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



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF
ROY GRAYDON, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF
CALL-NET ENTERPRISES INC.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 40-F (the Form 40-F)
for the period ended December 31, 2003 of Call-Net Enterprises Inc.

I, Roy Graydon, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Call-Net Enterprises Inc. certify that to the best of my knowledge:



|(i)  |  | the Form 40-F fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)), as
amended; and   
|---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    
|(ii) |  | the information contained in the Form 40-F fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Call-Net
Enterprises Inc.

Dated: April 22, 2004



| | /s/ Roy Graydon

Name:  Roy Graydon
Title:    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Call-Net Enterprises Inc. and will be retained by Call-Net and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11570

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN DAVID COCHRAN, also known as Johnny,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-132-2

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent John David Cochran 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). 

Cochran has not filed a response. We have reviewed 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. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11570 Document: 00515177428 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2019
No. 18-11570

2

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: 18-11570 Document: 00515177428 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2019
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Lucious REID, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-2487

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 6, 1972.

William S. Guy, McComb, Miss., for defendant-appellant.

Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., E. Donald Strange, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from a jury trial conviction for carrying on the business of a distiller without having given bond, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5601(a)(4), appellant contends (1) that his motion for acquittal was erroneously denied, (2) that it was plain error for the trial judge to instruct the jury that witnesses are presumed to testify truthfully, and (3) that it was plain error to admit certain hearsay testimony. We conclude that the trial court committed no reversible error; but our holding is not to be construed as approving an instruction to the jury that witnesses are presumed to testify truthfully. *See*Knapp v. United States, 5th Cir. 1963, 316 F.2d 794.

Affirmed.
#### ARMOUR & CO. OF DELAWARE, a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carter H. HARRISON, Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 6445.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 24, 1937.

M. L. Igoe, U. S. Atty., of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Chas. J. Faulkner, Jr., and John Potts Barnes, both of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and present and file a stipulation to dismiss this appeal, which said stipulation is in the words and figures following, to wit:

“Whereas, on July 16, 1937, the United States District Court for the Northern Dis*994trict of Illinois, Eastern Division, rendered a judgment in favor of respondent in the sum of $172,962.63, together with interest from divers dates as set forth in said judgment ; and

“Whereas, petitioner has appealed to this Court from said Judgment, and the case has been docketed in this Court; and

“Whereas, on March 25, 1937, respondent filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue a claim for refund of additional processing taxes, and interest, paid pursuant to Section 602% of the Revenue Act of 1934, in the sum of $25,014.84, plus statutory interest thereon; and

“Whereas, said claim is now pending action by the Commissioner; and

“Whereas, respondent has offered to compromise the said Judgment and interest due thereon for the sum of $187,977.47, respondent to waive (1) all additional interest on the said Judgment, and (2) the total amount of the said additional claim for refund and interest thereon; and

“Whereas, said offer has been accepted by the Acting Attorney General of the United States; and

“Whereas, respondent has filed with counsel for petitioner (1) a satisfaction of the said Judgment and' interest thereon, and (2) a waiver of the said claim for refund and interest thereon, both documents to be held in escrow until the sum of $187,977.47, without interest,^ has been paid to respondent ; and

“Whereas, the questions here presented have become moot;

“It. is therefore stipulated and agreed by and between the parties, by their respective counsel, that this appeal may be dismissed.”

On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that this appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed pursuant to the foregoing stipulation.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 419 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 419

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

              For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 419

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
              For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDING AND PURPOSE.

    (a) Finding.--The Congress finds that Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., 
of St. Louis, Missouri, satisfactorily performed emergency work after 
the Northridge earthquake, but has not been reimbursed as a result of a 
technicality under California State law.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to fairly compensate 
Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the work for which, except for the 
technicality under California State law, it would otherwise have been 
paid under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121).

SEC. 2. PAYMENT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall pay to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, an 
amount equal to the total amount owed to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of California to 
compensate Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the emergency work and 
services performed at the request of the Southern California Regional 
Rail Authority, to the extent that such work and services are otherwise 
eligible for reimbursement under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121). The payment shall be made 
from funds appropriated to implement such Act.
    (b) Deobligation of Funds.--The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall deobligate an equal amount to that obligated previously for 
payment to the State of California to cover the costs of work performed 
for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority by Benchmark Rail 
Group, Inc., after the Northridge earthquake which would have been 
eligible for reimbursement under such Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 19, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 09-20215

Plaintiff, HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

United States District Judge

v.

D-2 JOSE CASTRO-RAMIREZ,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LISTS 

AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S ORAL MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE MOTION IN LIMINE

Jury trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on February 16, 2010. Per the Court’s

“Order Regarding Trial” [Doc. No. 207], the parties were to file motions in limine no later than

February 10, 2010, to be argued before the Court on February 12, 2010. At the February 12,

2010 hearing, several issues were brought to the attention of the Court. Specifically, both parties

voiced objections to the opposing party’s proposed exhibit list. Defense counsel also asked for

leave to file a late motion in limine challenging the admissibility of several of the Government’s

proposed exhibits. In light of these developments, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

1. Defense counsel is GRANTED leave to file a late motion in limine challenging the

admissibility of certain exhibits proposed by the Government. Such motion will

be governed by the Court’s usual motion practice guidelines, and must be filed no

later than Monday, February 15, 2010 at 10:00 am. 

