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 NeoMedia Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
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, that to 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.


Date  May 11, 2005                         By:      /s/ David A. Dodge
                                                    ------------------
                                           Name:    David A. Dodge
                                           Title:   Chief Financial Officer


      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authentications, 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 NeoMedia
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 this Annual Report of InoLife Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Berthold, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that to my knowledge, 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 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.




INOLIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date:  July 1, 2011
By:
/s/ GARY BERTHOLDGary BertholdChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on [Part 250](/current/title-30/part-250?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at [77 FR 50891](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/77-FR-50891), Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.910 Which of my facilities are subject to the Platform Verification Program?

(a) All new fixed or bottom-founded platforms that meet any of the following five conditions are subject to the Platform Verification Program:

(1) Platforms installed in water depths exceeding 400 feet (122 meters);

(2) Platforms having natural periods in excess of 3 seconds;

(3) Platforms installed in areas of unstable bottom conditions;

(4) Platforms having configurations and designs which have not previously been used or proven for use in the area; or

(5) Platforms installed in seismically active areas.

(b) All new floating platforms are subject to the Platform Verification Program to the extent indicated in the following table:

| If . . . | Then . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Your new floating platform is a buoyant offshore facility that does not have a ship-shaped hull, | The entire platform is subject to the Platform Verification Program including the following associated structures: |
| | (i) Drilling, production, and pipeline risers, and riser tensioning systems (each platform must be designed to accommodate all the loads imposed by all risers and riser does not have tensioning systems); (ii) Turrets and turret-and-hull interfaces; (iii) Foundations, foundation pilings and templates, and anchoring systems; and (iv) Mooring or tethering systems. |
| (2) Your new floating platform is a buoyant offshore facility with a ship-shaped hull, | Only the following structures that may be associated with a floating platform are subject to the Platform Verification Program: |
| | (i) Drilling, production, and pipeline risers, and riser tensioning systems (each platform must be designed to accommodate all the loads imposed by all risers and riser tensioning systems); (ii) Turrets and turret-and-hull interfaces; (iii) Foundations, foundation pilings and templates, and anchoring systems; and (iv) Mooring or tethering systems. |

(c) If a platform is originally subject to the Platform Verification Program, then the conversion of that platform at that same site for a new purpose, or making a major modification of, or major repair to, that platform, is also subject to the Platform Verification Program. A major modification includes any modification that increases loading on a platform by 10 percent or more. A major repair is a corrective operation involving structural members affecting the structural integrity of a portion or all of the platform. Before you make a major modification or repair to a floating platform, you must obtain approval from both the BSEE and the USCG.

(d) The applicability of Platform Verification Program requirements to other types of facilities will be determined by BSEE on a case-by-case basis.
### §433. Repealed. Pub. L. 85–508, §20, July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 351

Section, act Oct. 20, 1914, ch. 330, §2, 38 Stat. 742, related to reservation of coal lands in Alaska. See section 201 et seq. of Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining.
#### § 983.201 Applicability.

Subpart E applies to all PBV assistance under part 983 (including assistance for existing, newly constructed, or rehabilitated housing).
Exhibit
13.2








PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Annual Report of Top Ships Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Alexandros Tsirikos, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.








Date: 
June 29, 2009








/s/
      Alexandros Tsirikos


Alexandros
Tsirikos


Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 2 3

- 2331 LT Case No. 2007

- 031334

- CFAES

_____________________________
W ILLIE U PSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

3.800 A ppeal F rom the Cir c uit Court for Volusia County

. Raul A. Zambrano , Judge

. Willie Upson
, Wewahitchka , for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, A ttorney General
, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach , for Appellee.

October 24, 20 23

P ER C URIAM

.
AFFIRMED

. See State v. Reid , 886 So. 2d 265, 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

W ALLIS , L AMBERT , and J AY , JJ., concur

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

.

