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 on Form 10-QSB of Quotemedia, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith J. Randall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Keith J. Randall   
|    |  | Keith J. Randall       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | May 10, 2005
#### Larry Joe WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roger ALTENA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-2435.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 7, 2002.

Before MERRITT, SUHRHEINRICH, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Larry Joe Walker, a pro se Michigan prisoner, appeals a district court order dismissing his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Seeking monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, Walker sued the Sheriff of Newaygo County (Michigan) and several of his police officers in their individual and official capacities, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights during the arrest that led to his current incarceration. The district court determined *207that Walker’s claims were without merit and dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. Walker has filed a timely appeal.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Walker’s case because it failed to state a claim. This court reviews de novo a district court order dismissing a suit for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). *Brown v. Bargery,*207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir.2000). The court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept his factual allegations as true, and determine whether he can prove any set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. *Id.*

As Walker paid the filing fee for this action, he argues that the district court should not have dismissed the case without first providing him with notice and an opportunity to amend his complaint. However, his complaint was subject to dismissal under § 1915A without notice because it sought relief from a governmental entity or employee and failed to state a claim. *See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,*114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir.1997).

Since Walker seeks to attack the constitutionality of his arrest and subsequent conviction for murder, his claim is not cognizable under § 1983. A state prisoner does not have a cognizable claim under § 1983 if a ruling on his claim would necessarily render his sentence invalid, unless his sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or has been questioned by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Furthermore, the claim is not cognizable and must be dismissed whether the plaintiff seeks to obtain monetary damages or to attack the validity of his confinement. *Id.; Preiser v. Rodriguez,*411 U.S. 475, 488-90, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (habeas corpus proceeding, not § 1983, is the appropriate remedy for a state prisoner to attack the validity of the fact or length of his sentence). Walker’s confinement has not been remedied by any of the aforementioned procedures.

Accordingly, this court affirms the district court’s judgment. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SinoCubate, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended that to the best of his
knowledge:




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 operation of the
      Company.




November
      19, 2008
              
              /s/
      Richard Xu(Date)
              
              Richard
      Xu
                President
      and Treasurer
 
 
 
 November
      19, 2008
              
              /s/
      Tom Simeo(Date)
              
              Tom
      Simeo
                Chief
      Executive Officer
§ 335.6 Failure to appear for examination. ( a ) An applicant for naturalization shall be deemed to have abandoned his or her application if he or she fails to appear for the examination pursuant to § 335.3 and fails to notify USCIS of the reason for non-appearance within 30 days of the scheduled examination. Such notification shall be in writing and contain a request for rescheduling of the examination. In the absence of a timely notification, USCIS may administratively close the application without making a decision on the merits.
( b ) An applicant may reopen an administratively closed application by submitting a written request to USCIS within one (1) year from the date the application was closed. Such reopening shall be without additional fee. The date of the request for reopening shall be the date of filing of the application for purposes of determining eligibility for naturalization.
( c ) If the applicant does not request reopening of an administratively closed application within one year from the date the application was closed, USCIS will consider that application to have been abandoned, and shall dismiss the application without further notice to the applicant.
[58 FR 49914, Sept. 24, 1993, as amended at 60 FR 6651, Feb. 3, 1995; 76 FR 53801, Aug. 29, 2011]
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dan Moses, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of STEC, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrants other
certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 report is being prepared;

(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer(s) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 13, 2007 |  | /s/ DAN MOSES          
|                        |  | Dan Moses              
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
HELIX TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

|I, James Gentilcore, certify that:
|----------------------------------
|1.                                
|2.                                
|3.                                
|4.                                
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|5.                                
|                                  
|                                  



|                     |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2005 |  |  | /s/James Gentilcore                  
|                     |  |  |                                      
|                     |  |  | James Gentilcore                     
|                     |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

________________ Division

In re: 

Case No. 

Chapter 

Debtor(s) 

ORDER VACATING DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR(S)

A Discharge of Debtor(s) was entered on the docket on _________________________________. 

The Court has determined that the discharge was entered inadvertently, due to administrative error; and it is, 

therefore, 

ORDERED, that the Discharge of Debtor(s) is VACATED, without prejudice as to further proceedings. 

Date: ______________________ _______________________________________ 

United States Bankruptcy Judge 

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 

ENTERED ON DOCKET: _______________ 

[ver. 12/03] 

Richmond

Steve Nikolas Simpson

18-31629-KRH

13

September 21, 2021

Oct 19 2021 /s/ Kevin R Huennekens

Oct 19 2021

Case 18-31629-KRH Doc 56 Filed 10/19/21 Entered 10/19/21 16:09:40 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 93878 / December 29, 2021

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20523

In the Matter of

The Kraft Heinz Co. and Eduardo 

Pelleissone,

Respondents.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING 

TAX ADMINISTRATOR

On February 22, 2019, the Commission issued an Omnibus Order Directing the 

Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that Establish Distribution Funds 

(the “Omnibus Order”)1authorizing the Secretary2to issue orders for calendar years 2019-2021 

appointing, upon request by the Commission staff, Miller Kaplan Arase LLP (“Miller Kaplan”), a 

certified public accounting firm, with one of their offices located in San Francisco, California, as 

tax administrator (“Tax Administrator”) in administrative proceedings where the distribution fund 

may incur tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) under the Department 

of the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

The Commission staff has requested pursuant to the Omnibus Order, the appointment of 

Miller Kaplan as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Miller Kaplan, pursuant to and in accordance with the 

Omnibus Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.3

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary 

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 85174 (Feb. 22, 2019).