2. Both parties are ORDERED to file, no later than Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at

9:00 am, a brief memorandum outlining the basis for each objection that party

has to the admission of exhibits proposed and listed on the opposing party’s

exhibit list. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 2:09-cr-20215-SFC-MKM ECF No. 229, PageID.998 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 2
2

s/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: February 12, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

February 12, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

Case 2:09-cr-20215-SFC-MKM ECF No. 229, PageID.999 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 21.0**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES**

 

United States of America

 

•                                          Trans World Gaming International U.S. Corp.

 

•                                          Trans World Gaming of Louisiana, Inc.(inactive)

 

Czech Republic

 

•                                          21st Century Resorts a.s.

 

•                                          American Chance Casinos a.s. (formerly LMJCasino Rozvadov a.s.)

 

•                                          Atlantic Properties, s.r.o.

 

•                                          Hollywood Spin s.r.o.

 

•                                          LMJ Slots s.r.o.

 

•                                          SC98A, s.r.o.

 

•                                          Trans World Hotels, s.r.o.

 

Germany

 

•                                                                  Sibylle Hotel GmbH

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CIVIL NO.09-12327

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

imX SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

-vRSUI GROUP, INC.,

 Defendant(s)

 /

ORDER FOR CASE EVALUATION PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF PARTIES

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

 District Courthouse, City of Detroit, County

 of Wayne, State of Michigan on November 9, 2009.

 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 United States District Court Judge

The parties having stipulated that this case be referred for case evaluation to a 

Wayne County Case Evaluation Panel and that the parties be bound by the provisions 

of Michigan Court Rule 2.403, now therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that this case be referred for case evaluation pursuant to said 

Stipulation.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: November 9, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on November 9, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12327-PJD-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/09/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 111
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3868 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 379
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3868

                          [Report No. 104-712]

To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
                      through September 30, 1996.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 1996

 Mr. Schaefer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

                             July 26, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
                      through September 30, 1996.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT AMENDMENTS.

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended--
            (1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) to read as 
        follows:

                   ``authorization of appropriations

    ``Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
1996 such sums as may be necessary to implement this part.'';
            (2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking ``June 30, 
        1996'' both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``September 30, 1996'';
            (3) by adding at the end of section 256(h) (42 U.S.C. 
        6276(h)) ``There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
        year 1996 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
        part.''; and
            (4) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking ``June 30, 
        1996'' both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``September 30, 1996''.
                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 379

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3868

                          [Report No. 104-712]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
                      through September 30, 1996.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 26, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20402-01-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

PAUL JOHN NUGENT,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA AS TO COUNT SEVEN, AND TAKING THE RULE 11

PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on February 25, 2010, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles E.

Binder pursuant to the Defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report [Dkt. # 29] on

February 25, 2010, recommending acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea. Either party may serve

and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination

of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party

objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 29] is ADOPTED.
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea as to count seven is ACCEPTED,

and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 31] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: March 11, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on March 11, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS
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
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ("Form 10-Q") of China Jianye
Fuel Inc. (the "Company") for the three months ended September 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jianye
Wang, Chief Executive Officer and 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and
  (2)
  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 
 /s/
Jianye Wang
 Jianye
Wang ,Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
 
 November
20, 2009
 
 This
certification accompanies this Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not deemed filed by the Company and is not to
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 22

- 14332 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus CLEATE WILSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22

- cr
- 00217

- VMC

- CPT

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-14332 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 09/06/2024 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 22

- 14332

Before W ILSON , J ORDAN , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:Cleate Wilson appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon

. He contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) isunconstitutional under the Second Amendment and exceeds Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. We affirm. Mr. Wilson re cognizes that we’ve upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) against a Second Amendment challenge, see United States v. Rozier , 598 F.3d 769, 770 (11th Cir. 2010) , but argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1 (2022) , has abrogated our precedent. We have , however, recently rejected this exact contention

. See United States v. Dubois , 94 F.4th 1284, 1291

- 93 (11th Cir. 2024). As for the Commerce Clause challenge, it is foreclosed by our precedent. We have “held that

. . . § 922(g) is constitutional under the Commerce Clause.” United States v. Longoria , 874 F.3d 1278, 1283 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. McAllister , 77 F.3d 387, 391 (11th Cir. 1996) ). We have also rejected as

- applied challenges to § 922(g), holding that the government proves a “minimalnexus” to interstate commerce where it demonstrates that the firearm was manufactured outside of the state where the offense took place and, thus, ne cessarily traveled in interstate commerce. See United States v. Wright , 607 F.3d 708, 715

- 16 (11th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 22-14332 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 09/06/2024 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

March 29, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Gentlemen/Ladies:


We have received from our auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP, a letter stating that
our audit was subject to Arthur Andersen's quality control system for the U. S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards and that
there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of national office consultation. The availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen is not relevant to this audit.


Sincerely,



Dennis W. Carroll
Vice President and Controller
KeySpan Energy Delivery
201 Rivermoor Street
West Roxbury, MA 02132