alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ending January 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Queen, Principal Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael D. Queen

Michael D. Queen,

Principal Executive Officer

March 15, 2012
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Coopers & Lybrand


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Multimedia Games, Inc.,  on Form S-3 (File No.  333-16729) of our report dated
December 18, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
Multimedia Games, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1996 and for each
of the two years in the period ended September 30, 1996, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Tulsa, Oklahoma
December 18, 1996
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4166

Tianhai Electric North America:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4780

ECM Industries 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5416

Tianhai Electric North America:

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
2nd Amendment to CAH Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 

Cardinal Health 

Deferred Compensation Plan 

Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2009 

Second Amendment 

Background Information 
  

	A.	Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal Health”) established and maintains the Cardinal Health Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of
participants and their beneficiaries. 

  

	B.	The Financial Benefit Plans Committee (the “Committee”) oversees the administration of the Plan and is authorized to amend administrative provisions of the
Plan in accordance with authority delegated by the Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Cardinal Health. 

  

	C.	The Committee desires to amend the Plan to exclude CareFusion Corporation (“CareFusion”) and its subsidiaries from the definition of “Employer”,
effective as of August 31, 2009, the first day of the payroll period during which such employees will cease to be eligible for participation in the Plan as a result of the spin-off of CareFusion and its subsidiaries from Cardinal Health as of
11:59 p.m. on said date. 

  

	D.	Section 7.1 of the Plan permits the amendment of the Plan at any time. 


Amendment of the Plan 

The Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of August 31, 2009: 

 

	1.	A new sentence is hereby added to the end of Section 1.1(n) of the Plan to read as follows: 


“Notwithstanding the foregoing, CareFusion Corporation and its subsidiaries shall cease to be classified as Employers under the
terms of the Plan, effective as of August 31, 2009, one day prior to the day that CareFusion Corporation and its subsidiaries shall cease to be members of a controlled group of corporations with Cardinal Health, Inc.” 

 

	2.	All other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged. 


 

			
	CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Monica Foster

		
	 Title:
	 	 VP Benefits

		
	 Date:
	 	 8/20/09
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4829

Arrowhead Electrical Products, 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 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
Exhibit 10.25



 Exhibit 10.25 

Summary of Demand Loan 

Ms. Hanying Li, chief executive officer of Tianli Agritech, Inc. (“Tianli”), has advanced funds to Wuhan Fengze Agricultural Science and
Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Fengze”), a Chinese company controlled by Tianli through contracts with Tianli’s wholly owned subsidiary, Wuhan Fengxin Agricultural Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“WFOE”), a
Chinese limited liability company. The aggregate amount of such funds as of December 31, 2009 was $574,306. Such funds were advanced pursuant to an oral loan agreement (the “loan”). The principal terms of the loan are as follows:

  

	1.	The loan is payable on demand by Ms. Li. 

  

	2.	The loan bears no interest. 

  

	3.	Ms. Li will not be entitled to demand repayment of the loan prior to January 1, 2011. 


 

	4.	Ms. Li may not demand repayment at any time that Fengze lacks sufficient cash to repay the loan without becoming insolvent or, in the opinion of Fengze’s
management, materially harming Fengze’s liquidity. 

  

	5.	Fengze shall have the ability to repay the loan in whole or in part at any time, provided that it has sufficient cash to do so without becoming insolvent or, in the
opinion of Fengze’s management, materially harming Fengze’s liquidity.
FORM OF 302 CERTIFICATION
EXHIBIT 31
CERTIFICATIONS
      I, Steven B. Chotin, certify that:
      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10K of Fund America
Investors Corporation II;
      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
      4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13A-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:
      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and
     5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting with are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and
      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: March 31, 2006
      --------------

/s/ Steven B. Chotin
--------------------
  Steven B. Chotin
  Chief Executive Officer
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20

- 0659 V

UNPUBLISHED

CHERYL FABIAN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: November 24, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA , for P etitioner.

Althea Walker Davis , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On May 29, 2020

, Cheryl Fa bian filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of an influen za ( “ flu ” ) vaccine she received on September 24 , 2019 . Petition at 1

. T he case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 23, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent states that “ Petitioner had no relevant history of pain, inflammat ion, or dysfunction in her left shoulder; her pain and reduced ra nge of

1 Because this unpublished R uling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the R uling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that

the identified material f its within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2 motion occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her symptoms

were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered ; and no other condition or abnormality was identif ied to explain her symptoms

. Id. at 7 . Respondent further agrees

that the scope of damages to be awar ded is limited to Petitioner’s SIRVA and its related
sequelae only. Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-10467

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Danielle Harper, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-185-1

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Danielle Harper

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Harper has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 21, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10467 Document: 00516585825 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
No. 22-10467

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-10467 Document: 00516585825 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S AUDITED DECEMBER 31, 1997 BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS AS FILED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,516,405
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  396,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    442,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,444,667
<PP&E>                                       1,677,839
<DEPRECIATION>                               (859,528)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,281,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          295,027
<BONDS>                                        181,686
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    804,435
<COMMON>                                    10,940,967
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,158,369)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,281,257
<SALES>                                      3,020,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,020,081
<CGS>                                        2,159,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,159,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,841,628
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (29,822)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (944,718)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,286
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (975,004)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (975,004)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Cruz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.), rendered June 29, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39) and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *AVi*to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

In response to an undercover officer’s request for two vials of crack, the defendant left the location and returned a short time later with another individual, Rafael Suarez. At such *384time, the defendant asked the undercover officer, "Two right?” The officer responded affirmatively. Suarez then removed two vials of crack from a change purse and handed them to the undercover officer. The defendant requested payment and the undercover officer handed the defendant $20 in prerecorded money. After the sale, the defendant and Suarez left the scene and, while standing together a few blocks away, were arrested by an undercover backup team.

We find no merit to defendant’s argument that the prosecutor failed to disprove his defense of agency beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757 [1984], *cert denied*469 US 932 [1984]), defendant exhibited an independent desire to promote the drug transaction by demanding and receiving money from the undercover officer. *(People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, 53-54 [1978], *cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York,*439 US 930 [1978]; *People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64, 75 [1978], *cert denied*439 US 935 [1978].) Additionally, we note that defendant’s arrest, while in the company of Suarez, further supports the conclusion that defendant did not act solely as the agent of the undercover officer during the drug sale.

Defendant’s further claim that he was denied a fair trial because the court’s "no adverse inference” charge was overextensive is unpreserved as a matter of law since no objection to the charge was made at trial. *(People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836, 839 [1990]; *People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990].) Moreover, inasmuch as the charge neither "expressly or * * * unambiguously convey[ed] to the jury that the defendant should have testified”, this narrow exception to the preservation requirement may not be invoked here. *(People v Autry, 75*NY2d, *supra,*at 839.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
GRANT MICHAEL CAMADINE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2854

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark J. Borello, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., BENTON and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.