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 Salomon Smith Barney Orion Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, 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; and

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

/s/    Jennifer MagroJennifer Magro
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
Chief Financial Officer and Director


May 15, 2008

---
#### § 1702.6 Trade secrets and other confidential information.

Where a petition contains material that the petitioner believes should be exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, the petitioner shall comply with the requirements of 16 CFR part 1015, the Commission's regulation under the Freedom of Information Act concerning requests for treatment as exempt material. The Commission shall act upon any request for treatment as exempt material in accordance with the provisions of 16 CFR part 1015.
#### Margaret R. McAndrew, Respondent, v. 5905 Broadway Realty Corp., Appellant. 5905 Broadway Realty Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Graphire Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment reversed and the third-party complaint dismissed as to the third-party defendant Graphire Corporation. Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered as to defendant 5905 Broadway Realty Corporation. Since the record discloses that the Graphire Corporation as tenant was in possession of the entire premises owned by 5905 Broadway Realty Corp., the structure was not a *“*Tenant-factory building” as defined by subdivision 2 of section 315 of the Labor Law, for which the1 owner had a continuing statutory duty to provide proper hand rails and stairways (Labor Law, § 272, subd. 2, read in connection with § 316). Liability of the landlord to the tenant could therefore rest only upon proof of the creation of a dangerous condition in the stairway or railing before the tenant took possession. But the tenant would not share such a liability or be required to answer to the landlord for any such adjudication of damage. On the record before us we treat the verdict charging liability to the landlord as against the weight of the evidence, and we would in any event feel required to direct a new trial because of the statutory theory on which the case was submitted. Settle order on notice. Present — Dore, J. P., Callahan, Breitel and Bergan, JJ.
#### Stanley V. Tucker *v.*Hartford Electric Light Company et al.

*Stanley V. Tucker,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Barbara B. Sacks, William J. Melley III*and *Karen P. Blado,*in opposition.

Decided April 15, 1988

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 13 Conn. App. 825, is denied.
12/23/201 0 11:1 3 <;15421?'=6 E DWDRKI NAN D A^^Q C PAG E 02/0 3 Michae l LDworki nan dAssociate s

^-offi - n^PARTMENTO F • v:^PORW!C)N , • H OPERATION S 

### qp ?• • 

### U ^ VI A FA X 46 5 Californi aSirc « Suite 21 0 Decembe r 20 , 201 0

•Sa nFrancisc o Californi a9410 4

{415 ) 421-250 0 Fa i (415)421-25<j 0 www.avijJec , co m la'w(g>avl.'Jcxxo

m Hearin g Docket , AOC-43 0

Federa l Aviatio nAdminisiratioi i 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . WUbu r Wrigh t Building , Suite 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 (FAX : 1-202-493-5142 ) Th e Honorabl e Richar dC , Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e U-S

- Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Building , Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 (FAX : 1-202-366-7536 ) Scott R . Morris , Esq . Federa l Aviario nAdmimstratio n Northwes t

Mountai nRegio n Offic e o f Regiona l Couascl , ANM- 7 160 1 Lin dAvenu e S.W , Renton , Washingto n9805 7 (FAX : 1-425-227-1007 ) Re : SKYWES T AIRUNES , INC . FA A Cas e No . 2009NM6004 8 Hearin g Docke t

No

- CP10NM000 2 DM S No . FAA-2010-031 2

Dear Ladie s an dGentlemen : T o confii mm y discussion s withFA A attorne y Scott Morris , th e partie s hav e agree dt o settl e thi s matter .

iOO/SOO ® 

### sw o VVJ 2t!l9e6t'20 2 XV J et?e L 0L02/eS/S L12/20/201 0 11:1 3 dl54217-PS 0 DUQRKI NAN D AP^O C PAG E03/0 3

Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , Judg e Goodwi nan dScott Morris , Esq . Re ; Sky Wes t

