alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Orient Paper, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Winston C. Yen, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
  condition and results of operations of the Company.

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.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing.

|                      |     |                                               
|--------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2009 | By: | /s/ Winston C. Yen                            
|                      |     |                                               
|                      |     | Winston C. Yen                                
|                      |     | Chief Financial Officer                       
|                      |     | (principal financial and
  accounting officer)

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                         13,462
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  19,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                      413
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               51,598
<PP&E>                                         86,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                 21,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                178,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          91,906
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       16,617
<OTHER-SE>                                     56,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  178,963
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              313,672
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 310,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (5,772)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,680
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 8,509
<INCOME-TAX>                                      504
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             7,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                (19,191)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,754)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2385

JOHN PAUL TURNER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; AUGUSTA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; 

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:08-cv-00594-SGW)

Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: February 11, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s order 

granting his request to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissing 

this case as patently frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

(2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal 

is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the 

reasons stated by the district court. 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. 

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Gary Perfetto, Appellant, v Andrea Evans, as Chairperson of the New York State Division/Board of Parole Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 183]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole dated November 10, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated May 29, 2012, as denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

*641Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted to the extent that the determination is annulled, the petition is otherwise denied, and the matter is remitted to the New York State Board of Parole for a new hearing and a new determination.

Although the written determination of the New York State Board of Parole (hereinafter the Parole Board) mentioned the petitioner’s institutional record, it is clear that the Parole Board denied the petitioner’s request to be released on parole solely on the basis of the seriousness of the offense (see *Matter of Gelsomino v New York State Bd. of Parole,*82 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2011]). The Parole Board’s explanation for doing so was set forth in conclusory terms, which is contrary to law (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [a]; *Matter of Mitchell v New York State Div. of Parole,*58 AD3d 742, 743 [2009]).

Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to a new hearing and a new determination. We express no view as to the merits of the petitioner’s request to be released on parole. Austin, J.P, Sgroi, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 30600)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         July 17, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         11 a.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Victor Henriquez, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, DEA/SRB/NIDCR, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 668, Bethesda, MD 20892-4878, 301-451-2405,                         *henriquv@nidcr.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 18, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-15073 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
exhibit103.htm


EXHIBIT 10.3


 


 


 


Description of Oral Contract by and Between Myroslav Tsapaliuk and UA Granite Corporation


 


 


Myroslav Tsapaliuk, sole officer and director of UA Granite Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), has agreed to loan the Company funds, however, he has no firm commitment, arrangement or legal obligation to advance or loan funds to the Company.  Mr. Tsapaliuk has not agreed on any amount that may be loaned or what any of the terms of the loan would be.
TRIAL COURT OFFICIAL'S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RECORD

Court of Appeals No. (If known): 12 - - - 

Trial Court Style: 

Trial Court & County: Trial Court No.: 

Date Trial Clerk's Record Originally Due: 

Date Court Reporter's/Recorder's Record Originally Due: 

Anticipated Number of Pages of Record: 

I am responsible for preparing a record in this appeal but I am unable to file the record by the original due date for 

the following reason/s: (Check all that apply - attach additional pages if necessary.)

o to the best of my knowledge, the Appellant has made no claim of indigence and has failed to either pay 

the required fee or to make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the record.

o my duties listed below preclude working on this record: 

 

 

o Other. (Explain.): 

 

I anticipate this record will be completed and forwarded to the 12th Court of Appeals by , and I 

hereby request an additional days within which to prepare it. TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3. 

In compliance with TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e), I certify that a copy of this notice has been served on counsel for all 

parties to the trial Court's judgment or order being appealed. I further certify by my signature below that the 

information contained in this notice is true and within my personal knowledge.

 

Date Signature

 

Office Phone Number Printed Name

___________________________________ 

E-mail Address (if available) Official Title 

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/17/2015 4:45:49 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
Trial Clerk's/Court Reporter's Request for Ext/12th CA-CsL/Tyler/12-3-97/Rev.5-3-2001

TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.5(e) reads:

Certificate requirements. A certificate of service must be signed by the person who made the service 

and must state:

(1) the date and manner of service;

(2) the name and addresses of each person served; and

(3) if the person served is a party's attorney, the name of the party represented by that attorney.

