alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32





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 Zingo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Holly Roseberry,
      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
      to
      the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Holly RoseberryHolly
                RoseberryChief
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                Officer




March
      14,
      2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Hall, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 526]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickerson, J.), rendered March 23, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt of depraved indifference murder *(see Penal*Law § 125.25 [2]) was not preserved for appellate review as the defendant’s motion to dismiss was not “specifically directed” to the depraved indifference charge *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10,19 [1995]; *see also People v Finger,*95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]). To the extent the motion referred to the defendant’s earlier dismissal motion made at the close of the People’s evidence, that too did not include the argument that the evidence was consistent only with intentional murder, as now argued on appeal.

Since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, there can be no appellate review of the issue of whether a prima facie case had been presented to the grand jury *(see*CPL 210.30 [6]; *People v Bedell,*272 AD2d 622 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Miller, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
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 Quarterly Report of Catcher Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Charles Sander, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: October 3, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Charles Sander                               
|                      |  |  |  | Charles Sander                                   
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer of Catcher Holdings, Inc.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 985

____________ CHARLES WILLIAM FINNEY,

Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [ January 26, 2018 ]

PER CURIAM. We have for review Charles William Finney’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Finney’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Finney’s motion sought r elief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in
Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This Court stayed Finney’s appe al pending the disposition of Hitchcock v.
State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017) . After this- 2

-

Court decided Hitchcock , Finney responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Finney’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Finney is not entitled to relief. Finney was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of

n ine to three. Finney v. State , 660 So. 2d 674 , 679 (Fla. 1995). Finney’s sentence
of death became final in 1996. Finney v. Florida , 516 U.S. 1096 (1996). Thus,
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Finney’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Finney’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Finney , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON , and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. QUINCE, J., recused. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock

v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock

. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County,- 3

-

Michelle Sisco , Judge

- Case No. 291991CF001611000AHC Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Scott Gavin, and Suzanne Myers Keffer, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appel lant
Pamela Jo Bondi , Attorney General, and Christina Z. Pacheco, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate reco rd, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered su bmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 25 2004 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 03-1283

v. (D. of Colo.) CARLOS COTA-LUGO,

Defendant-Appellant. (D.C. No. 00-CR-376-B)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , HENRY , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. **
Defendant-Appellant Carlos Cota-Lugo (Cota-Lugo) ap peals his sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release f rom prison. We affirm. Background Cota-Lugo was convicted of illegally reentering the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), sentenced to a prison-2-

term of one year and a day, and given a three-year supervised release term with a specific condition that he not illegally reenter th e United States. In 2002 he was arrested in Denver, convicted of possession of hero in with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and sentenced t o a 34-month prison term. He was also convicted of violating the terms of his supervised release, and sentenced to an 11-month prison term to run consecutively to the 34-month term. Analysis We review a sentence upon revocation of supervised release to determine whether it is reasoned and reasonable. United States v. Lee , 957 F.2d 770, 774 (10th Cir. 1992). The United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 7B1.4(a)(1) (Nov. 2002) (USSG) recommends a sente nce of 5-11 months for violation of a term of supervised release. The dis trict court followed this recommendation, even though the court had the discr etion to impose a higher sentence based on the underlying crime. United States v. Hurst , 78 F.3d 482 (10th Cir. 1996). Therefore its sentence was both reasoned and reasonable. In addition, USSG § 7B1.3(f) recommends that a term of imprisonment for a supervised release violation run “consecutively t o any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving.” The district courtfollowed this recommendation; therefore, the consecutive term was reasoned and re asonable.-3-

We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district co urt. Glen R. Anstine’s motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant is gran ted.

Entered for the Court Timothy M. Tymkovich Circuit Judge
# cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge Duane E. Whitmore Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 

# 2
FIESENIE WINENEMET WITI EMEZIEE EAMES =WARM
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Robert F. Kendall, Chief Financial Officer of Biomass Processing Technology,Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of BiomassProcessing Technology, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe small business issuer and I have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based upon such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.        August 14, 2004 /s/ Robert F. Kendall   Name:  Robert F. Kendall, CPA   Title:  Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
§ 453.8 Declaration of intent. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in § 453.2(a), it is a violation of this rule to engage in any unfair or deceptive acts or practices specified in this rule, or to fail to comply with any of the preventive requirements specified in this rule;
( b ) The provisions of this rule are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is determined to be invalid, it is the Commission's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
( c ) This rule shall not apply to the business of insurance or to acts in the conduct thereof.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3835 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3835

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2012

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To extend the pay limitation for Members of Congress and Federal 
                               employees.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PAY LIMITATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 147 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2011 (Public Law 111-242; 5 U.S.C. 5303 note), as added by section 1(a) 
of the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions 
Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-322; 124 Stat. 3518), is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``December 31, 2012'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2013''; and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``December 31, 2012'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
    (b) Application to Legislative Branch.--
            (1) Members of congress.--The extension of the pay limit 
        for Federal employees through December 31, 2013, as established 
        pursuant to the amendments made by subsection (a), shall apply 
        to Members of Congress in accordance with section 601(a) of the 
        Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31).
            (2) Other legislative branch employees.--
                    (A) Limit in pay.--Notwithstanding any other 
                provision of law, no cost of living adjustment required 
                by statute with respect to a legislative branch 
                employee which (but for this subparagraph) would 
                otherwise take effect during the period beginning on 
                the date of enactment of this Act and ending on 
                December 31, 2013, shall be made.
                    (B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term 
                ``legislative branch employee'' means--
                            (i) an employee of the Federal Government 
                        whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of the 
                        Senate or the Chief Administrative Officer of 
                        the House of Representatives; and
                            (ii) an employee of any office of the 
                        legislative branch who is not described in 
                        clause (i).

