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


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


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





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Renhuang Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Zuoliang Wang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.





Dated:
                May 23, 2007
            /s/
                Zuoliang WangBy:
                Zuoliang WangIts:
                Interim Chief Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Renhuang Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Renhuang Pharmaceuticals,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                   MANAGEMENT REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
                      SERVICING OF SECURITIZED RECEIVABLES


August 1, 1997


AutoFinance Group, Inc. maintains a system of internal control over servicing of
securitized receivables, which is designed to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the proper servicing of securitized receivables activity and balances.
The system contains self-monitoring mechanisms, and actions are taken to correct
deficiencies as they are identified. Even an effective internal control system,
no matter how well designed, has inherent limitations -- including the
possibility of the circumvention of overriding controls -- and therefore can
provide only reasonable assurance with respect to servicing of securitized
receivables. Further, because of changes in conditions, internal control system
effectiveness may vary over time.

AutoFinance Group, Inc. management assessed its internal control system over
servicing of securitized receivables, as of June 30, 1997, in relation to
criteria for effective internal control described in "Internal Control -
Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, AutoFinance Group, Inc. believes
that, as of June 30, 1997, its system of internal control over servicing of
securitized receivables met those criteria.


/s/ A. E. Steinhaus
-----------------------------------
A. E. Steinhaus
President and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Blair T. Nance
-----------------------------------
Blair T. Nance
Chief Financial Officer


/s/ Thomas R. Blend
-----------------------------------
Thomas R. Blend
Chief Accounting Officer


          601 Oakmont Lane - Suite 110 - Westmont, Illinois 60559-5549
      (708)655 7100   Voice No. (800)877 2860   Dealer Fax (800)347 2311
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21565]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Upcoming Secretary-Led International Trade Administration Multi-
Sector Trade Mission to China

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade 
Administration, is amending the Notice published at Vol. 82, No. 187 
(82 FR 45264, September 28, 2017), the Secretary-Led International 
Trade Administration Multi-Sector Trade Mission to China, to modify the 
maximum number of delegation participants, set at 25 U.S. participants, 
to allow for additional participants on the mission.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amendments to revise the number of 
delegation participants.

Background

    Based on the high interest in the mission and the significant 
number of applications received to date, it has been determined that 
the Department of Commerce may accept more than 25 U.S. firms or trade 
associations as delegation participants for the Trade Mission to China. 
The final number of participants will be determined based on the review 
of applications and the capacity of the Department of Commerce to 
accommodate additional participants on the delegation. The application 
deadline remains October 6, 2017. All applications will be assessed 
according the conditions and criteria that are included in the original 
Federal Register notice and Mission Statement located on the Web site.
    Notice of this change was posted on the Mission Web site 
(www.export.gov/ChinaMission2017) on Monday, October 2, 2017.

Contacts

General Business and Applications: The Office of Business Liaison, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 5062, 
Washington, DC 20230, Phone: +1-202-482-1360, Fax: 202-482-4054, Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e5c6b6d77707b6d6d52777f776d71705e7a717d30797168"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2e0d7d1cbccc7d1d1eecbc3cbd1cdcce2c6cdc18cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>.
Tyler Shields: Director, The Office of China and Mongolia, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 38013, 
Washington, DC 20230, Phone: +1-202-482-3544, Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44303d2821366a372c2d212820370430362520216a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0b4b9aca5b2eeb3a8a9a5aca4b380b4b2a1a4a5eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.

Frank Spector,
Senior Advisor for Trade Missions.
[FR Doc. 2017-21565 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



Exhibit 10.2 SECOND AMENDMENT
TOEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
(ROGERS) THIS SECOND AMENDMENT(this Amendment) is made as of April 5, 2004, to
the Employment Agreement dated May 25, 1996 by and between WILSONS THE LEATHER
EXPERTS INC., a Minnesota corporation (the Company), and DAVID ROGERS, a
resident of Minnesota (the Executive), as amended by that First Amendment to
Employment Agreement dated as of March 23, 2000 (the Agreement). WHEREAS, the Company wishes to continue to secure the Executives services
as the President of the Company under the terms of the Agreement as modified by
this Amendment; WHEREAS, the Executive wishes to continue to provide such services to the
Company; and WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company desire to modify certain terms of
Section 6(c) in the Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual
covenants and undertakings stated herein, the Executive and the Company hereby
agree to amend the Agreement as follows: A.      The introduction to Section 6(c) and Section 6(c)(i) of the Agreement
are hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows: (c)   If the Executives employment hereunder ends prior to the end of the
Employment Period by reason of resignation by the Executive for Good Reason or
termination by the Company without Cause, then:  (i)
    
    the Company shall continue to pay, or cause one
or more of its Subsidiaries to continue to pay, to the
Executive, in accordance with, and at the times provided in,
Section 3(a) hereof, the Executives Base Salary for a period
of 24 months after the Termination Date even if such 24-month
period does not end at or prior to the end of the Employment
Period; B.       Section 6(c)(iv) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to
read as follows:  (iv)
    
    the Executive and his dependents shall continue,
for a period of 24 months after the Termination Date, even if
such 24-month period does not end at or prior to the end of
the Employment Period, to be entitled to all medical, dental,
life insurance and disability benefits of the type that they
received