The following parties have been served with a copy of this document:

(Information may be either printed or typed.)

Lead Counsel for APPELLANT(S): Lead Counsel for APPELLEE(S):

Name: Name: 

Address: Address: 

 

Phone no.: Phone no.: 

Attorney for: Attorney for: 

Lead Counsel for APPELLANT(S): Lead Counsel for APPELLEE(S): 

Name: Name: 

Address: Address: 

 

Phone no.: Phone no.: 

Attorney for: Attorney for: 

Additional information, if any:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7512

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RALPH ERNEST, a/k/a Sincere Ernest, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-90-242-A, CA-97-383-AM) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 10, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Ernest, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ralph Ernest seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Ernest , Nos. CR-90-242-A; CA-97-383- AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 16 and Sept. 22, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 1282** 

DONALD FREDERICK LEWIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

PRIVATE SIMMS ,
Defendant

– Appellee ,
and
CITY OF BOWIE, a body corporate and politic; PRINCE GEORGE ’ S COUNTY, a body corporate and politic ,
Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paul W. Grimm , District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv
- 02172

- PWG )

Submitted : August 21 , 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Donald Frederick Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Douglas Peter, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Donald Frederick Lewis appeals from the district

court ’ s order s dismissing his claims against Prince George’s
County, Maryland, and the City of Bowie, Maryland, and entering
judgment on the jury verdict in favor of Private Simms on
Lewis’s claims asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ). On appeal, we confine our revi ew to the issues raised in the

a ppellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lewis ’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disp osition, Lewis has forfeited appellate review of the

court’s order s . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

order s . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 661 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 661

       Authorizing the Office of General Counsel of the House of 
Representatives to retain private counsel, either for pay or pro bono, 
in support of the ongoing inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist 
 for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power 
                to impeach President Donald John Trump.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 29, 2019

Mrs. Davis of California submitted the following resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Authorizing the Office of General Counsel of the House of 
Representatives to retain private counsel, either for pay or pro bono, 
in support of the ongoing inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist 
 for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power 
                to impeach President Donald John Trump.

    Resolved, That the Office of General Counsel of the House of 
Representatives is authorized to retain private counsel, either for pay 
or pro bono, in support of the ongoing inquiry into whether sufficient 
grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its 
Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the 
United States of America.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0000811078
<NAME>                                    Shearson Select Advisors Futures Fund
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   5,145,243
<SECURITIES>                                               596,728
<RECEIVABLES>                                               13,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         5,755,721
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           5,755,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      210,056
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                               5,545,665
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             5,755,721
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           480,534
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           321,704
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            158,830
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               158,830
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               110.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1435** 

DAVADA C. LOUGHLIN; D.C.L., Davada C. Loughlin for D.C.L., a minor; BRITT S. MOORE , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v.

VANCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; LINDA FRY, Director at Vance County Department of Social Services; RENE BETANCOURT, Social Work Supervisor at Vance County Department of Social Services; LATOYA M. HARRIS, Case Worker, Child Services at Vance County Department of Social Services; VANCE COUNTY , Defendants

– Appellees , and

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES , Defendant.

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

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:14

- cv
- 00219

- FL )

Submitted : September 9 , 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD , WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Davada C. Loughlin , D.C.L., Britt S. Moore , Appellants Pro Se. Sonny Sade Haynes , WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC , Winston

- Salem, N orth Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court ’ s order accepting in part the recommen dation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court.
Loughlin v. Vance Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs

. , No. 5:14

- cv
- 00219

-

FL (E.D.N.C. April 1, 2015). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### SEALS v. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO.

No. 89987.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Jan. 11, 1940.

Leonard J. Ganse and Meta P. Hilgeson, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

S. R. Bowen, R. E. Lee Goff, G. Thomas Dunlop, and Edmond L. Jones, all of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

*134LETTS, Associate Justice.

Under Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the court is asked by plaintiff to require defendant to produce statements of witnesses taken by the defendant in preparation for trial.

Such request should be predicated upon good cause shown. I find that plaintiff has not made a showing of good cause as required by the rule except that the statements signed by plaintiff in the possession of the defendant shall be produced.