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








STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of China Forestry, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Man Ha, Chief
Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, individually
certify that:







·
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and·
            information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates
      and for the periods presented.








/s/
      Man Ha
              ---------------------
              Man
      Ha
              Director
      and  Chief Financial Officer/Principal Financial
      Officer
              
              Dated:  November
      17, 2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to China Forestry, Inc. and will be retained
by China Forestry, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,436
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,320)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,793
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,516
<PP&E>                                         248,280
<DEPRECIATION>                               (119,307)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 337,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,774
<BONDS>                                        121,895
<COMMON>                                           398
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   337,187
<SALES>                                        382,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               382,165
<CGS>                                          286,412
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  286,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                77,011     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,581
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,644
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,030
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,614
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,764
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,378
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27  
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7455
ROBERT WAYNE SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. THEODIS BECK, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-00489-NCT) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Wayne Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Wayne Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1792

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require that any regulation establishing or increasing a fee or charge for a person engaged in the carriage

of goods or passengers by vessel for hire be issued after notice, hearing,

and comment and on the record, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 21, 1993

Mr. SAXTON (for himself, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. FIELDS of Texas, Mr. HUGHES,

Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. COBLE, Mr. HUTTO, Mr. WELDON,

Mr. LAUGHLIN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LANCASTER, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr.

HASTINGS, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. KING, Mr.

DIAZ-BALART, Mr. GALLO, and Ms. KAPTUR) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require that

any regulation establishing or increasing a fee or charge

for a person engaged in the carriage of goods or passengers by vessel for hire be issued after notice, hearing,

and comment and on the record, and for other purposes.

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

3 That section 2110 of title 46, United States Code (relating

4 to fees), is amended by adding at the end the following

5 new subsection:
2

•HR 1792 IH

1 ‘‘(j)(1) The head of an agency may not establish or

2 increase any fee or charge for a service or thing of value

3 provided by the agency to a person or vessel described in

4 paragraph (2), unless the rule establishing the fee or

5 charge is issued—

6 ‘‘(A) after publication of notice, the holding of

7 one or more public hearings, and the provision of a

8 period for the submission of comments by the public

9 regarding the proposed rule; and

10 ‘‘(B) on the record.

11 ‘‘(2)(A) A person referred to in paragraph (1) is a

12 person who—

13 ‘‘(i) is engaged in the carriage of goods or pas14 sengers by vessel for hire;

15 ‘‘(ii) provides services to a person described in

16 clause (i), including the storage, dockside movement,

17 loading, or unloading of goods carried by vessel for

18 hire; or

19 ‘‘(iii) exports or imports goods carried by vessel

20 for hire and is located in the United States.

21 ‘‘(B) A vessel referred to in paragraph (1) is a vessel

22 that is used for the carriage of goods or passengers for

23 hire.’’.

Æ
#### BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC. and David Goldfarb, M.D., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, and C.R. Bard, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and David Goldfarb, M.D., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants, and C.R. Bard, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant, v. W.L. Gore *&*Associates, Inc., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee.

Nos. 2010-1510, 2010-1542.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 28, 2010.

*502John C. O’Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants.

David H. Pfeffer, Locke, Lord Bissell *&*Liddell, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and David Goldfarb, M.D.’s motion to voluntarily withdraw its appeal,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The cross-appeal, 2010-1542, is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 2010-1542.

(8) The revised official caption for 2010-1510 is reflected above.
### ***********************************************The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it wasreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods fo r filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appella te Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports , the latest version is to
be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official repo rts are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, Stat e of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
***********************************************STATE v. MIRANDA—CONCURRENCE
D’AURIA, J., with whom PALMER, J., joins, concurring in the judgment. I concur in this court’s judgment affirming the conviction of the defendant, Pedro L. Miranda, of one count of murder in violation of GeneralStatutes § 53a-54a. I agree fully with part I of that opinion. As to part II, I would not hold that the defendant failed to adequately preserve the claim that the trialcourt improperly permitted the victim’s mother to testify that she had heard that the defendant was connected to the victim’s disappearance. Mather v. Griffin Hospital , 207 Conn. 125, 138, 540 A.2d 666 (1988) (claim ‘‘distinctly raised’’ although ‘‘not well articulated’’); see

also Fadner v. Commissioner of Revenue Services , 281 Conn. 719, 729 n.12, 917 A.2d 540 (2007) (court will address issues ‘‘ ‘functionally’ ’’ raised in trial court). I believe that reviewing his claim would neither offend this court’s preservation principles nor ambush either the trial court or the opposing party. I also do not agree that the defendant failed to adequately brief any part of his argument as to this claim. Because the defendant
has not demonstrated that the scant evidence elicited from the victim’s mother by the state’s question resulted in harm, however, I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s judgment. See State v

. Urbanowski , 327 Conn. 169, 172, 172 A.3d 201 (2017)(affirming judgment without reaching merits of defendant’s evidentiary claim because lack of any demonstrated harm).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30656

Summary Calendar

CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on behalf of Internal Revenue Service,

Defendants - Appellee

v.

