alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report of PCMT Corporation (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nachman Shlomo Kohen,
      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, to


the
      best
      of my knowledge and belief:





(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 operation of the
      Company.


Date:
                May 15, 2007
            By
            /s/
                Nachman Shlomo
                KohenNachman
                Shlomo Kohen,Chief
                Executive Officer and
              PrincipalAccounting
                Officer






This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.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 Registrant for the purposes of ss.18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any filing 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 this Report), irrespective of any general
      incorporation language contained in such filing.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by ss.906 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       7,097,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,527,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                    59,265
<INVENTORY>                                  4,885,220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,134,681
<PP&E>                                      40,512,499
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,093,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              82,342,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,770,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<COMMON>                                        56,675
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,085,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                82,342,028
<SALES>                                     84,018,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            84,018,095
<CGS>                                       18,683,931
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,334,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,764,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,844,969)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   127,657
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,972,626)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,972,626)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.75)


</TABLE>
#### John C. FARRAR, Respondent, v. T.W. SERVICES, INC., and Transportation Insurance Company, Appellants, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.

No. 69206.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

June 25, 1996.

Karie Casey, St. Louis, for appellant.

Susan Kreher Roach, Law Offices of Susan Roach, Chesterfield, for T.W. Services.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Robert Amsler, Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for Treasurer of Mo.

Before GERALD M. SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, T.W. Services and Transportation Insurance Company, appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s Final Award, finding respondent, John C. Farrar, permanently and totally disabled and awarding him permanent total disability benefits, seven weeks of temporary total disability benefits, and future medical benefits. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the award is supported by the evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the Commission’s award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision is provided solely for the use of the parties involved.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4294 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4294

To prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument 
   in Oregon without full public participation and an express Act of 
                   Congress, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 1996

Mr. Cooley of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                     to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument 
   in Oregon without full public participation and an express Act of 
                   Congress, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL 
              MONUMENTS IN OREGON.