Airlines , Inc . Decembe r

20 , 201 0 Pag e 2 B y tlai s letter , SkyWes t Airlines , Inc . withdraw s ir s reques t fo r hearin g an d request s tha t

thi s proceedin g b e terminated . A s yo u know , th e hesirin g i nthi s matter i s presently schedule dfo r Sal t Lak e City o nJanuar y 11-14 , 2011 . Thi s reques t

doe s no t constitute , no r

b e deeme dt o constitute , a nadmissio n b y SkyWes t

Airlines , Inc . o f

th e marter s allege di nth e FAA' s Final Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty o r Complaint , o r

mth e forthcomin g Orde r Assessin g Civi l Penalty , Al l allegation s and/o r findings containe di nth e Fina l Notic e o f Propose d Civi l Penalty , di e Complain t an dan y subsequen t

Orde r continu e t o b e denied . W e trus t that anappropriat e Orde r

Terminatin g Proceeding wil l b e issued . Rcspectfiill y submitted , y ^ ye^tml y y^urs , 

# / •• ' yy^^^w ^ ^ ' Michae l L . Dworti n

cc : SkyWes t

Airlines , Inc .

vv j snseetso s xv dEt:s L OLOS/GS/S L
### §10827. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated for allotments under this subchapter, $19,500,000 for fiscal year 1992, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1993 through 2003.

(Pub. L. 99–319, title I, §117, May 23, 1986, 100 Stat. 485; Pub. L. 100–509, §7(f), Oct. 20, 1988, 102 Stat. 2546; Pub. L. 102–173, §8, Nov. 27, 1991, 105 Stat. 1219; Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXII, §3206(f), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1195.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–310 substituted "2003" for "1995".

1991—Pub. L. 102–173 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "For allotments under this subchapter, there are authorized to be appropriated $14,300,000 for fiscal year 1989, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1990 and fiscal year 1991."

1988—Pub. L. 100–509 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "For allotments under this subchapter, there are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1986, $10,500,000 for fiscal year 1987, and $11,025,000 for fiscal year 1988."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–509, §8, Oct. 20, 1988, 102 Stat. 2546, provided that:

"(a) In General.—The amendments made by this Act [amending sections 10802, 10804 to 10806, 10821, 10822, and 10825 of this title], other than the amendment made by section 7(f) [amending this section], shall become effective on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 20, 1988].

"(b) Authorization of Appropriations.—The amendment made by section 7(f) [amending this section] shall become effective on October 1, 1988."
#### Jessie de Mercado, Appellant, Respondent, v. Hecla Gown Company, Inc., Respondent, Appellant.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to defendant, and plaintiff’s motion denied,-with ten dollars costs, and original order for examination reinstated. No opinion. Order to be settled on notice. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Page, JJ.
### §7907. Termination

The authority of the Secretary to make a payment under this chapter shall terminate on July 31, 2017.

(Added Pub. L. 109–461, title IX, §903(a)(1), Dec. 22, 2006, 120 Stat. 3464.)
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Otis Davis, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 58199;

First District (2nd Division)

June 25, 1974.

*202James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE STAMOS.

HAYES, P. J., specially concurring.
#### Robert W. Thompson, Doing Business as Robert W. Thompson Company, v. Trinity Operating Company, Inc.

Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 757.]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Heman A. Loomis, Respondent, against Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company et al., Respondents, and Special Disability Fund, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

