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




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. §1350




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A,
Amendment No. 2 of Cytomedix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Martin P. Rosendale, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 operations of the Company
      for said period.


Date:  January
      7, 2011
                  
                  /s/ Martin P.
      RosendaleMartin
      P. RosendaleChief
      Executive Officer




A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to Cytomedix, Inc.
and will be retained by Cytomedix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| 1. | I      have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Chemtura Corporation;      and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report does 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. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Craig A. Rogerson                               |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Craig      A. Rogerson                              |
|   | Chairman,      President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6817

NICHOLAS OMAR MIDGETTE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02066-BO)

Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 26, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas Omar Midgette, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas Omar Midgette appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for 

a writ of error coram nobis or audita querela. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Midgette v. United States, No. 5:18-hc-02066-BO 

(E.D.N.C. June 29, 2018). 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.

AFFIRMED
'

## a,1a1~31_ -

,. 

### -.

### CB_a_&.b:~ 

# .. <5

### L~w\_<Ltlfl"J: 

## c:ldE&

-, 0**O_f-U_\,_}..a.l!)._'B..~~--O_Ql'1:t,~L7**

### £o_R-r_~_o_~**'t}:t_~:r:£~a.s~&l~tlo**

### 1u_)~k._2_2_.,_2_0_l~

- 

## .aB_Ek_B.C.O_S**·:ra_,_cL~ &..~** **Co.:u_&.L_O_)~QR\~.\1\\RL ~~_\'_'£_e.\...&_o)="** **I-e~R..s E._Q_.._~-a~Ll,.30_B-?_c_B.f_\:ro_l** **S"lBJ'~**



## 8.v_s**:r_\_,~_l_3_'E.~B..S_28_7_ll** 

# B:.t ·.**WJ~** 

## .. _::_:L, 7 ").. 7_- 

### 3\

-**=t'!L-C.:1~tu.O_._C._:_'2._:L7_:_0_LO ~**  f> 

### 7

- 03_8_.2..8__13-=-G

, D.EJ:\_R._C.LE_&,'&_,**X,._a_~W-~\:!_tru~-rio~ u:u_~~~R~**  

### s
.**~o_i~ \_p.}_\)~tm~_o_u:r:_.** 



### 1"-'li.E 

## tns_eo_s...:l:tla_-ru_o_f :JHt. Si."E-_'E E.R:t.tU-L"\:..t:>_uu_s_'G Ill ®_13**-~** -**}H~** 

### . l&R:"1' _u 

### _t._- ')_1.1":_**~** ·. _J \'b s:l,L\.. 

### f_-e rut>**'\~_)_N__CD_:u&::i_**

I ·.**~" CJ-&~L**  N-**~"'** -- - 

## h-'i**0Q_~~~**

## AA-~ ...>-



# .



# .**R~£EIVEL11N ~-**  CRIMfNAf

_



### _.li'PEALS

' 

### jtJN-IT"20!5

### ~beiAc~. ClerBt

-;
Opinion issued March 10 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 007 6 6
- CV

——————————— IN RE ARNOLD BROWN, DBA ARNOLD BROWN CON STRUCTION COMPANY , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Arnold Brown, dba Arnold Brown Construction Company, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order striking relator’s pleadings and entering an interlocutory judgment. 1 Relator argued that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing death penalty sanctions.

1 The underlying case is Monica Hawkins v. Arnold Brown dba Arnold Brown Construction Company , et al. , cause number 2011

- 49521, pending in the 189th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Scot Dollinger presiding.2

Because the trial judge who signed the orders challenged in this proceeding is no longer on the bench, this Court issued an order for th e successor judge to reconsider the previous judge’s orders. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 7.2(b). A supplemental clerk’s record was filed on November 13, 2019 containing a new order signed by the successor judge vacating the portion of the prior order imposing death penalty sanctions and ordering the parties to file an agreed scheduling order with new deadlines for discovery and trial. Accordingly, this Court issued an order advising relator that unless a response was filed within ten days the Court would consider dismissal of this petition as moot. No response was filed. The petition is dismis sed as moot. Any pending motions are also dismissed as
moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, and Kelly.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William M. Follett, Relator, *v.*Water Works Company of Seneca Falls and Seneca Water Company, Inc., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Seneca County,

November 26, 1924.

Motions and orders — submission of orders — order, predicated upon opinion and decision, may not recite decision was reached as matter of law and not in exercise of court’s discretion. ’

An order cannot be qualified in its operation and effect by reference to the opinion, for the court speaks by its order. Hence, where the court has handed down its decision and opinion in writing, the order may not recite that a decision was reached as a matter of law and not in the discretion of the court.

