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





CERTIFICATION





OF





CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





AND





CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Richard Man Fai LEE, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc.





I, Joseph Tik Tung WONG, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc.





May 13, 2011
By :
/s/ Richard Man Fai LEERichard Man Fai LEEChief Executive OfficerMay 13, 2011
By :
/s/ Joseph Tik Tung WONGJoseph Tik Tung WONGChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary





This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                              |  |                                              |  |                     
|----------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|Parent                       
|Dimeco, Inc.                 
|                              |  |                                             
|Subsidiaries of Dimeco, Inc.  |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Percentage Ownership
|The Dime Bank                 |  | Pennsylvania                                 |  | 100%                
|                              |  |                                             
|Subsidiaries of The Dime Bank |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Percentage Ownership
|TDB Insurance Services, LLC   |  | Pennsylvania                                 |  | 100%
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9051]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Army Science Board; Notice of Open Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: 24 and 25 April 1995.
    Time of Meeting: 1300-1600, 24 April 1995; 0800-1600, 25 April 
1995.
    Place: Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas--McNair Hall (Bldg. 286).
    Agenda: The Army Science Board (ASB) Analysis, Test and 
Evaluation Issue Group will meet to assess the impact of personnel 
reductions on mission accomplishment within the Army analytical 
community. This meeting will be open to the public. Any interested 
person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the 
committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee. 
The ASB Administrative Officer, Sally Warner, may be contacted for 
further information at (703) 695-0781.
Sally A. Warner,
Administrative Officer, Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 95-9051 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6417

Sims Group USA Holdings Corporation, dba Sims Metal Management: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10114]



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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-806]


Silicon Metal from Brazil; Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limits.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limits of the preliminary and final results of the fourth 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal 
from Brazil. The review covers five manufacturers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise to the United States and the period July 1, 1994, 
through June 30, 1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or John Kugelman, Office of 
Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it is not practicable to complete 
this review within the normal time frame, the Department is extending 
the time limits for completion of the preliminary results until July 
29, 1996, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 
1994. We will issue our final results for this review by December 5, 
1996.
    These extensions are in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a)(3)(A)).

    Dated: April 17, 1996.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 96-10114 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6898

Otis Elevator Co.: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00299

- CR

A MY T ILLEY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1639840D )

February 23, 2023

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

( nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
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-2018-0025-7108

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 failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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
#### KC ATA, Respondent, v. PUETT, Edith Grace, et al., Appellants.

No. WD 47078.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 6, 1993.

Levy & Craig, P.C., Michael L. Zevitz, Kansas City, for appellant.

Lathrop & Norquist, Jerome D. Riff el, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Summary judgment was entered denying a tenant, whose lease had expired prior to the date of taking and who had not filed exceptions to commissioners’ award, any interest in the award to the landlord.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
----

----

|   | (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/ Kenneth J. Koock                                                |   |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Kenneth J. KoockChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e J a ne A . R e s t a ni , J udge of the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ourtof ** I nt e rna t i ona l T r a de , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M I CHAEL DAV I D LENDA HL, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. P A L O S A A R I , W a r de n A S P C D ougl a s a nd ST ATE OF ARI ZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15496 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 2 0 0 3 - MHM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona M a ryH . M ur gui a , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r3, 2010

S ta n f o r d , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T H O M A S and IK U T A , C i rc ui tJudg es , and R E S T A N I, Judg e. ** 

# FI LED NO V 09 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A lth o u g h L e n d a h l e x h au s te dh is c la im th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s im p r o p e r ly e n h a n c e d b e c au s e aju d g e , n o t aju ry , f o u n dth e f

a c ts u n d e r ly in g th e e n h a n c e m e n t, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f h is fe d er al h ab ea s p etit io n . T h e s tate co u rt’s d e n ia l o f L e n d a h l’s c la im w a s n o t a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f c le a r ly es t abl i shed F eder al l aw , because no S up re m e C ou rtprec edentcl earl y e st abl i shes tha tapr i orc onvi c t i on m us tbe pr ove d t o aj uryw he n i ti s us e d a s as e nt e nc i ng f a c to r . See A lm enda rez- T orres v . U