MICHAEL D. COX,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:11-CV-726

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The federal district court dismissed the United States from this

interpleader (concursus, in Louisiana terminology) action filed by a bank after

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 27, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 11-30656 Document: 00511707480 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2011
No. 10-40510

the IRS filed a notice of levy on over $9,000 held there by Michael Cox. The

court also dismissed the bank’s interpleader action and ordered the interpleaded

account funds returned to the bank. The bank has since surrendered the funds

to the IRS.

In this appeal, Michael Cox emphatically does not challenge the district

court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, as he agrees — for his own eccentric

reasons — that the court lacked jurisdiction. He does not want the case

reinstated in federal court; instead, he wants this court to order the district court

to remand the interpleader action back to state court from whence it came. 

Mr. Cox fundamentally misunderstands the jurisprudence applicable to this

case.

The federal district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) to

decide that the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity in this

case. When it did so, there was no further basis for jurisdiction over the

interpleader action because there were not two adverse claimants to the bank

account. When the district court dismissed the case and returned the funds to

the bank, it lost control over those funds completely.

The court’s action simply placed Cox and the bank in their respective presuit positions. As this court explained in a similar case, because the district

court returned the funds in question, those funds are now gone, and the question

of who is entitled to those funds is moot. Settlement Funding v. Transamerica

Occidental Life, 555 F.3d 422, 426 n.4 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, the federal district

court, having given up control of the funds and dismissed the bank from this

action, cannot now exercise jurisdiction over the bank’s property by remanding

the suit to state court. Neither the district court nor this court can resurrect

jurisdiction over funds that have been disbursed from the court’s registry.

Judgment AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-30656 Document: 00511707480 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,400
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       50,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00722

- CV

Jesus CERVANTES

, Appellant

v.

NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

, Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation, and Ron Bordelon, in his official capacity as Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas Trial Court No. 11

- 02

- 26260

- MCV Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

I n accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the summary judgment and dismissal order of the trial court are AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant, Jesus Cervantes, in relation to this appeal because he qualifies as a n indigent under
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.

SIGNED July 10, 2013.

_____________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
EXHIBIT 11.     STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                     Years ended December 31, 1996 and 1995

                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

PRIMARY:                                                            1996        1995
                                                                   -------     -------

<S>                                                                <C>         <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding                                  2,460       2,084

Net effect of dilutive stock options and warrants based on 
 the treasury stock method using average market price                   26           -
                                                                   -------------------
Total weighted average shares                                        2,486       2,084
                                                                   ===================

Net income (loss)                                                  $   882     $  (553)
                                                                   ===================

Income (loss) per share                                            $   .35     $ (0.27)
                                                                   ===================
</TABLE>

      In calculating weighted average shares, all securities convertible into
common stock are excluded if their inclusion would have the effect of
increasing the earnings per share amount or decreasing the loss per share
amount otherwise computed. Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share is not
presented because it is anti-dilutive.

      For purposes of this schedule, weighted average shares and per share
amounts shown for each period presented have been restated to give effect to a
1-for-10 reverse stock split implemented August 13, 1996.

      For each period presented, fully diluted earnings (loss) per share is
considered to be the same as primary earnings (loss) per share, since the
effect is immaterial and antidilutive.


<PAGE> 38
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000827056
<NAME>                        ZEVEX International, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         223102
<SECURITIES>                                   2391087
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8197067
<ALLOWANCES>                                   175000
<INVENTORY>                                    8908357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19670661
<PP&E>                                         10445999
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2992208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 38758993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8914314
<BONDS>                                        1600000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3439
<OTHER-SE>                                     22361096
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   38758993
<SALES>                                        22422367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22422367
<CGS>                                          13713722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13713722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6594144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             456911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2041173
<INCOME-TAX>                                   811813
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            811813
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1229360
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .33



</TABLE>