2

 Effective December 29, 2020, the Director of the Division of Enforcement is now also authorized to make 

appointments in accordance with the Omnibus Order. See Delegation of Authority to Director of the Division of 

Enforcement, Securities Act Rel. No. 10900 (Dec. 10, 2020).

3

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(21)(ii).
Exhibit 32.1





Section 906 Certification by the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Each of Stephen J. Schoepfer, Chief Executive
Officer, and Stephen J. Schoepfer, Chief Financial Officer, of Carbonics Capital Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”)
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge:



| | (1) | This Amendment No. 3 to the Company’s periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012 (“Form 10-Q”)
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 Form 10-Q, as amended, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                                                  |  |                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  |  |                                                                  
|                                                                  |  |                                                                  
|/s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer                                          |  | /s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer                                         
|                                                                  |  |                                                                  
|Name: Stephen J. Schoepfer
        Title: Chief Executive Officer |  | Name: Stephen J. Schoepfer
        Title: Chief Financial Officer
|                                                                  |  |                                                                  
|Date: July 11, 2012                                               |  |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 83437 / June 14, 2018

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-17956

In the Matter of

MAGNACHIP 

SEMICONDUCTOR 

CORPORATION and 

MARGARET HYE-RYOUNG 

SAKAI, CPA,

Respondents.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING 

TAX ADMINISTRATOR

By order dated June 30, 2017, the Commission issued the “Omnibus Order Directing the 

Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that Establish Distribution Funds” 

(“Omnibus Order”),1authorizing the Secretary to issue orders beginning June 2017 and for calendar year 

2018 appointing, upon request by the Commission staff, Miller Kaplan Arase LLP, a certified public 

accounting firm, which acquired Damasco & Associates LLP (“Miller Kaplan”), with their offices located 

in San Francisco, California, as tax administrator (“Tax Administrator”) in administrative proceedings 

where the distribution fund may incur tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) 

under the Department of the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

On June 13, 2018, the Commission staff requested the appointment of Miller Kaplan as the Tax 

Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Miller Kaplan, pursuant to and in accordance with the Omnibus 

Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Brent J. Fields

Secretary

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 81057 (June 30, 2017).
### §742m. Relinquishment of exclusive legislative jurisdiction

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, may relinquish to a State, or to a Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States over all or part of any United States Fish and Wildlife Service lands or interests therein, including but not limited to National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System lands, in that State, Commonwealth, territory, or possession. Relinquishment of exclusive legislative jurisdiction under this subsection may be accomplished (1) by filing with the Governor (or, if none, the chief executive officer) of the State, Commonwealth, territory, or possession concerned, a notice of relinquishment to take effect upon acceptance thereof, or (2) as the laws of the State, Commonwealth, territory, or possession may otherwise provide.

(Pub. L. 100–653, title IX, §901, Nov. 14, 1988, 102 Stat. 3834.)
### §690b. Consent of Utah to acquisition of lands for Bear River Refuge; approval of title to lands acquired

No such area shall be acquired by the Secretary of the Interior unless or until the Legislature of the State of Utah has consented to the acquisition of lands by the United States for use as a refuge for migratory wild fowl, and shall have provided for the use as a refuge for migratory wild fowl by the United States of any lands owned or controlled by the State in Bear River Bay, Utah, and vicinity, which the Secretary of the Interior may deem necessary for such purpose, and which the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept on behalf of the United States; and, except in the case of a lease, no payments shall be made by the United States for any such area until title thereto is satisfactory to the Attorney General.

(Apr. 23, 1928, ch. 413, §3, 45 Stat. 449; 1939 Reorg. Plan No. II, §4(f), eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2731, 53 Stat. 1433.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Reorg. Plan No. II of 1939, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, transferred functions of Secretary of Agriculture relating to conservation of wildlife, game, and migratory birds to Secretary of the Interior.
United States Department of Agriculture USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Dig In! • Grades 5-6 • http://teamnutrition.usda.gov

Name: ____________________________________________ Date: _______________

 Edible plant parts are found in more than two of the five MyPlate food groups we need 

each day for good health. Do you know which ones? (Circle them below).

 Fruit Vegetable Grain Protein Foods Dairy Group Group Group Group Group

Look at the school lunch menu below and fill in the table by answering the following questions:

1) What is the original ingredient?

 For each menu item, list the major ingredient from which it was made. Pizza is a combination food made up of foods 

 from three food groups. Provide answers for each food in the pizza, as well as for the rest of the meal.

2) What food group does it belong to?

3) Did it come from a plant? Answer “yes” or “no.”

4) Which edible plant part is it?

5) What fruits and vegetables are on this menu? List them: _____________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

WHOLE-WHEAT

CHEESE PIZZA

a. Crust

 (example)

b. Tomato

 Sauce

c. Cheese

Wheat Flour Grain Group Yes Seed

BAKED SWEET

POTATO FRIES

BOWL OF BROCCOLI

APPLESAUCE

FAT-FREE MILK

 Lunch Menu Original Ingredient Food Group Does It Come From Edible Plant Part Item a Plant? (yes/no) 

Fruits and Veggies on MyPlate LESSON 1 HANDOUT 2 

65