---



##### 



immediately prior to the Termination Date (or, in the event
their participation in a plan pursuant to which any such
benefits are provided is barred by the terms of such plan,
benefits which are no less favorable to them than the
benefits under such plan), except to the extent essentially
equivalent and no less favorable benefits are provided to
them by a subsequent employer; and C.       All references in the Agreement and this Amendment to this Agreement,
the Agreement, hereunder, herein, or hereof shall be deemed to be
references to the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment and as hereafter
amended by any other amendment adopted in accordance with Section 22 of the
Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed as of the date and year first above written. WILSONS THE LEATHER
EXPERTS INC./s/ David Rogers
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Michael CowhigName: David Rogers
    
    Name:
    
    Michael CowhigTitle:
    
    Chairman, Compensation Committee
 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

12-20756

GENEVE BUTANE, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff–Appellant Cross Appellee,

v.

NATIONAL OIL CORPORATION,

Defendant,

v.

BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED,

 Garnishee-Appellee Cross Appellant,

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL 

PETROLEUM CORPORATION,

Garnishees–Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:12-CV-2205

Before OWEN, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-20756 Document: 00512493709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2014
Plaintiff Geneve Butane appeals the district court’s denial of its request 

for additional discovery, the dismissal of its Supplemental Rule B proceeding, 

and the vacatur of its order of attachment. We review the district court’s order

vacating the maritime attachment and dismissing the proceeding for an abuse 

of discretion, though the legal conclusions underlying the order are reviewed 

de novo.1 We review the denial of the request for additional discovery for an 

abuse of discretion.2 

The parties are familiar with the facts of this case. After considering the 

district court’s decision, the briefing, and the oral arguments, we conclude that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the attachment and 

dismissing the proceeding without prejudice. We also conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Geneve additional discovery. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

1 Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co., 708 F.3d 527, 541 (4th Cir. 2013); Shipping 

Corp. of India v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58, 66 (2d Cir. 2009); cf. Great Prize, S.A. 

v. Mariner Shipping Party, Ltd., 967 F.2d 157, 160 (5th Cir. 1992). 

2 United States ex rel. Taylor-Vick v. Smith, 513 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2008). 

 

 Case: 12-20756 Document: 00512493709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2014
#### YUCU v. McCarthy, United States Marshal.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 6, 1895.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

G. M. Curtis, for appellant.

Wallace Macfarlane, for appellees.

No opinion. Appeal dismissed, pursuant to the sixteenth rule.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2814 

To immediately repeal the income limitation on conversions to Roth IRAs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2009 

Mr. PITTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To immediately repeal the income limitation on conversions 

to Roth IRAs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reinvest in America’s 

5 Retirement Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMMEDIATE REPEAL OF INCOME LIMITATION ON 

7 CONVERSIONS TO ROTH IRAS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 512 of 

9 the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 

10 2005 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2008’’. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2814 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 (1) Section 408A(d)(3)(A)(iii) of the Internal 

3 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

4 (A) by striking ‘‘2010’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘2009’’, and 

6 (B) by striking ‘‘2011’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘2010’’. 

8 (2) Section 408A(d)(3)(E)(i)(I) of such Code is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘2010’’ and inserting ‘‘2009’’. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
#### David J. Barnes, Appellant, v Ricardo L. Paulin et al., Respondents.

[860 NYS2d 221]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated August 8, 2007, as denied those branches of his cross motion which were to preclude the testimony of the defendants’ expert witness and to dismiss the affirmative defense of nonuse of an available seat belt and granted that branch of his cross motion which was to impose sanctions for the spoliation of evidence only to the extent of allowing an adverse inference to be drawn against the defendants at the trial of the action.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to preclude the testimony of the defendants’ expert witness is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in deny*755ing that branch of his cross motion which was to preclude the testimony of the defendants’ expert witness. However, such an evidentiary ruling, even when “made in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” *(Cotgreave v Public Adm’r of Imperial County [Cal.],*91 AD2d 600, 601 [1982]; *see Danne v Otis El. Corp.,*276 AD2d 581, 582 [2000]).

“[U]nder the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby depriving the non-responsible party from being able to prove its claim or defense, the responsible party may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading. However, a less severe sanction or no sanction is appropriate where the missing evidence does not deprive the moving party of the ability to establish his or her case or defense. The determination of spoliation sanctions is within the broad discretion of the court” *(Denoyelles v Gallagher,*40 AD3d 1027, 1027 [2007] [citations omitted]).

