alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
China Southern Airlines Company Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, XuJie Bo, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.



|Date: April 25, 2014 | By: | /s/XuJie Bo                   
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------------------
|                     |     | Name: XuJie Bo                
|                     |     | Title: Chief Financial Officer



* This certification accompanies the Report
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



* A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                                 83 PINE STREET
                     WEST PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960-3635
                            TELEPHONE (978) 535-0206
                            FACSIMILE (978) 535-9908

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Northway Financial, Inc. of our report dated January 16, 1998.

                                      /s/ Shatswell, MacLeod & Company, P.C.

                                          SHATSWELL, MacCLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts
March 26, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15968]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-224-001]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 18, 1996
    Take notice that on June 14, 1996, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, proposed to be 
effective June 1, 1996:

Sub Original Sheet No. 35A
Sub Original Sheet No. 42B
Sub Original Sheet No. 100A

    Panhandle states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
Ordering Paragraph (C) of the Commission's May 30, 1996 Order in Docket 
No. RP96-224-000 to limit the applicability of the CRP mechanism to the 
primary market.
    Panhandle states that a copy of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers, applicable state regulatory agencies and parties to 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must 
be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in 
the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15968 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
##### 






Exhibit 31.2




CERTIFICATIONS

I, Thomas W. Williams, Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of Indus International, Inc.,
certify that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. I have reviewed this annual report on
    Form 10-K/A of Indus International, Inc.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|
| | 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
    annual report.

Date: July 29, 2004



| |                                                         
| | --------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ THOMAS W. WILLIAMS                                  
| |                                                         
| | Thomas W. Williams                                      
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
    Officer
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH   Document 115-1   Filed 04/24/18   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH   Document 115-1   Filed 04/24/18   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH   Document 115-1   Filed 04/24/18   Page 3 of 3
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 The Court has considered Henze Cook Murphy, PLC’s Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time (Doc. 147), and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 147) is GRANTED and the deadline for 

Henze Cook Murphy, PLC to respond to the United States’ pending Motion to Disqualify 

Counsel (Doc. 118) is extended to and including June 6, 2018. 

 Dated this 21st day of May, 2018. 

 

 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 154 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Silver Reserve
      Corp. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
      that:





The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008(the “Form
      10-QSB”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained
      in
      the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      May 9, 2008





/s/
                Todd D. MontgomeryTodd
                D. Montgomery, CEO and Director(Chief
                Executive Officer of Silver Reserve
                Corp.)





Dated:
      May 9, 2008





/s/
                Randal LudwarRandal
                Ludwar, Chief Financial Officer(Chief
                Financial Officer of Silver Reserve
                Corp.)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Silver Reserve Corp. and will be retained by Silver Reserve Corp. and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LAMAR WASHINGTON

PETITION OF: K. WESLEY MISHOE,
ESQUIRE :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 124 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9 th day of February , 202 4

, in consideration of the Application to

Withdraw as Counsel, this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of

Dauphin County to adjudicate the withdrawal request, as well as any related questions,

including whether Lamar Washington sh ould be appointed counsel or granted leave to

proceed pro se on allocatur review.

The Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County is DIRECTED to enter its order

on remand within 90 days and to promptly inform this Court of its disposition.
#### Luke BURNS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 63286.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 17, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 16, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 26, 1993.

*729Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find the motion court did not clearly err in such determination. Rule 84.16(b). We further find an opinion in this matter would have no prece-dential value and affirm by order opinion. We have provided the parties a memorandum for their use only.
IV 

House Calendar No. 36 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 303 

[Report No. 111–68] 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from 

the First Congressional District of Hawaii. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 31, 2009 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House Administration, 

reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the First Congressional District of Hawaii. 

1 Resolved, That the election contest relating to the of2 fice of Representative from the First Congressional Dis3 trict of Hawaii is dismissed. 