_____________________________
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for th e District * of South Dakota, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-1601WM

_____________ In re: Mountain Oaks Enterprises, Inc. * * Debtor, *

____________________ * * Mountain Oaks Enterprises, Inc., * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * 1994 St. Charles Associates, L.P.; * [UNPUBLISHED] 1994 St. Charles, Inc.; Tri-Lakes * Escrow, Inc., * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: November 20, 1997

Filed: December 18, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, District Judge. *

_____________ PER CURIAM.-2-

We have reviewed the record and conclude that an opinion will have n o prece dential value. We thus affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's orde r without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. PIERSOL, District Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. On appellate review, the district court and the court o f appeals a re bound by the bankruptcy court's findings of fact unless they are clearl y erroneous, while the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo . In re Hairopoulous , 118 F.3d 1240, 1243 (8th Cir . 1997). The district court below reversed the bankruptcy cou rt, not because it disagreed with the bankruptcy court's application of Missouri contract law or t he bankruptcy court's legal interpretation of paragraph 11 of the real estate contract at issue, but because the district court substituted its ow n factual findings for those made by the bankruptcy court. My review of the tria l transcript and the exhibits provided on appeal convinc es me that the bankruptcy court's factual findings are well-suppo rted by the trial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, and the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions a re amply grounded in the applicable law. Accordin gly, I would reverse the judgment of the district court and reinstate th e decision of the bankruptcy court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### §646. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §39, 62 Stat. 992

Section, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §86a, as added June 19, 1939, ch. 211, 53 Stat. 841, related to rules in civil actions. See section 2072 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 22, 2018

No. 04-18-00440-CR

Ronald GUILLORY, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1991CR4522

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED 

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on August 22, 2018.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of August, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
#### § 1204.200 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart explains how you as a lessee or designee may obtain accounting and auditing relief for your Federal onshore or OCS lease production from a marginal property. The two types of accounting and auditing relief that you can receive under this subpart are cumulative reports and payment relief (explained in § 1204.202) and other accounting and auditing relief appropriate for your property (explained in § 1204.203).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6544

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY ROBINSON, a/k/a Gary Robertson, a/k/a Paul Thomas,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-00253-DKC-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2020 Decided: October 6, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83 (4th Cir. 

2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute of 

limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s motion for 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 this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.3




                                      October 10, 2002

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc.
Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc.
590 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, New York  10022

                                      RE:  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Gentlemen:

         Reference is made to my Employment Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated
as of February 8, 2001, with Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. In light of the
current financial condition of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc.
("LTS") and its subsidiaries, I hereby waive, for the period September 1, 2002
to December 31, 2002, my participation in LTS's Special Performance Incentive
Plan (the "Plan") and any payments due to me under the Plan for such period. In
addition, I also agree that, for the period January 1, 2002 to August 31, 2002,
$400,000 of my Guaranteed Bonus (as defined in the Agreement) shall be credited
on a pro rata basis ($266,667) against any amounts due to me under the Plan.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            /s/ Victor M. Rivas

                                            Victor M. Rivas

Acknowledged and agreed this
10th day of October, 2002

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc.


By:  /s/ VICTOR M. RIVAS
     ---------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc.


By:  /s/ VICTOR M. RIVAS
     ---------------------------------
Exhibit 32.0



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Ocean Shore Holding Co. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 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 Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Steven E. BradySteven E. BradyPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Donald F. MorgenweckDonald F. MorgenweckSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




March 30, 2006
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1244

___________ Shawna Carr, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Lake Village Police Department; * District of Arkansas. Percy Wilburn, Individually and * in his Official Capacity as Chief * [UNPUBLISHED] of Police for the City of Lake * Village; Jacqueline Brown, Sergeant, * Individually and in her Official * Capacity as an Employee of the * City of Lake Village Police * Department; City of Lake Village; * Joanne Bush, Mayor, Individually * and in her Official Capacity as Mayor * of the City of Lake Village, Arkansas * (originally sued as Jo Ann Bush), * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 10, 2005 Filed: November 7, 2005