Submission of orders on decision.

*George W. O’Brien,*for the relator.

*H. A. Carmer*and *Neil F. Towner,*for the defendants.

Thompson, J.:

In this case in which the court has handed down its decision and opinion in writing, it is sought to have the order recite that the decision was reached as matter of law and not in the exercise of the discretion of the court. Such an order cannot be signed. The court speaks by its order. (29 Cyc. 1521.)

An order cannot be qualified in its operation and effect by reference to the opinion. *(Fisher*v. *Gould,*81 N. Y. 228, 230.)

.The order itself can only be referred to for the grounds, which cannot be qualified by the opinion. (1 Rumsey Pr. [2d ed.] 276.)

Ordered accordingly.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark R. Rosenzweig, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BTU International,
Inc.;


2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's internal
control over the financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and



Date: August 11, 2003


                             /s/ Mark R. Rosenzweig
                             ----------------------
                               Mark R. Rosenzweig
                 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BARBARA K. CHANEY, *

*

 Plaintiff, * CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00523-WS-B

 *

vs. *

*

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, *

Commissioner of Social *

Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that that the 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, denying 

Plaintiff’s claim for widow’s insurance benefits be 

AFFIRMED.

DONE this 29th day of February, 2016.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00523-WS-B Document 26 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrell Flagg, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 652]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present—Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Smith and Green, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2192 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 

the Committees on Natural Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, Agriculture, and Science, Space, and Technology, 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 provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General 

for fiscal year 2024. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2192 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OF3 FICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR FISCAL 

4 YEAR 2024. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

6 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail7 able for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of In8 spector General for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

9 $41,489,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Empire State Fuel Corp., Appellant, v Warbasse-Cogeneration Technologies Partnership, L.P., Defendant, and Amalgamated Warbasse House, Inc., Respondent.

[871 NYS2d 140]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered February 19, 2008, in an action to recover the price of fuel delivered to a power plant built and operated by defendant Warbasse on premises owned by defendant-respondent Amalgamated, a cooperative apartment complex, insofar as appealed from, dismissing plaintiffs cause of action against Amalgamated for quantum meruit, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The existence of a valid contract between plaintiff and Warbasse precludes plaintiffs quantum meruit claim against Amalgamated *(see Whitman Realty Group, Inc. v Galano,*41 AD3d 590, 592-593 [2007]). In any event, even if there were no contract, there is no evidence that Amalgamated was ever billed or paid for the fuel, and the record, including plaintiffs letter to Warbasse demanding payment, otherwise establishes that plaintiff at all times understood that Warbasse, and only Warbasse, was the party responsible for ordering the fuel and paying for it. While some of the bills mailed to Warbasse’s headquarters in Harrison, New York were addressed to “Amalgamated Co-Generation,” there is no evidence of the existence of a company by that name and plaintiff fails to explain why it believed that Amalgamated went by that name and had its office in Harrison. Nor is there any evidence that Amalgamated, which timely paid Warbasse for the electricity and heat generated by the fuel delivered by plaintiff, was unjustly enriched by the delivery of fuel *(see Wiener v Lazard Freres & Co.,*241 AD2d 114, 120 [1998] [receipt of benefit alone insufficient to show unjust enrichment]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
----

|   | 1. | The Annual Report 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Annual Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March 24, 2010 |   |                                                     |
|---------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                            | By:    | /s/ Timothy Carnahan                                     |
|                            |   | Timothy Carnahan, Chairman,                              |
|                            |   | Chief Executive Officer &Principal Financial Officer |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KATHERINE WHITE, etc., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 15-322-WS-N

 )

THE NIF CORPORATION, etc., )

 )

Defendant. )

 ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 

10). The plaintiff filed a response, (Doc. 18), the defendant declined to file a 

reply, (Doc. 11), and the motion is ripe for resolution. 

The defendant asserts that the FLSA complaint fails to state a claim under 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), because it does not allege 

“the hours [the plaintiff] worked per week” and does not allege “the amount of 

unpaid wages she is owed.” (Doc. 9 at 2). She later claims the complaint is fatally 

defective because it does not allege “the rate to be properly applied to such hours.” 

(Id. at 3). The defendant relies on several lower court decisions from other 

Circuits. 

