alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

      I, Zhenyong Liu, Chief Executive Officer of Orient Paper Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) the Transition Report on Form 10-K for the transition period of Orient
Paper Inc. (the "Registrant") from March 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007
resulting from the change of the Company's fiscal year end from February 28 to
December 31 (the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and

      (2) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 31, 2008                          /s/ Zhenyong Liu
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Zhenyong Liu
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 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.
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1374-000]

ISO Trader, LLC; Notice of Filing

August 21, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 15, 2008, ISO Trader, LLC filed a 
petition for acceptance of initial tariff, Original Volume No. 1, 
waivers of certain Commission regulations and blanket authority to sell 
electricity at market-based rates, pursuant to section 205 of the 
Federal Power Act (FPA) 16 U.S.C. 824d (2000), Rule 205 and 207 of the 
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.205 (2005) and 18 CFR 
385.207 (2005), and Part 35 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 
part 35 (2005).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 5, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19927 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2199

DIONISHIAH WANJIRU MWAURA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-093-929) Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 16, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK, Riverdale, Maryland, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Gerard J. Mene, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dionishiah Wanjiru Mwaura, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider its denial of her motion to reopen. Mwaura alleges she will be tortured by the police if she returns to Kenya. We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. See8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); Yanez-Popp v. INS , 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993). A motion to reconsider asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier decision. The motion must “state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Such motions are especially disfavored “in a deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). Mwaura contends the Board abused its discretion because, at the very least, it should have found her eligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To qualify for protection under the CAT, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that [s]he . . .- 3 - would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Mwaura failed to establish that its denial of her motion to reopen should be reconsidered. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00145-CR

__________________

XAVIER JUD SINEGAL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F13-16030

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 22, 2016, the trial court sentenced Xavier Jud Sinegal on an 

indictment for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault. The trial 

court signed a certification in which the trial court certified that this is a plea-bargain 

case and Sinegal has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). On May 15, 

2023, Sinegal filed a notice of appeal pro se. The District Clerk provided the 

certification to the Court of Appeals.
2

On May 16, 2023, we notified the parties that we would dismiss the appeal 

unless the appellant established the certification was incorrect. In a response filed by 

his court-appointed attorney, Sinegal concedes that the notice of appeal is untimely 

and the certification is accurate. We dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 6, 2023

Opinion Delivered June 7, 2023

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6439 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6439

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for life imprisonment 
    for certain offenses involving Fentanyl, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 2022

Mr. Burchett (for himself, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Guest, and Mr. Fitzpatrick) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
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 the Controlled Substances Act to provide for life imprisonment 
    for certain offenses involving Fentanyl, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fentanyl Trafficker Elimination 
Act''.

SEC. 2. LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES INVOLVING FENTANYL.