ni ted States , 52 3 U . S . 22 4 (19 98 ). F urther, L e nda hl ’ s c l a i m tha the di d notknow i ngl ya nd i nt e l l i ge nt l yw a i ve hi s r i ghtt o a ju ry d eter m in atio n o f a n y a g g ra v atin g fa cto rs is u n av aili n g , g iv en th at L en d ah l’ s p l ea ag reem en tan d co l l o q u y refl ectth ath e k n ew an du n d erst o o dh i s j u rys e nt e nc i ng r i ght s , c ons ul t e d hi s a tt orne yr e ga r di ng thos e r i ght s a nd the c ons e que nc e s of

w a i vi ng the m , a nd the n a gr e e d, or a l l ya nd i n w r i t i ng, t o gi ve up th o s e ju ry - s e n te n c in g r ig h ts . AF F I RME D.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LEROY SHELLEY,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§

§ No. 136, 2017

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID 9804001318 (N)

§ 

§

Submitted: May 8, 2017

 Decided: June 21, 2017

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 21st day of June 2017, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 

brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 

that:

(1) The appellant, Leroy Shelley, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 

order dated March 7, 2017, denying his motion for modification of sentence. The 

State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 

manifest on the face of Shelley’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. 

We agree and affirm.
2

(2) A Superior Court jury convicted Shelley in November 2007 of 

multiple criminal offenses, including first degree robbery and kidnapping.1 The 

Superior Court sentenced him to a total period of twenty-four and a half years at 

Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving eighteen and a half years in 

prison for decreasing levels of supervision. Shelley did not appeal. 

(3) Since that time, he has filed several unsuccessful motions for 

postconviction relief. In February 2017, Shelley filed a motion for modification of 

his sentence, arguing that he was illegally sentenced as a habitual offender in 

Pennsylvania, that his Delaware sentence should run concurrently with the 

sentence he already served in Pennsylvania, that he should receive thirteen months 

credit for time served and good time credit, and that he has been rehabilitated. The 

Superior Court denied Shelley’s motion because it was untimely under Rule 35(b) 

and because his motion stated insufficient grounds for a modification of sentence. 

Shelley appealed.

(4) In his opening brief on appeal, Shelley’s only argument for review is 

whether the Superior Court erred in failing to credit him with thirty-five days that 

he served from December 2, 2016 to January 6, 2017, while he was awaiting 

extradition from Pennsylvania back to Delaware. However, Shelley did not raise 

this claim in the motion he filed in the Superior Court. We will not consider it for 

 

1 Shelley had been indicted for his crimes in Delaware in 1998, but he was extradited back to 

Pennsylvania to finish serving a sentence there. The State reindicted Shelley in 2007.
3

the first time on appeal.2 Moreover, having failed to brief the arguments that he 

raised below, Shelly has waived any right to further review of those claims.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.

3 Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993).
Exhibit 32

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 Mountain Bank Holding Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Roy T. Brooks, Chief Executive Officer and Sheila M. Brumley, Chief Financial
Officer, 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 the operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                         |  |  |  |                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Roy T. Brooks Roy T. Brooks, Chief
Executive Officer |  |  |  | /s/ Sheila M. Brumley Sheila M. Brumley, Chief Financial Officer

Date: April 27, 2007
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lindell BLACK, Appellant. Lindell BLACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 68167.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 3, 1996.

Renae Adamson, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Lindell Black, appeals the judgment of conviction for unlawful use of a *84weapon, RSMo § 571.030.1(4) (Cum.Supp. 1993), entered by the Circuit Court of St. Francois County after a jury trial, and appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. We further find the judgment denying the Rule 29.15 motion is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
1 19

- 16454 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMBRI SEAN JOHNSON, Sr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 16454

D.C. No. 3:19

- cv

- 03500

- WHA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Jambri Sean Johnson

, Sr.

, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging wrongful

conviction and conspiracy claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1.

We review de nov o the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 16454

Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action as barred by Heck v.

Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994)

, beca use success would necessarily imply the

invalidity Johnson ’s conviction or sentence , and Johnson failed to allege facts

sufficient to show that his conviction or sentence ha s been invalidated. See

Wilkinson v. Dotson , 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (a prisoner in sta te custody cannot use

a § 1983 a ction to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, but must

instead seek federal habeas corpus relief).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joey FOSTER, Appellant. Joey FOSTER, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 63704, 65841.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

March 21, 1995.

Craig A. Johnston, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant appeals from his conviction for assault first degree. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).