alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PERIODIC REPORT**

 

I, Terrence S.Cassidy, the Principal Executive Officer and the Principal Financial Officer ofNWH, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)          the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for thefiscal year ended October 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperation of the Company.

 

 
| Date: January 31,  2005 | By:        | /s/ Terrence S.  Cassidy         |   |
|-------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                    |       |                             |
| ** **              | ** ** | **Terrence  S. Cassidy**         |
|                    |       | Principal  Executive Officer and |
|                    |       | Principal  Financial Officer     |

** **

----
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHO HAVE FILED AGREEMENTSTO BE APPROVED AS ADEPOSITORY OFTRUST ACCOUNTS AND TO PROVIDE DISHONORED CHECK REPORTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 221, Pa.R.D.E. New Name Change 364 Huntingdon Valley Bank — Change to 174 First Citizens Community Bank 636 Noah Bank — Change to 596 Bank of Princeton (The) 386 Malvern Bank, NA —Change to 643 First Bank Platinum Leader Change Correction Removal

July 2023
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17972]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated March 28, 2008, and published in the Federal 
Register on April 4, 2008 (73 FR 18570), Rhodes Technologies, 498 
Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed in schedules I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)................  I
Methylphenidate (1724)......................  II
Codeine (9050)..............................  II
Dihydrocodeine (9120).......................  II
Oxycodone (9143)............................  II
Hydromorphone (9150)........................  II
Hydrocodone (9193)..........................  II
Oripavine (9330)............................  II
Thebaine (9333).............................  II
Oxymorphone (9652)..........................  II
Noroxymorphone (9668).......................  II
Fentanyl (9801).............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for conversion and sale to dosage form manufacturers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Rhodes Technologies to manufacture the listed basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Rhodes Technologies to ensure that the 
company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: July 28, 2008.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-17972 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-24-00247-CR

Jairo MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 454th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24-02-15061-CR-TDC

Honorable Daniel J. Kindred, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED June 5, 2024.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
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 Report on Form 10-Q ("Form 10-Q") of China Jianye Fuel, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 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, Principal Executive Officer and, Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer




February
16, 2010





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.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MEMSIC, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patricia Niu, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ PATRICIA NIU                          
|Patricia Niu                              
|Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
|November 14, 2008                         

This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of
the Companys filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.
No. 99-60634

-1-

 

* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60634

Summary Calendar

 

TRACY GAMBRELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GRAND CASINOS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. - BILOXI,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:98-CV-206-RG

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

April 27, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tracy Gambrell appeals the magistrate judge’s order

dismissing as time-barred her sex discrimination claims against

Grand Casino of Mississippi, Inc. because Gambrell failed to file

her charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

within the requisite 180 days. The 180-day period begins from

the “‘date of notice of termination, rather than the final date

of employment.’” Clark v. Resistoflex Co., 854 F.2d 762, 765 

(5th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). In determining when the

employee received notice, courts employ an objective standard,
No. 99-60634

-2-

“focusing upon when the employee knew, or reasonably should have

known, that the adverse employment decision had been made.” Id. 

The magistrate judge determined that Gambrell knew she had

been terminated from her position as a valet due to pregnancy on

June 12, 1997, when she was sent home by her supervisor and told

she would need to be transferred to another position. However,

deciding to transfer a pregnant employee for safety reasons is

not necessarily a discriminatory act. See Levin v. Delta Air

Lines, Inc., 730 F.2d 994, 997-98 (5th Cir. 1984). Moreover,

Gambrell was told she would be placed in another position. Thus,

she was not necessarily aware on that date of an adverse

employment action. 

There is substantial conflicting evidence regarding when

Gambrell learned that she would not be rehired. Although Grand

places much emphasis on Gambrell’s statement in her EEOC charge

and her complaint that she was terminated in June 1997, the

EEOC’s internal investigation memorandum and the testimony of

Grand’s own employees demonstrate that at no time in June 1997

was Gambrell ever told she would not be rehired due to her

pregnancy. Accordingly, we find that there are genuine issues of

material fact regarding when Gambrell knew or reasonably should

have known that the allegedly discriminatory decision not to

rehire her occurred. 

For similar reasons, we find that there are genuine issues

of material fact as to whether Gambrell reasonably believed that

Grand was actively pursuing another position for her such that

the 180-day period would have been equitably tolled until
No. 99-60634

-3-

Gambrell discovered she would not be rehired. See Cocke v.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 817 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir. 1987). 

We, therefore, vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Dismissed; Opinion Filed January 27, 2017.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 00047

- CV

MARTIN, FLETCHER LOC UMS, INC. , Appellant

V.

JOHN ARRAMBIDE AND MD PLACEMENT , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 15712



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Lang

Before the Court is appellant’s January 23, 2017 unopposed motion to dismiss this

appeal. In the motion, appellant asks this Court to dismiss the appeal and to assess costs of the

appeal against the party incurring the costs. We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss this

appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

170047F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MARTIN, FLETCHER LOCUMS, INC., Appellant

No. 05

- 17

- 00047

- CV V.

JOHN ARRAMBIDE AND MD PLACEMENT, Appellees On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 15712. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices Brown and Whitehill participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinio n of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 27th day of January, 2017.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Theresa WHITMORE, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 69781.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 17, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 5, 1997.

Michael A. Gross, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt U. Schaefer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for plaintiff/respondent.

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

*274
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals following her conviction by a jury of one count of second degree assault, § 565.060, RSMo 1994, and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced her in accordance with the jury’s assessment to concurrent prison terms of eighteen months for assault and three years for armed criminal action. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b).
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4282

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 30, 1996

Received

AN ACT

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1993 to make a technical correction relating to

the provision of Department of Defense assistance to

local educational agencies.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4282 RDS

1 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO DE2 PARTMENT OF DEFENSE ASSISTANCE TO

3 LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

4 Section 386(c)(1) of the National Defense Authoriza5 tion Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Pub. L. 102–484; 20

6 U.S.C. 7703 note) is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘section 8003(a)’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘section 8003(a)(1)’’; and

9 (2) by striking ‘‘(20 U.S.C. 7703(a))’’ and in10 serting ‘‘(20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1))’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 28,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
**Exhibit 23**

 

Consent of Independent Auditors 

 

The Board of Directors 

Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc. 

 

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8, No. 333-110347 and No. 333-68706, of Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated February 27, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Southern FinancialBancorp, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003,which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc. 

 

Richmond, Virginia 

February 27, 2004
179 La. 777

#### DUCKWORTH v. DUCKWORTH.

No. 32421.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1934.

T. A. Carter, of Alexandria, for appellant.

Gus A. Voltz, of Alexandria, for appellee.

OVERTON, Justice.

This suit is one brought by Mrs. Lucille Duckworth against her husband, Arthur C. Duckworth, for . separation from bed and *22board on the ground of cruel treatment of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable, for a separation of property, for an injunction, and for alimony.

Defendant appeared and put the case at issue. The case was tried. A large volume of oral evidence was introduced. The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff, granting the -separation from bed and board asked for, ordering the dissolution of the community, and allowing plaintiff alimony in the sum of $35 a month.

A careful review of the record leaves no doubt in our minds that defendant, without just cause, has been guilty of outrages against his wife and cruel treatment to her. Plaintiff is a woman of refinement. She is frail and rather delicate. Her husband, on the contrary, is a robust man, about six feet in height, and rough in his manner. Quarrels were not uncommon between them, the husband usually precipitating the trouble. He struck his wife, pulled her hair more than once to sudh an extent that she was forced to retire to bed for relief from the pain that followed, cursed her outrageously in his fits of temper, and refused her medical attention when it should have been manifest to him that she needed it,'saying to her that she was not in need of such attention. On one-occasion, plaintiff, being sadly in need of dental attention, went with one of her sisters to see a dentist. Defendant refused to pay the bill, writing the dentist as reason for his refusal that he had no legal wife. On another occasion, speaking of his wife, he said that he would like to get rid of that woman. On the other hand, the defendant was guilty at times of some indiscretions in her conduct towards her husband, but they amounted to nothing as compared with his acts and conduct against and towards her. We have therefore given but little weight to them. They were wholly insufficient to entitle defendant to relief or to justify his conduct.

The law is well settled as to what acts of cruelty will entitle one of the spouses to a separation. We need only cite article 138 of the Civil Code. So far as jurisprudence is concerned, it suffices to cite Machado v. Bonet, 39 La. Ann. 475, 2 So. 49. These authorities justify the granting of relief to plaintiff.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

ST. PAUL, J„ absent.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A0 2 6 5

. LESHON STEW ART v

. U. S. BANK TRUST NATI ONAL
ASSOCI ATI ON, AS TRUSTEE FOR LS4 9 MASTER et a l

In 2 0 2 2 , U. S. Ban k Tru s t Nat i o nal As s o ci at i o n , as Tru st ee fo r LS4 9 M as t er

Tru s t

, an d Fay Serv i ci n g , LLC (co l l ect i v el y , “ M o rt g ag ees ”) b eg an n o n -ju d i ci al

f o r ecl o s u re p ro ceed i n gs o n a p arcel o f real p ro p ert y lo cat ed i n Decat u r. Befo re t h e

s al e o ccu rred

, L es ho n St ewart fi l ed t h e cu rren t act i on ag ai n s t t h e M o rt g ag ees an d t h e

l aw fi rm rep res en ti n g t h em , as s ert i n g s ev eral cl ai m s r el at ed to t h e at t em p t ed

fo recl o s ure. Th e M o rt g ag ees an d t h e l aw fi rm each m ov ed t o d i s m i s s t h e co m p l ai nt

fo r fai l u re t o s t at e a cl ai m or, i n t h e al t e r n a t i v e , fo r a m o re d efi n i t e s t at em en t

. Fo l l o wi ng a h eari n g , t h e t ri al co urt en t ered an ord er d is m i ss i n g St ewart ’ s cl ai m s

ag ai n s t al l d efen d an t s . St ewart t h en fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal . W e l ack ju ri s di ct i o n

.

“ Th e p ro per an d t i m el y fi l i n g o f a n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s an ab s o l u t e req u i rem en t

t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n u p o n an ap p el l at e c o u rt .” Per l ma n v. Per l ma n , 3 1 8 Ga. Ap p.

7 3 1

, 7 3 9 (4 ) (7 3 4 SE2 d 5 6 0) (2 0 1 2 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ). An d to b e t i m el y , a n o t i ce

o f ap p eal m

u s t b e fi l ed w i t hi n 3 0 d ay s fo l l o w i n g en t ry of t h e ju dg m en t o r tri al co u rt

o rd er s o u g h t t o b e a p p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Here, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered t h e

o rd er o f di s m i s s al on J u l y 6

, 2 0 2 3

, an d t h e r e f o re St ewart was req u i red t o fi l e h er

n o t i ce o f ap p eal n o l at er t han M o n d ay , Au g u s t 7 . St ewart , h o wev er, d i d n o t fi l e h er

n o t i ce o f ap p eal u n t i l Au g u s t 8

. November 28, 2023Acco rd i ng l y , we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n to co n s i d er t hi s a p p e al

, wh i ch i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.
W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/28/2023
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-63,235]

                    By application postmarked July 7, 2008, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on May 29, 2008. The Notice of Determination was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 16, 2008 (73 FR 34044).                

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of screen printing for apparel did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred.

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information about the customers of the subject firm.

The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

## Conclusion

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of July 2008.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-18168 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Avletus L. PITTS, Individually and on Behalf of his Minor Son, Alvin B. Pitts, v. Roch H. PEDARRE et al.

No. 1530.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 31, 1935.

C. C. Bird, Jr., and Fred A. Blanche, both of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Taylor, Porter & Brooks, of Baton Rouge, for appellees.

LE BLANC, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion this day -handed down in the case of Charles N. Lavergne, Individually, and for and on Behalf of His Minor Son, Daly C. Lavergne, v. Roch H. Pedarre et al. (La.App.) 165 So. 17, it is ordered that the judgment herein appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, at the costs of the plaintiff, appellant.