SMARTINEZ on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 36 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 303 

[Report No. 111–68] 

RESOLUTION 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office 

District of Hawaii. of Representative from the First Congressional 

MARCH 31, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


SMARTINEZ on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

July 16, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00470

- CR

Jesse Garrett WEITENBECK

,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR 7674 Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the criminal case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Proc edure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be dismissed p ursuant to rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant causes an amended trial court certification to be filed by August 13, 2018 , showing appellant has the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State ,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of July, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle Clerk of Court
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS  

7 DAYSH[SHGLWHG  

DAILY

 

HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

'$<6

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Kevin M. Rapp 602-514-7500 7/19/21

U.S. Attorney's Office

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800 Phoenix AZ 85004

CR-18-422-PHX-SMB Susan M. Brnovich 7/16/2021

U.S. v. Michael Lacey, et al. Phoenix AZ

✔

✔

Final Pretrial Conference 7/16/2021

✔

✔

kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov; marjorie.dieckman@usdoj.gov

s/ Kevin M. Rapp (R21AZX90208)

7/19/2021

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1182 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 1
#### Martin Joseph ARMSTRONG, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, State of Missouri, Appellant.

No. 64855.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 26, 1994.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Darryl L. Hicks, Warrenton, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Director of Revenue (Director) appeals the trial court’s order reinstating Martin Armstrong’s driver’s license after it was revoked for refusing to submit to a chemical test, pursuant to § 577.041 RSMo 1986. We reverse.

On June 17, 1993, the Director mailed notice to Armstrong stating his driver’s license was being revoked for failure to submit to a chemical test after he was arrested for driving while intoxicated. On July 16, 1993, Armstrong filed a petition for review in circuit court styled, “In the matter of MARTIN JOSEPH ARMSTRONG.” A copy of this petition was served on the Director. On August 23, 1993, the Director filed a motion to dismiss the petition asserting the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Director was not named as a party in Armstrong’s petition. Before this motion was heard, the Director’s statutorily designated counsel filed a confession to Armstrong’s petition and the trial court entered an order reinstating Armstrong’s driving privileges.

On appeal, Director alleges the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Armstrong’s petition because the Director was not named as a party in the petition. Director relies on numerous cases holding no subject matter jurisdiction exists where the Director is not named in the original petition or added by an appropriate court order. *See e.g., Scott v. Director of Revenue,*849 S.W.2d 713, 715 [1] (Mo.App.1993).

However, in this case, the court did not obtain subject matter jurisdiction over the Director because the prosecutor who confessed judgment on the Director’s behalf was not authorized to do so. Although the prosecutor is the Director’s statutorily-designated representative according to § 577.041.4 RSMo Supp.1993, this provision did not take effect until August 28,1993. The prosecutor confessed the judgment on the Director’s behalf on August 27, 1993. According to § 577.041.2 RSMo Supp.1992, which was still in effect on this date, the prosecutor was to appear on behalf of the arresting officer, not the Director. Since the prosecutor was not authorized, by statute or otherwise, to confess judgment on the Director’s behalf, the Director was not a party to the action at the time the judgment was entered. *See, Robin*
      *800
      *son v. Director of Revenue,*762 S.W.2d 872, 874 [4] (Mo.App.1988).

Judgment reversed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
#### Erwin JONES, Appellant, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49246.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 14, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 2, 1995.

Samuel I. McHenry, Kansas City, for appellant.

Dale H. Close, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*656
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Erwin Jones appeals from the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners revoking Jones’ commission to work as a private security officer. Jones contends that, under § 561.016 RSMo 1994, the Board was required to consider his application for a commission, even though he had several pri- or convictions of serious felonies. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00123-CR

RICHARD SHIRLEY RAWLINSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 6 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant=s “Amended Motion To Withdraw Notice Of

Appeal.” The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate 

procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been 

delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 19, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF THE PLASTIC SURGERY COMPANY FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         842,307
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,002,447
<PP&E>                                       1,196,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,302,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,439,041
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,659,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,302,201
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,432,821
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,126,629
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (9,693,808)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (9,693,808)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (9,693,808)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (44.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (44.27)


</TABLE>