— Appeal by the Special Disability Fund under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which awarded claimant additional compensation over and above 100% loss of the right eye and imposed liability therefor against appellant, pursuant to paragraph (c) of subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Concededly claimant sustained an industrial accident on July 5, 1945, resulting in 100% permanent loss of vision of the right eye. For many years prior to this accident claimant suffered from defective vision in his uninjured left eye to an extent which rendered the left eye 100% industrially useless. On December 12, 1946, an operation was performed on the uninjured left eye and the natural lens was removed. As a result of this operation claimant acquired a fixed focus vision with central acuity of 20/30, equivalent to a 33%% loss of vision at a fixed distance. *1082Because claimant retained a percentage of vision in his uninjured left eye, appellant challenges the finding of the board that claimant is permanently totally disabled, and claims that therefore he is not entitled to the additional compensation provided for under paragraph (c) of subdivision 8 of section 15 of the statute. In its decision the board has determined that the central acuity of 20/30 found in the left eye does not truly represent the usefulness of the vision in such eye but is only one element to be considered, and that loss of depth perception, accommodation and binocular vision are also entitled to consideration. There is medical evidence that "Although the claimant gets 20/30 vision in the left eye with glasses, because both eyes are aphakic there is 100% schedule loss of vision of both eyes”. It was within the province of the board to decide as a fact that claimant was permanently totally disabled. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.
§ 1500.133 Extremely flammable contact adhesives; labeling. ( a ) Extremely flammable contact adhesives, also known as contact bonding cements, when distributed in containers intended or suitable for household use may be misbranded under the act if the containers fail to bear a warning statement adequate for the protection of the public health and safety.
( b ) The following warning statement is considered as the minimum cautionary labeling adequate to meet the requirements of section 2(p)(1) of the act (repeated in § 1500.3(b)(14)(i)) with respect to containers of more than one-half pint of contact adhesive and similar liquid or semiliquid articles having a flashpoint at or below 20 °F. as determined by the method in § 1500.43, when the only hazard foreseeable is that caused by the extreme flammability of the mixture: Danger Extremely Flammable Vapors May Cause Flash Fire Vapors may ignite explosively. Prevent buildup of vapors—open all windows and doors—use only with cross-ventilation. Keep away from heat, sparks, and open flame. Do not smoke, extinguish all flames and pilot lights, and turn off stoves, heaters, electric motors, and other sources of ignition during use and until all vapors are gone. Close container after use. Keep out of the reach of children.
( c ) The words that are in capital letters in the warning statement set forth in paragraph (b) of this section should be printed on the main (front) panel or panels of the container in capital letters of the type size specified in § 1500.121(c). The balance of the cautionary information may appear together on another panel provided the front panel bears a statement such as “Read carefully other cautions on ___ panel,” the blank being filled in with the identification of the specific label panel bearing the balance of the cautionary labeling. It is recommended that a borderline be used in conjunction with the cautionary labeling.
( d ) If an article has additional hazards, or contains ingredients listed in § 1500.14 as requiring special labeling, appropriate additional front and rear panel precautionary labeling is required.
( e ) Since the Commission has issued a regulation banning under the Consumer Product Safety Act extremely flammable contact adhesives covered by this labeling regulation (sec. 16 CFR part 1302), paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section are revoked as to the subject products after June 13, 1978.
[38 FR 27012, Sept. 27, 1973, as amended at 42 FR 63742, Dec. 19, 1977]
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00035-CR

MATTHEW JOE HERRERA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 18th District Court

Somervell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 249-01088

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Matthew Joe Herrera guilty of one count of possession of 

a controlled substance in an amount greater than four grams but less than 200 grams with 

intent to deliver and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. See TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112; see also TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04. The trial 

court sentenced Herrera accordingly. Herrera then filed the present appeal. We affirm.
Herrera v. State Page 2

Herrera’s appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief in support of the motion asserting that she has diligently reviewed the appellate 

record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See generally Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief evidences a 

professional evaluation of the record and compliance with other duties of appointed 

counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed 

counsel. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must “after a full examination of all the 

proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 

S. Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d (1988); 

accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is 

“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. 

Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). 

Although provided the opportunity, Herrera has not filed a response to the motion to 

withdraw or Anders brief. After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we conclude 

that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826=28 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Herrera v. State Page 3

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Herrera is granted.

