 21 and Dockets 
94-29 and 94-30.

    Agreement No.: 232-011491.
    Title: Lykes/Evergreen Reciprocal Space Charter, Sailing and 
Cooperative Working Agreement.
    Parties:
    Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.
    Evergreen Marine Corp. (Taiwan) Ltd.
    Synopsis: The proposed Agreement authorizes the parties to charter 
space on each others vessels and rationalize sailings in the trade 
between U.S. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Coast ports and points on the 
one hand, and on the other hand, all ports in the United Kingdom and 
the Republic of Ireland, all ports in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden 
and Poland, and all Baltic ports in the former Soviet Union and all 
ports in Continental Europe from Germany to and including Portugal, 
Atlantic Coast of Spain, and all inland and coastal points via such 
ports.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: March 15, 1995.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6814 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6077

Dallas Airmotive, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Reynolds *v.*Hall, commissioner, *et al.*

No. 3417.

December 7, 1922.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Custer. Grady superior court. September 20, 1922.

*B. A. Bell,*for plaintiff.

*M. L. Ledford*and *Jesse J. Gainey,*for defendants;

Hill, J.

1. Sections 504, 506, 507, '50S, 510, 512, 513, 696, and 412 of the Civil Code of 1910 are existing general laws of this State prescribing the rate of taxation which the taxing authorities of counties are allowed to levy and. collect for county purposes.

2. The act approved August 10, 1922 (Acts 1922, p. 63), which provides that “It shall be unlawful for the taxing authorities of the counties of this State, having a population of not less than 20,301 and not more than 20,306 according to the census of 1920, to levy and collect any ad valorem tax in excess of 10 mills in the aggregate for county purposes shall be prohibited, except to pay post [past] and bonded indebtedness and the interest thereon, and to build courthouses or jails,” is in conflict with art. 1, sec. 4, par. 1, of the constitution of this State (Civil Code of 1910, § 6391), which provides : “ Laws of *a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the State, and no special law shall be enacted in any case for which provision has been made by an existing. general law,” and is therefore unconstitutional. *Futrell*v. *George,*135 *Ga.*265, 268 (69 S. E. 182); *Worth County*v. *Crisp County,*139 *Ga.*117 (2b) (76 S. E. 747).

3. There was no evidence produced before the court showing that the taxes levied are exorbitant as alleged, nor did the levy complained o£ exceed the rate fixed by law as it stood independently of the act of 1922, referred to above, and that act, being unconstitutional, did not affect or change the general law; and consequently the court did not err in refusing an interlocutory injunction.

*■Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6273

BorgWarner, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel