alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.3





STATEMENT OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Sam H. Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-Q Report for the nine months ended September 20, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Sam H. Lindsey, Jr.,


Sam H. Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer


Dated: May 24, 2010
No. 12,882.

#### State of Louisiana vs. Num Harris.

To review a decision on appeal in a criminal case, a case must be so brought belore the Court by bill of exceptions as to disclose the error, unless the error is patent.

There was no bill of exceptions and no error patent on the face of the papers.

APPEAL from the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans. *Baker, J.*

*M. J. Cunningham,*Attorney Genera!, and *B. H. Marr,*District Attorney, for Plaintiff, Appellee.

*990
      *John Q. Flynn*for Defendant, Appellant. »

Submitted on briefs May 7, 1898.

Opinion handed down May 16, 1898.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Breaux, J.

An information was filed against Num Harris on the 17th day of March, 1898, charging him with having feloniously committed an assault by wilfully shooting at F. Fourio.

The jury found him “ guilty ” as charged.

A motion for a new trial was made by the accused. It was overruled by the court.

The accused was then sentenced to service in the State penitentiary for two years, and to pay the cost of prosecution.

No bill of exceptions was taken during the trial; there is here ño assignment of errors and defect patent on the face of the record.

Although there was no assignment of errors we have *ex industria*read and given due consideration to the point argued here in the brief filed in behalf of the accused.

Defendant through counsel contended that the information was faulty, and did not sufficiently set forth the crime charged.

The crime was charged in the language of the law.

This court has in repeated decisions held that an information, or 'indictment for an offence denounced by statute should be charged in the words of the statute.

There are no questions of law before us which would justify us in granting relief to the accused.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
# 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 0 A0 32 8 . DEMETRI S J . W I LSON v . THE STATE.

In 2 01 4

, Dem et r i s W i l so n en tered a g u i l ty pl ea t o ch arg es o f i nv o l u n t ary

m an s l au g h t er a n d a g g r a v at ed as s au l t

. He was s en t en ced t o a t o t al t erm o f t wen t y

y ears wi th fi ft een y ears in cu s t o d y

. W i l s o n t h en fi led a m o t i o n t o s et as i d e h i s

c o n v i ct i o n s b ecau s e t h e i nd i ct m en t was n o t ret u rn ed i n o pen co u rt

. T h e tri a l c o u r t

d en ied t h e m o t i on o n Ju l y 5, 2 0 1 9

, an d W i l s o n fi l ed th e in s t an t n o t i ce o f ap p eal o n

Au g u s t 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 . W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n.

Th e Su p rem e Co u rt h a s m a d e cl ear t h at a m o t i o n s eek i n g t o ch al l en g e an

a l l eg ed l y i n v al i d o r v o id ju d g m en t o f co n v i ct i o n “ i s n o t o n e o f t h e es t ab l i s h ed

p ro ced ures fo r ch al l en g in g th e v al i d i t y o f a ju d g m en t i n a cri m i n al cas e” an d t h at an

ap p eal fro m t h e den i al o f s u ch a m o t i o n i s s u b ject t o d is m i ss al

. Ro b er t

s v. S t a t e

, 2 8 6

Ga. 5 32

, 5 32 (6 90 SE2 d 1 5 0) (2 0 1 0 ). Th u s, W i l so n i s n o t au t h o ri zed t o co l l at eral l y

at t ack h i s co n v i c t i o n i n t h i s m an n er. See id .; Ha rp er v. S t a t e

, 2 8 6 Ga. 2 1 6, 2 1 8 (1 )

(6 8 6 SE2 d 7 8 6 ) (2 0 0 9 ); Ma t her l ee v. S t a t e

, 3 0 3 Ga. Ap p . 7 6 5 , 7 6 6 (6 9 4 SE2 d 6 6 5 )

(2 0 1 0).

Bas ed o n t h e fo reg o i n g, W i ls o n’ s ap p ea l i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f

ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

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 t h 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

. November 21, 2019

11/21/2019
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 559

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to limit the penalty for

late enrollment under the medicare program to 10 percent and twice

the period of no enrollment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 18, 1995

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Commerce and, in addition, to the Committee on

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to limit

the penalty for late enrollment under the medicare program to 10 percent and twice the period of no enrollment.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITING MEDICARE LATE ENROLLMENT PEN4 ALTY TO 10 PERCENT AND TWICE THE PE5 RIOD OF NO ENROLLMENT.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section

7 1839(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r(b))
2

•HR 559 IH

1 is amended by striking ‘‘10 percent of the monthly pre2 mium so determined for each full 12 months’’ and insert3 ing ‘‘10 percent of the monthly premium so determined

4 for premiums paid during a period equal to twice the num5 ber of months in each of the full periods of 12 months’’.

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section

7 1818(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–2(c)) is amended—

8 (A) by striking paragraph (6); and

9 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through

10 (9) as paragraphs (6) through (8), respectively.

11 (2) Section 1818(g)(2)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

12 1395i–2(g)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘by substitut13 ing’’ and all that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘by

14 substituting ‘section 1818 (without any increase resulting

15 from the application of section 1839(b) to such section)’

16 for ‘section 1839 (without any increase under subsection

17 (b) thereof)’.’’.

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—(1) The amendments made

19 by this section shall apply to premiums paid for months

20 beginning after the end of the 90-day period beginning

21 on the date of the enactment of this Act.

22 (2) In applying these amendments, months (before,

23 during, or after the month in which this Act is enacted)

24 in which an individual was or is required to pay an in25 creased premium shall be taken into account in determin-
3

•HR 559 IH

1 ing the month in which the premium will no longer be sub2 ject to an increase.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Printing Components Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Herb Adams, Chief Executive 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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 3rd day of October, 2007.

HERB ADAMSHerb AdamsChief Executive Officer






































---
#### John ROGERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 1563.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 1, 1938.

Charles H. Garnett, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for review dismissed on motion of petitioner, at petitioner’s costs.
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.56


 


Loan Agreement


 


Contract No. : 2013JIYINDAIZIDI13100913


 


Borrower
: Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd


Lender :
CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


Signing
Date : August 23, 2013


Loan Amount
: RMB100,000,000


 


Length of
maturity : From August 23, 2013 to August 23, 2014


Use of Loan
: Working Capital


Loan Interest : 6.60%


Date of
Draft :August 23, 2013


Withdrawal
Amount : RMB100,000,000


Payment Method : The interest should be repaid by monthly. The
principal shall be fully repaid at the maturity date of the loan.


Repayment
Date :August 23, 2014


 


Loan Guarantee : Guaranty of Pledge, Guaranty
of Mortgage


 


- Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd entered into The Maximum
Mortgage Contract with the lender, with the contract no.2013JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI13140823.


 


- Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd entered into The Maximum
Pledge Contract with the lender, with the contract no.2013JIYINZUIBAOZIDI13121739.


 


- LI YONG HUI entered into The Maximum Pledge Contract with
the lender, with the contract no.2013JIYINZUIBAOZIDI13121743.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20421-01

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

JUAN LUIS MONTOYA-PEGO,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On December 22, 2009, the case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of

the parties, Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared

before me on December 22, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath,

confirmed the Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding

each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. Based upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that

the Defendant is competent to tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly,

intelligently made, and 3) that the offense(s) to which he pled are supported by an independent

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have

ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

Case 1:09-cr-20421-TLL-CEB ECF No. 29, PageID.66 Filed 12/23/09 Page 1 of 2
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and

Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: December 23, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Roy Kranz and C. Michael Gorte, and served on District Judge

Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: December 23, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

Case 1:09-cr-20421-TLL-CEB ECF No. 29, PageID.67 Filed 12/23/09 Page 2 of 2
#### Succession of Ernest R. BERNSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. A. WARMSLEY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 4823.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 2, 1934.

Irion & Switzer and Henry E. Turner, all of Shreveport, for appellant.

Wallace & Hardeman, of Benton, for ap-pellee.

DREW, Judge.

This ease was consolidated for trial with case Ño. 4822, entitled John M. Sentell v. W. A. Warmsley, 157 So. 152, this day decided by this court. The only differences in the pleadings are that the plaintiff is different; the description of the land owned by plaintiff is different; and the number of trees cut and the number of ties manufactured therefrom is different. In all other respects the petition and answer are the same.