            Passed the House of Representatives February 1, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### §13942. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13942 was editorially reclassified as section 12312 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
You are invited to learn more about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal for a partial deletion from the National Priorities List of the AT&SF Superfund Sitein Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Representatives from EPA Region 6 and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) will be available to discuss and answer your questions about the proposed deletion. This is not a formal meeting. You will have the opportunity to talk directlywith agency representatives in an informal setting. We welcome your participation.

Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Herman Sanchez Community Center 1830 Williams St., S.E. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

This session is being held in a fully accessible facility. Shouldyou have specific needs or questions about this facility’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, pleasecontact Bill Little, U.S. EPA Community Involvement Coordinator/S.E.E., at 1.800.533.3508 (toll-free). For more information, contact: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, 214.665.8143. Se le invita a aprender más acerca de la propuesta de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de los EE.UU. (EPA por sussiglas en inglés) para la eliminación parcial del sitio de Superfund de AT&SF en Alburquerque, Condado de Bernalillo,Nuevo México de la Lista Nacional de Prioridades. Representantes del Departamento de Medio Ambiente de Nuevo México (NMED por sus siglas en inglés) estarán disponibles para responder a sus preguntas sobre la eliminación propuesta. Esta no es una reunión formal . Usted tendrá la oportunidad de hablar directamente con los representantes de la agencia en un ambiente informal. Agra decemos su participación.

Jueves, 14 de octubre del 2010

5:30 p.m. hasta 6:30 p.m. Herman Sanchez Community Center 1830 Williams St., S.E. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

Esta sesión se llevará a cabo en un sitio accesible a todos. Siusted tiene necesidades especiales o preguntas sobre el cumplimiento de este sitio con la Ley de los CiudadanosAmericanos con Discapacidades, contactar a Bill Little, Coordinador de Participación Comunitariade EPA/S.E.E. al1.800.533.3508 (llamada gratis). Para más información, contactar a: Katrina Higgins-Coltr ain, Gerente del Proyecto de Remediación de EPA, llamando a 214.665.8143. 

### You Are Invited To An 

### AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site Open House Ud. está invitado a una 

### Exhibición Pública Sobre el Sitio de Superfund de AT&SF Albuquerque

Region 6 1445 Ross Ave. (6SF-VO) Dallas, TX 75202
From: Culligan, Kevin 

Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:11 PM 

To: Frey, Nathan J. 

Cc: Vasu, Amy 

Subject: Leakage lookback language 

<< interstate effects evaluation language 7-23-15 revised.docx >> 
DRAFT/DELIBERATIVE – DO NOT CITE, QUOTE OR DISTRIBUTE

Aside from the possible incentives for leakage addressed in this section, there may be other

potential generation incentives across states and sectors that could increase emissions, particularly in an

environment where various states are implementing a variety of state plan approaches.  Some examples

of these incentives, particularly those that were specified by commenters, are discussed in Sec.VIII.L.

That section also describes how the EPA has structured this final rule to either prevent or minimize the

potential for foregone reductions from such incentives. These safeguards include placing restrictions on

interstate trading under rate‐based or mass‐based approaches when there could be a risk of such

incentives. Additionally, the nature of the CO2 emission performance rates and state goals help to

minimize these effects, as does the MWh‐accounting method for adjusting emission rates under rate‐

based plans.

However, without a better understanding of the different mechanisms that states may ultimately

choose to meet the 111(d) plan requirements and how different requirements in different states may

interact, EPA cannot project every incentive that could lead to emission increases.   Therefore, once

program implementation begins, EPA will assess how emission performance across states may be

affected by the interaction of different regulatory structures implemented through state plans. Based

upon that evaluation, the EPA will determine whether there are potential concerns and what course of

action may be appropriate to remedy such concerns.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I,  Nancy  Gontarek.  certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Ox1ey Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  of  Spectrum  Sciences  & Software Holdings Corp. on Form l0-QSB for the
quarterly  period ended September 30, 2003 fairly complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information  contained  in  such  Form  l0-QSB  fairly  presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Spectrum Sciences
&  Software  Holdings  Corp.


                                                  /s/ Nancy Gontarek
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Name:  Nancy Gontarek
                                                  Title  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  Dated: December 3, 2003


<PAGE>
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Flora Littauer, Deceased. Ann H. Mowder, Appellant; Walter W. Richard et al., Respondents.

Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Imrie and Zeller, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 95.]