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to impose sanctions for the spoliation of evidence only to the extent of allowing an adverse inference to be drawn against the defendants at the trial, as the missing evidence does not deprive the plaintiff of the ability to establish his case (see *Yechieli v Glissen Chem. Co., Inc.,*40 AD3d 988 [2007]; *E.W. Howell Co., Inc. v S.A.F. La Sala Corp.,*36 AD3d 653 [2007]; *Ifraimov v Phoenix Indus. Gas,*4 AD3d 332 [2004]; *Allstate Ins. Co. v Kearns,*309 AD2d 776 [2003]; *Marro v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y.,*294 AD2d 341 [2002]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.P, Santucci, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2705 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a refundable credit 

for advance directives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2009 

Mr. MCDERMOTT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

refundable credit for advance directives. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Advance Directive In5 centive Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR ADVANCE DIRECTIVES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart C of part IV of sub8 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

9 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by insert10 ing after section 36A the following new section: 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2705 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 36B. ADVANCE DIRECTIVES. 

2 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case of an in3 dividual, there shall be allowed to the taxpayer as a credit 

4 against the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable 

5 year an amount equal to 30 percent of qualified expenses 

6 of the taxpayer. 

7 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The aggregate amount of 

9 expenses which may be taken into account under 

10 subsection (a) for the taxable year shall not exceed 

11 $500, reduced (but not below zero) by the amount 

12 of expenses taken into account under this section for 

13 all prior taxable years. 

14 ‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE.—For purposes of para15 graph (1), in the case of a joint return for any prior 

16 taxable year, amounts taken into account under this 

17 section shall be treated as expenses of both the hus18 band and the wife. 

19 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED EXPENSES.—For purposes of this 

20 section— 

21 ‘‘(1) QUALIFIED EXPENSES.—The term ‘quali22 fied expenses’ means legal fees incurred for the pur23 pose of establishing an advance directive. 

24 ‘‘(2) ADVANCE DIRECTIVE.—The term ‘advance 

25 directive’ means, with respect to an individual, a 

26 written instruction, such as a living will or durable 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2705 IH

1 power of attorney for health care or establishment of 

2 a health care proxy, recognized under State law 

3 (whether statutory or as recognized by the courts of 

4 the State) and relating to the provision of medical 

5 care in the case the individual is incapacitated.’’. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

7 (1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 

8 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting 

9 ‘‘36B,’’ after ‘‘section 36A,’’. 

10 (2) The table of sections for subpart C of part 

11 IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is 

12 amended by inserting after the item relating to sec13 tion 36A the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 36B. Advance directives.’’. 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALLEN THOMAS ASKEW,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00108

- CR

Appeal from

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20140D01733)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLUR E, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 99

1.   The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
     Officer of AmeriVest Properties Inc. This Certification is made pursuant to
     18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002).
     This Certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB of AmeriVest Properties Inc.
     for the year ended December 31, 2002.

2.   We certify that such Form 10-KSB fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
     information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AmeriVest
     Properties Inc.

March 31, 2003

                                                 By: /s/ William T. Atkins
                                                    --------------------------
                                                         William T. Atkins
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                                 By: /s/ D. Scott Ikenberry
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                         D. Scott Ikenberry
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10224

Summary Calendar

ROBERT P. McCULLOUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:92-CV-2677-P

September 30, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert P. McCul lough appeals the district court’s grant of

summary j udgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s

determination that McCullough is not disabled within the meaning of

the Social Security Act, 42 U .S.C. § 405(g). He argues that the

adminis trative law judge (ALJ) erred in finding that his seizure

disorder does not meet or equal a listed impairme nt and that the

ALJ erred by failing to consider the combined effect of his seizure2

disorder and his prior back impairment. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. S ee McCullough v.

Shalala , No. 3:92-CV-2677-P (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 1996).

McCullough also argues that the ALJ erred in finding that he

was capable of returning to his prior work. Because this issue was

not exhausted, it is dismissed. S ee Paul v. Shalala

, 29 F.3d 208,

210 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
Motion for Rehearing Granted, Memorandum Opinion filed July 11, 2013, 

Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated, and Order filed October 1, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00556-CR

NO. 14-13-00557-CR

NO. 14-13-00558-CR

____________

IN RE TODD WARREN ALTSCHUL, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF Mandamus

23rd District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 23,557

ORDER

On June 26, 2013, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court

asking this Court to compel the Honorable Ben Hardin, presiding judge of the 23rd 

District Court of Brazoria County to rule on his motion for a judgment nunc pro 

tunc for appeal time credit. On July 11, 2013, this court issued an opinion denying 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Appellant filed a motion for rehearing. A 

response was requested but none has been filed. The motion is GRANTED. 
This court’s opinion filed July 11, 2013, is WITHDRAWN. The original 

proceeding is ordered REINSTATED. 

Respondent is requested to file a response to relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus on or before October 16, 2013.

PER CURIAM