    No extension or establishment of a national monument may be 
undertaken in Oregon after the date of enactment of this Act without 
full public participation and an express Act of Congress.
                                 <all>
```
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

February 9, 2024 SC-2023-0835 Ex parte A.S. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: A.S. v. DeKalb County Department of Human Resources) (DeKalb Juvenile Court: JU-21-45.03; Civil Appeals: CL-2023-0248). CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on February 9, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Bryan, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

_______________________________,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. __________________ 

HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

_______________________________,

Defendant(s). 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT (Dkt. ___) 

The Court has reviewed the following document: ________________________________

(Dkt. ____). The Court finds that it should be stricken for the following reason(s): 

 Missing statement of concurrence. See LR 7.1(a).

 Over-length. See LR 7.1(d)(3).

 Wrong font size. See LR 5.1(a)(3).

 Missing required information (e.g., concise statement of issues, controlling or most

appropriate authority, etc.). See LR 7.1(d)(2).

 Improperly formatted (e.g., single-spaced, improper margins, missing page numbers,

etc.). See LR 5.1(a)(2).

 Does not comply with the Case Management Order in this case for the following reasons:

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________.

Innovation Ventures, LLC

09-cv-13783

Bhelliom Enterprises Corp.

Motion to Preclude Evidence

154

The motion contains no statement of concurrence as required by Section II.B.1 of the

Case Management Order.

154

✔

✔

2:09-cv-13783-MAG-RSW Doc # 159 Filed 12/16/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 5967
 Other:__________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________.

Accordingly, the Court strikes the document. ______________________ shall file an amended 

document that complies with all requirements on or before ____________________.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on ______________________.

.DUUL6DQGXVN\

Case Manager 

Plaintiff

12/30/2015

s/ Mark A. Goldsmith

December 16, 2015

s/ Karri Sandusky

12/16/2015

2:09-cv-13783-MAG-RSW Doc # 159 Filed 12/16/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 5968
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASON RAY TYLER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

CHARLES L. RYAN and TERRY L.

GODDARD,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 12-15966

D.C. Nos. 4:10-cv-00353-RCC

4:10-cv-00543-RCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 5, 2013

San Francisco, California

Before: FARRIS, FERNANDEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Jason Ray Tyler appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for

habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.

Even assuming the state breached the first plea agreement by entering a

subsequent indictment against Tyler, the state appellate court’s rejection of Tyler’s

FILED

NOV 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
claim that the breach violated his due process rights was not an unreasonable

application of Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971). See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405–06 (2000). The state

appellate court could make “a principled distinction,” Murdoch v. Castro, 609 F.3d

983, 991 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), between Tyler’s case and Santobello because

Tyler withdrew his motion to dismiss the second indictment and subsequently

accepted a guilty plea conditioned on having his sentences for both convictions run

concurrently. 

Nor did the state appellate court unreasonably apply Blackledge v. Perry,

417 U.S. 21, 30–31 (1974), or Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62 (1975), which

establish narrow exceptions to the general rule that a defendant cannot challenge

pre-plea constitutional errors once a plea has been entered. See United States v.

Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989). Rather, the court assumed that Tyler was entitled

to this exception, considered his claim that the second indictment violated his

rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and rejected the claim because the first

conviction was for a crime that had an element not included in the second

conviction, and vice versa. 

Finally, Tyler has not identified any clearly established Supreme Court

precedent holding that a defendant’s right to due process is violated when a state

2
court accepts a guilty plea from a defendant who has raised and abandoned a claim

that the prosecution at issue breaches a prior plea agreement. Accordingly, to the

extent this argument was raised to the state appellate court, its rejection of the

claim was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.

AFFIRMED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR BROOKS FIBER PROPERTIES, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000915509
<NAME> BROOKS FIBER PROPERTIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                     261,880,000
<SECURITIES>                               182,304,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,989,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           470,162,000
<PP&E>                                     306,455,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,114,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             879,581,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,937,000
<BONDS>                                    552,810,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       25,200,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       291,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 266,634,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               879,581,000
<SALES>                                     45,574,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            45,574,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               76,360,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,647,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (43,843,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (43,843,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (43,843,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.71)
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7059

NORMAN KEVIN WILKERSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Dir. of VDOC , Respondent

- Appellee , and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA , Respondent

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk . Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv
- 00396

- RBS

- RJK )

Submitted : December 13, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2018

Before KEENAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Norman Kevin Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,2 Richm ond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Norman Kevin Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. ∗ The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabili ty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a priso ner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Sl ack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Wilkerson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the pending motions, and dismiss the appeal.

∗ Wilkerson has also filed a supplemental notice of appeal from the magistrate judge’s earlier order denying his motion for release pending review. We may exercise jurisdict ion only over final orders, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, of the district court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2012). Except when a magistrate judge acts under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012), we lack jurisdiction over appeals from a magistr ate judge’s order. See United States v. Baxter , 19 F.3d 155, 156

- 57 (4th Cir. 1994).4 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.58


 


  Maximum
Pledge Contract


 


Contract No.:2013JIYINZUIBAOZIDI13121739


 


 


Pledgor : Hebei Chuanglian Finance Leasing
Co., Ltd. 


 


Pledgee : CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


 


Signing Date : August 23, 2013


 


Pledge Definition : To ensure multiple loans Party B (Pledgee)
has lent to Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd, Party A (Pledgor) is willing to provide the Maximum Pledge Guarantee hereunder for
Party B.


 


Maximum Amount: RMB150, 000,000


 


Pledge Term : From August 23, 2013 to February 16, 2014
Order entered July 17, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00719
- CV JOSE HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V. SUN CRANE AND HOIST, INC. , JLB PARTN E RS, L.P. , JLB BUILDERS, L.L.C., AUGER DRILLING, INC. , AND D'AMBRA CONSRU CTION CORPORATION, Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 15
- 00715
- D



### O RDER It appears f

rom the record before us that we may not have jurisdicti on over this appeal as no final judgment seems to have been signed

. See Martinek Grain & Bins, Inc. v. Bulldog Farms, Inc. , 366 S.W.3d 800, 804 (Tex. App

— Dallas 2012, no pet.) (appellate court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgme nts that dispose of all parties and claims in record). The trial court’s docket sheet reflects appellant’s live pleading was his third amended petition

. That petition appears to name as defendants Sun Crane and Hoist, Inc., JLB Partners, L.P., JLB Builde rs, L.L.C., Auger Drilling, Inc., and D’Ambra Construction Corporation. The docket sheet further reflects all defendants were served, and all but Auger answered. No
counter

- claims appear to have been filed.The clerk’s record includes a copy of the sum mary judgment dismissing all of appellant’s

claims against JLB Partners and JLB Builders. Although not included in the record, the docket sheet reflects Sun Crane w as dismissed by order of November 3, 2016 and an order on D’Ambra’s motion for summary judg ment was s igned May 22, 2017. However, n o order appears to have been signed disposing of appellant’s claims against Auger

. So that the Court can establish its jurisdiction, we ORDER appellant to have filed, no later than August 16, 2018, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of any order disposing of his claims against Auger. The supplemental clerk’s record shall also include a copy of the order on D’Ambra’s summary judgment motion

. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this ord er to the Honorable Ken Tapscott, Presiding Judge of County Court at Law No.4, and the parties.
To allow the trial court an opportunity to sign any necessary orders on any remaining claims and parties , we ABATE the appeal until August 16, 2018

. If the req uested supplemental clerk’s record is not timely filed, the appeal may be dismissed without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES PRESIDING JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4221 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4221

To amend the tort claims procedures in title 28, United States Code, to 
 allow a member of a uniformed service to bring an action for personal 
injury against a health care professional in a uniformed service, with 
   the exception of injuries received during a declared state of war.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 1996

 Mr. Stockman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the tort claims procedures in title 28, United States Code, to 
 allow a member of a uniformed service to bring an action for personal 
injury against a health care professional in a uniformed service, with 
   the exception of injuries received during a declared state of war.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stephen E. LeNoir Malpractice 
Accountability Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

    Section 2674 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following: ``The United States shall be liable in an 
action brought by a member of a uniformed service for personal injury 
caused by the provision of health care by a health care professional in 
a uniformed service except in cases where such injuries were sustained 
during a declared state of war.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall apply with respect to injuries 
sustained subsequent to January 1, 1990.
                                 <all>
```