___________ Before ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Un ited States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- PER CURIAM. Shawna Carr appeals from the summary judgment that the district court 1 entered against her in her action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ms. Carr had claimed that the defendants had violated her right to the equal protection of the law and had deprived her of her property without the due process of law, all as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. The district c ourt ruled that although the defendant police officers acted under color of law when they seized Ms. Carr's automobile, they were nevertheless not liable because Ms. Carr ha d a post-deprivation remedy for any loss of property, see Parratt v. Taylor , 451 U.S. 527, 541-43 (1981), overruled on other grounds , Daniels v. Williams , 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986), and because there was no evidence that in seizing the car the defendants failed to treat similarly-situated people alike, see Klinger v. Department of Corrections , 31 F.3d 727, 731 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 1185 (1995).
We agree with the district court's conc lusions and, having nothing to add to its well-reasoned opinion, we affirm the judgment.

______________________________
PUBLIC LAW 114–293—DEC. 16, 2016 130 STAT. 1503 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5065: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114–775 (Comm. on Homeland Security). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Sept. 27, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 9, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–293 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To direct the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration to notify 

air carriers and security screening personnel of the Transportation Security Administration of such Administration’s guidelines regarding permitting baby formula, 

breast milk, purified deionized water, and juice on airplanes, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bottles and Breastfeeding Equipment Screening Act’’. 

SEC. 2. TSA SECURITY SCREENING GUIDELINES FOR BABY FORMULA, 

BREAST MILK, PURIFIED DEIONIZED WATER FOR INFANTS, 

AND JUICE ON AIRPLANES; TRAINING ON SPECIAL PROCEDURES. 

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act, the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration shall— 

(1) notify air carriers and security screening personnel 

of the Transportation Security Administration and personnel 

of private security companies providing security screening 

pursuant to section 44920 of title 49, United States Code, 

of such Administration’s guidelines regarding permitting baby 

formula, breast milk, purified deionized water for infants, and 

juice on airplanes under the Administration’s guidelines known 

as the 3–1–1 Liquids Rule Exemption; and 

(2) in training procedures for security screening personnel 

of the Administration and private security companies providing 

security screening pursuant to section 44920 of title 49, United 

States Code, include training on special screening procedures. 

Approved December 16, 2016. 

Deadline. 

Bottles and 

Breastfeeding 

Equipment 

Screening Act. 

49 USC 44901 

note. 

Dec. 16, 2016 

[H.R. 5065] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1714 What must I accomplish with well plugs? You must ensure that all well plugs: ( a ) Provide downhole isolation of hydrocarbon and sulphur zones;
( b ) Protect freshwater aquifers; and
( c ) Prevent migration of formation fluids within the wellbore or to the seafloor.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsRetention of Compressive Residual Stresses Introduced by Shot Peening in a Powder Metal Disk SuperalloyThe fatigue lives of disk superalloys can be increased by shot peening their surfaces, to induce compressive residual stresses near the surface that impede cracking there. As disk application temperatures increase for improved efficiency, the persistence of these beneficial stresses could be impaired, especially with continued fatigue cycling. The objective of this work was to study the retention of residual stresses introduced by shot peening, when subjected to fatigue and high temperatures. Fatigue specimens of powder metallurgy processed nickel-base disk superalloy ME3 were prepared with consistent processing and heat treatment. They were then shot peened using varied conditions. Strain-controlled fatigue cycles were run at room temperature and 704 C, to allow re-assessment of residual stresses.Document ID20160014557Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsGabb, Timothy P.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Danetti, Andrew*(Buffalo Univ. NY, United States)*Draper, Susan L.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Locci, Ivan E.*(Toledo Univ. Toledo, OH, United States)*Telesman, Jack*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredDecember 9, 2016Publication DateDecember 1, 2016Subject CategoryMetals And Metallic MaterialsStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2016-219414E-19311GRC-E-DAA-TN36362Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 081876.02.03.04.02.01CONTRACT_GRANT: NNC13BA10BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsfatiguesuperalloydiskShot peeningAvailable DownloadsNameType20160014557.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024