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson,

and Justice Smith

Appeal affirmed; motion granted

Opinion delivered and filed December 28, 2023

Do not publish

[CRPM]
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Melvin L. Flanigan hereby certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.      He is theChief Financial Officer of DTS, Inc.

2.      The Form 10-Qreport of DTS, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

3.      Theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q report of DTS, Inc. for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2006 fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of DTS, Inc.

| Dated: August 9, 2006 |   |                      |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                       | By:    | /s/ MELVIN L. FLANIGAN    |
|                       |   | Melvin L. Flanigan        |
|                       |   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to DTS, Inc.and will be retained by DTS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission upon request.

----
### Part C—Summer Fill and Fuel Budgeting Programs

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 109–58, title III, §301(b)(1), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 683, added part heading.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part C, consisting of sections 6281 and 6282, was repealed by Pub. L. 106–469, title I, §104(3), Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2033.

Section 6281, Pub. L. 94–163, title II, §271, as added Pub. L. 97–229, §3(a), Aug. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 248, related to congressional findings, policy, and purpose.

Section 6282, Pub. L. 94–163, title II, §272, as added Pub. L. 97–229, §3(a), Aug. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 249, related to preparation for petroleum supply interruptions.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1272

_____________________________
D AVID S TRATTON , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________

O n appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Angela M. Cox
, Judge.

October 4, 2019



### P ER 

### C URIAM



### .
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , C.J., and B.L. T HOMAS and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ David Stratton, pro se
, Appellant

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Holly N. Simcox, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
### §1503. Contract price adjustment

(a) Disagreement Constitutes a Dispute.—If the Federal Government and a contractor or subcontractor fail to agree on a contract price adjustment, including whether the contractor or subcontractor has complied with the applicable cost accounting standards, the disagreement will constitute a dispute under chapter 71 of this title.

(b) Amount of Adjustment.—A contract price adjustment undertaken under section 1502(f)(2) of this title shall be made, where applicable, on relevant contracts between the Federal Government and the contractor that are subject to the cost accounting standards so as to protect the Federal Government from payment, in the aggregate, of increased costs, as defined by the Cost Accounting Standards Board. The Federal Government may not recover costs greater than the aggregate increased cost to the Federal Government, as defined by the Board, on the relevant contracts subject to the price adjustment unless the contractor made a change in its cost accounting practices of which it was aware or should have been aware at the time of the price negotiation and which it failed to disclose to the Federal Government.

(c) Interest.—The interest rate applicable to a contract price adjustment is the annual rate of interest established under section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 6621) for the period. Interest accrues from the time payments of the increased costs were made to the contractor or subcontractor to the time the Federal Government receives full compensation for the price adjustment.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3699.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1503(a) | 41:422(h)(2). | Pub. L. 93–400, §26(h)(2)–(4), as added Pub. L. 100–679, §5(a), Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4062. |
| 1503(b) | 41:422(h)(3). | |
| 1503(c) | 41:422(h)(4). | |

Section
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of Endeavour International
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, William L. Transier, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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; and

     2.            The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
         of the Company.

                                                    /s/ William L. Transier
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    William L. Transier
                                                    Co-Chief Executive Officer

                                                    Date: March 30, 2004

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Endeavour International Corporation and will be retained by
Endeavour International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1117.9 Prohibited acts and sanctions. ( a ) Whoever knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact in a report submitted under this part is subject to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
( b ) A failure to report to the Commission in a timely fashion as required by this part is a prohibited act under section 19(a)(3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(3).
( c ) A subject firm that knowingly fails to report is subject to civil penalties under section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069. *Knowing* means the having of actual knowledge or the presumed having of knowledge deemed to be possessed by a reasonable person who acts in the circumstances, including knowledge obtainable upon the exercise of due care to ascertain the truth of representations. Section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).
( d ) Any person who knowingly and willfully violates section 19 of this Act after having received notice of noncompliance from the Commission may be subject to criminal penalties under section 21 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2070.