    (a) Controlled Substances Act.--Section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by repealing clause (vi); and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) 
                of this section involving 400 grams or more of a 
                mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of 
                N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] 
                propanamide or 100 grams or more of a mixture or 
                substance containing a detectable amount of any 
                analogue of N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-
                piperidinyl] propanamide, such person shall be 
                sentenced to imprisonment for life.''.
    (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act.--Section 1010(b) 
of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by repealing subparagraph (F); and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) 
        involving 400 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
        containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-
        phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide or 100 grams or more of 
        a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any 
        analogue of N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] 
        propanamide, such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for 
        life.''.
                                 <all>
```
|          A.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|          B. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Bank. |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      April 15, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Robert H.      King                                       |
|---------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |                  | Robert      H. King, Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|                      |                  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Raymond A. Lewis, Appellant.

County Court, Schenectady County,

January 2, 1957.

*736*McKee & Moore*for appellant.

*Emmet J. Lynch, District Attorney (Duncan &. McNab*of counsel), for respondent.

Archibald C. Wemple, J.

The defendant-appellant, through his attorney, contended that the testimony did not support the charge; that there was a serious question concerning identification of the defendant; that the testimony of one of the People’s witnesses was subject to question as to relevancy; that there was no definite estimate of the speed of the car; and that there was reversible' error in the examination of the defendant by the District Attorney.

The assistant district attorney, Duncan S. McNab, Esq., who tried the case before the Justice of the Peace and argued the appeal, contended that the People’s witnesses could not estimate the speed inasmuch as they were not race-track drivers and that the speed of the offending car was too fast. The assistant district attorney also argued that there could be no charge against the defendant for speeding because there was no evidence of clocking the defendant.

The attorney for the defendant-appellant filed a brief. The District Attorney stood on the record.

Without going into all of the matters raised by the defendant-appellant in his argument and his brief, a careful reading of the testimony in this case reveals a startling lack of identification of the defendant as the operator of the car at the time and place in question at such a dangerous rate of speed so as to endanger the life, limb and property of another. Indeed, neither of the People’s witnesses could identify the type of car operated by the defendant nor did they have any identification of license number until after the defendant was in the custody of the Amsterdam police.

Reasonable doubt is that doubt which a man of reason and a man exercising reason may have as to the guilt of the defendant. The testimony of the arresting officer relating to the identification of the defendant or his car was, at most, vague. The information, page 7, lines 3 through 13, reads as follows:

> *“*Q. At that time, what was your impression of the description of the car?

> “ A. I thought the car to be a Cadillac convertible.

> *737“ Q. Were you able to observe people in it?

> “ A. No.

> *“*Q. You were unable to tell how many people were in it? *“A.*No.

> *“*Q. Were you able to observe the license number?

> “ A. No.

> “ Q. Did you continue to keep the car in sight?

> “ A. No.”

Under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the fine of $50 is restored to the defendant-appellant.

Submit order.
**Exhibit 31.1**




**Certification**




I,
      Terry
      L. McCoy, in my capacity as Executive Vice President of First Horizon Asset
      Securities Inc (the Depositor) do hereby certify that:





1.    I
      have
      reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to
      be
      filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of First
      Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-AA3 (the “Exchange Act
      periodic reports”);





2.    Based
      on
      my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
      contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
      fact
      necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
      which
      such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
      by
      this report;





3.    Based
      on
      my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required
      to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
      in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.  Based
      upon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report
      under Item 1123 of Regulation AB and except as disclosed in the Exchange
      Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under
      the
      servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5.    All
      of
      the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
      securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
      with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
      in
      this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange
      Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
      report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
      of
      noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
      on
      Form 10-K.





In
      giving
      the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
      to me
      by The Bank of New York.







**First
                Horizon Asset Securities Inc., as Depositor**By:
            /s/
                Terry L.
                McCoyTerry
                L. McCoy,Executive
                Vice President
              (Senior
                Officer of the Depositor in charge ofSecuritization)




Date:
      March 26, 2007
##### 



EXHIBIT
3.1
 State of DelawareSecretary of StateDivision of
CorporationsDelivered 07:04 PM 06/22/2006FILED 07:04 PM
06/22/2006SRV 060603875 - 2971781 FILE
 MOLECULAR
DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
   Article FIRST of the Certificate of Incorporation
of the Corporation shall be amended by deleting such Article FIRST
thereof in its entirety and substituting therefor the following:
 FIRST: The name of the corporation is
CytoCore, Inc.
    MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Dr. David Weissberg
Dr. David
Weissberg, Chief Executive
Officer
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6630 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1400 N Kraemer Blvd. in Placentia, California, as the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim Post Office Building’’. 

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

•HR 6630 EH

1 SECTION 1. PFC JANG HO KIM POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 2400 N Kraemer Blvd. in 

4 Placentia, California, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim 

10 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 14, 

2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6630 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. Placentia, California, as the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim al Service located at 1400 N Kraemer Blvd. in
Exhibit 13.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG for the annual period
ended March 31, 2010, I, Paul Thomason, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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
the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Paul Thomason      
|Paul Thomason          
|Chief Financial Officer

Date: July 27, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Kabel
Deutschland GmbH and will be retained by Kabel Deutschland GmbH, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6458 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement to 

specify an effective period of a transfer of Post-9/11 educational assistance to a dependent. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2022 

Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina (for himself, Mrs. AXNE, and Mr. TRONE) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the 

requirement to specify an effective period of a transfer 

of Post-9/11 educational assistance to a dependent. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT TO SPECIFY 

4 AN EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF A TRANSFER OF 

5 POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO A 

6 DEPENDENT. 

7 Section 3319(e) of title 38, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6458 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by adding ‘‘and’’ after the 

2 semicolon; 

3 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and 

4 inserting a period; and 

5 (3) by striking paragraph (3). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Adam Mulyca, Appellant.

County Court, Schenectady County,

January 28, 1957.

*Alexander Grasso*for appellant.

*Emmet J. Lynch, District Attorney (Duncan S. McNab*of counsel), for respondent.

Archibald C. Wemple, J.

To convict a defendant of this violation of subdivision 5-a of section 70 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, there must be satisfactory proof of location of accident to confer jurisdiction; identification of the defendant; knowledge by the defendant of the accident and property damage to the complainant’s car. The burden of proof of these items is adequately shown in the record as follows:

> 1. Location of alleged offense — Page 3;

> 2. Identification of the defendant — Page 4;

> 3. Knowledge of the accident by the defendant — Page 5; and

> 4. Damage to the complainant’s car — Page 16.

On page 33 of the record, trooper Thomas Calaban testified as to an alleged admission of facts by the defendant upon his arrest. The denial of some of the essential facts by the defendant and his version of the cause of the damage to the complainant’s car, as set forth on pages 41 and 42 of the record are not convincing. In fact, on page 42, and again on page 45, the defendant, in effect, corroborates the fact that the complainant, Brennan, suffered damage to his car, but merely puts the issue as to where the damage actually occurred.

From a reading and rereading of the record, the distinci impression is obtained that the People have sustained the burden of proof of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. *712As stated above, the essential elements of the offense have been substantially proved by the testimony of the People’s witnesses and, in most respects, there has been corroboration.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Submit order.