The Court need not review those opinions, because the Eleventh Circuit has 

spoken. In Secretary of Labor v. Labbe, 319 Fed. Appx. 761 (11th Cir. 2008),

“[t]he complaint allege[d] that since June 16, 2002, [the defendant] repeatedly 

violated stated provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay covered employees 

minimum hourly wages and to compensate employees who worked in excess of 

forty hours a week at the appropriate rates.” The Court held that, “[w]hile these 

allegations are not overly detailed, we find that a claim for relief for failure to pay 

minimum wage [or] to provide overtime compensation ... under the FLSA does 

Case 1:15-cv-00322-WS-N Document 19 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 2
2

not require more,” even in light of Twombly. Id. at 763-64. Sister courts within 

the Eleventh Circuit have routinely applied Labbe in denying motions to dismiss 

similarly worded FLSA claims.1 The complaint in this case alleges far more than 

the minimum required by Rule 8(a), Twombly and Labbe. Accordingly, the 

motion to dismiss is denied.

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 E.g., Johnson v. Titlemax, Inc., 2015 WL 5954393 (M.D. Ala. 2015); Hudgens 

v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 2014 WL 5483231 (N.D. Fla. 2014); Wakeley v. 

Useppa Inn and Dock Co., 2014 WL 1819411 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (Steele, J.); Houston v. 

JT Private Duty Home Care, LLC, 2014 WL 485428 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (Chappell, J.); 

Gonzalez v. TZ Insurance Solutions, LLC, 2014 WL 103524 (M.D. Fla. 2014) 

(Covington, J.); Vestey v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 2013 WL 5929061 (M.D. Fla. 

2013) (Moody, J.); Castillo v. Groundlevel, Inc., 2013 WL 5499611 (M.D. Fla. 2013 

(Whittemore, J.); Mitial v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, 2012 WL 2524272 (S.D. Fla. 

2012); Dobbins v. Scriptfleet, Inc., 2012 WL 601145 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (Buckelew, J). 

Case 1:15-cv-00322-WS-N Document 19 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.67





 


 


Summary Translation of Sample Contract


 


Note:
The summary translation agreement below is summary translation of one of a series of agreements between Qingdao Zhihesheng Agricultural
Produce Services, Ltd. and Qingdao City Association of Shipping Owners that the companies use that constitute separate agreements,
yet all such agreements are nearly identical in most respects, except for the specific term, price, and subject of the purchase
or sale order (e.g., yews, ivies, etc.). 


 





 






 


Yew Purchase Contract


 


Supplier (Party A): Qingdao Zhihesheng
Agricultural Produce Services, Ltd.


 


Buyer (Party B): Qingdao City Association
of Shipping Owners


 


		Products:	Yew



 


Specification:
50-80 cm


 


Quantity:
1740


 


Unit
Price: 1700


 


Total:
2,958,000 Yuan


 


Yew


 


Specification:
80-120 cm


 


Quantity:
1390


 


Unit
Price: 3300


 


Total:
4,587,000 Yuan


 


Total:
7,545,000 Yuan


 


Quality Standard: quality shall
follow the national secondary plants growing standard.


 


Delivery and Payment Settlement:
Party A shall deliver the products to the designated sites within ___ days upon the execution of the Contract. Upon acceptance
of the products, Party B shall deposit 50% of the total price of such delivered products. The remaining payment shall be settled
within ___ days.


 






     


     


    

 


Packaging: Party A shall be responsible
for packaging following the national packaging standard. Party B shall be responsible for transportation, loading and unloading
of such products.


 


Financial Liability: Any financial
loss caused by products quality issue shall be borne by Party A based on the Contract Law of China.


 


Other Terms: 


 


After Sale Service:
Party A shall ensure the quality standard follows the national secondary plants growing standard. Party A shall provide cultivation
techniques, corresponding technical support service and a quarantine certificate. Party A shall follow the national standard for
packaging and to keep the broken bags rate under 1%.


 


Neither party shall
bear any liability for failing to perform the Contract caused by force majeure.


 


The Contract shall
be effective when signed and stamped by both parties. Neither party shall amend or terminate the Contract without any authorization
from the other party. Any revision and termination shall be determined by both parties with mutual agreement and a new contract
shall be executed for such purpose.


 


Both parties shall have the right to bring
forward a written appeal to the Contract Arbitration Authority for the purpose of mediation and arbitration.


 


Contract Period: 2014-12-01 through 2014-12-31


 


Contract
Date: 2014-11-26
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADRIAN LACEY, :

 Petitioner, : 

 CIVIL ACTION 15-00349-KD-M

v. :

 CRIMINAL ACTION 13-00112-KD-M

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

 Respondent. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, 

and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is 

adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 251) 

be DENIED and that this action be DISMISSED. It is further 

ORDERED that any certificate of appealability filed by 

Petitioner be DENIED as he is not entitled to appeal in forma 

pauperis. 

DONE this 29th day of April, 2016.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cr-00112-KD-M Document 272 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 1