This case was tried upon the same evidence as case No. 4822, and the lower court awarded judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $37, finding that 740 cross-ties were manufactured, from timber of plaintiff’s land, by Buddy Young, who sold them to defendant. The lower court allowed the stumpage value of 5 cents per tie.

The issues and evidence in this case being the same as in case No. 4822, and the lower court having correctly determined the number of ties manufactured from timber from plaintiff’s land, it is therefore decreed, for the reasons assigned in case No. 4822, this day decided by us, that the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| April                  30, 2007 | /s/                  Richard                  Ivanovick                         |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            | Richard                  Ivanovick                                                                                                                                                                      |
|                            | Chief                  Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

T.S.C.,

Respondent

v.

J.T.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 169 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of June, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### The Page Seed Company, Respondent, v. The Upton Company, Appellant.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
#### KEAN’S Inc., v. WILLOUGHBY.

No. 1147.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1933.

H. M. English, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Laycock & Moyse, of Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

In his application for -rehearing, defendant complains that the dismissal of his appeal by the judgment of this court deprives him of the right to prosecute his claim for attorney’s fees and for one week’s wages as contained in his reconventional demand.

These claims, of course, were only incidental to. the main demand, and necessarily had to fall with it.

Moreover, it is apparent that the total amount of the items claimed, as they appear on the face of the papers, is below the! jurisdiction of this court, and we would be without power to entertain them.

The questiort of delays raised in the application was considered and fully explained in the original opinion.

Rehearing refused.
#### William Hudson, Appellant, *v.*Charles M. Dickinson, Appellee.

APPEAL PROM LEE.

A party wishing to raise an issue on the assignment of a note, in a trial before a justice of the peace, must file an affidavit.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace, and appealed to the Circuit, at the trial in the Circuit Court, before Sheldon, Judge, at September term, 1850, a jury being waived, *408the appellee, plaintiff below, offered, an assigned note in evidence, which was objected to, on the ground that it was assigned after it became due, and because it was a partnership transaction, for which one of the partners had given a receipt, which would defeat the assignment.

Glover & Cook, for Appellant.

T. L. Dickey, for Appellee.

Caton, J.

All that is necessary to be decided in this case, was settled in the case of Archer *v.*Bogue. There it was decided that the act of 2d March, 1839, entitled *“An ad to amend the several laws in relation to practice in courts of law,”*is applicable to proceedings before justices of the peace. In that case as in this, the suit was brought by the assignee of a promissory note against the maker, and there was no affidavit filed, questioning the genuineness of the assignment. This Court said, *“*Upon the first assignment óf error, we do not deem it necessary to look into the testimony admitted, relative to the note, as the question of assignment was not in issue.” If no issue is formed upon the assignment, without the affidavit, of course, the evidence offered on that subject was immaterial, and we cannot examine its sufficiency, in this case, any more than the Court could in that. It was the duty of the defendant, if he intended to'dispute the as-! signment, to notify that fact to the Court and the opposite party, in the mode pointed out by the statute. In the absence of the affidavit, the plaintiff would not have been justified in subpoenaing witnesses to-prove the assignment, and he is protected from a surprise at the trial by evidence, tending to question the assignment. The Circuit Court decided correctly, and its judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment*affirmed.
NO. SCWC-11-0000618

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

DONNA C. EDWARDS, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

GLENN K. MIZUKAMI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

and

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO., et al., Defendants.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. CAAP-11-0000618; CIV. NO. 10-1-2441)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.,

Circuit Judge Border, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused,

and Circuit Judge Garibaldi, in place of McKenna, J., recused)

Petitioner/defendant-appellant Glenn K. Mizukami's

application for writ of certiorari, filed on December 8, 2011, is

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 10, 2012.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Patrick W. Border

/s/ Colette Y. Garibaldi

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-11-0000618

10-JAN-2012

08:55 AM
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      15, 2008 | /s/ Richard      Ivanovick   |
|-------------------|------------------------------|
|              | Richard      Ivanovick       |
|              | Chief      Financial Officer |

----