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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ruths Hospitality Group, Inc.
(the Company) for the quarter ended September 27, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.

Date: November 5, 2009



/S/ ROBERT M. VINCENTRobert M. VincentExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofRuths Hospitality Group, Inc.
#### § 1900.52 General.

This subpart specifies procedures for use by USDA personnel and program participants to ensure that full and complete consideration is given to program participants who are affected by an agency adverse decision.
The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4069

___________

The Farmers and Merchants Bank, *

Stuttgart, Arkansas, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Arkansas.

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance *

Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: May 7, 1998

 Filed: May 11, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Farmers and Merchants Bank appeals from the district court&s adverse grant 1

of summary judgment in its diversity action against St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance
-2-

Company. Upon review of the record and the parties& submissions on appeal, we

affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court&s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ruths Hospitality Group, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
March 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§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.

Date: May 7, 2010



By

/S/ ROBERT M. VINCENTRobert M. VincentExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofRuths Hospitality Group, Inc.
#### §§ 1755.201-1755.369 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ALVIN WASHINGTON,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 73 MAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court at No. 260

MD 2019 dated July 17, 2019

O RDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: October 21, 2020

AND NOW, this 21 st day of October , 2020

, the order of the Commonwealth Court

is AFFIRMED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1844

WILLIAM G. ROBINSON, Lieutenant,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF GREENVILLE; DAVID HENDERSON, Captain,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(CA-02-2533-26BI)

Submitted: February 7, 2005 Decided: March 1, 2005

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wm. Gary White, III, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Deborah Casey Brown, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William G. Robinson appeals the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary

judgment in favor of his employer and a former supervisor on his

claims alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981 (2000), retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2000), and violations of his

constitutional rights to equal protection and free speech in

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court and the magistrate judge. See

Robinson v. City of Greenville, No. CA-02-2533-26BI (D.S.C. Apr.

23, 2004 and May 26, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 23

- 00046

- CR
IN RE Rafael Edgardo PONCE VARELA Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Delivered and Filed: April 5, 2023
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On January 12, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed an emergency motion to stay the underlying proceedings pending disposition of the petition for writ of mandamus, which this court granted in part on January 13, 2023. For mandamus relief in a crim inal case, a r elator has the burden to show the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud

. Dist. Ct. of Apps

. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceed ing). A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed and timely presented motion. See id. However, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a)(1). A relator must provide the court of appeals with a record showing

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 12659CR , styled State of Texas v. Rafael Edgardo Ponce Varela , pending in the County Court , Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.04

- 23

- 00046

- CR

- 2

- the motion at issue was properly filed, the trial court was made aware of the motion, and the motion has not been ruled on by the trial court for an unreasonable time period. See In re Mendoza , 131 S.W.3d 167, 167

– 68 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426

– 27 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Here, the record contains a file

- stamped copy of relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Additionally, the record provides evidence of relator’s efforts to bring his filings to the attention of the trial court. However, this record does not establish that the trial court has failed to

ru le for an unreasonable period of time. 2 See i d. B ased on the record before us , relator has not satisfied his mandamus burden

. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a). The stay imposed on January 13, 2023 is li fted.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

2 We note relator filed an email from the trial court’s court coordinator and argues the email constitutes a ruling on his motion for continuance. Relator did not provide authority to support this argument. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(h).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AYODELE AKINOLA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. DAVID SEVERNS,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 14

- 15302

D.C. No. 3:11

- cv
- 00681

- LRH

WGC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9 , 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER , TASHIMA , and M. SMITH , Circuit Judges.
Ayodele Akinola appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

certain claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging rac e discrimination in his
employment with the State of Nevada’s Department of Transportation . We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 15302

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1 We review de novo a dismissal for failure to

state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lacey v. Maricopa
County , 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). W e affirm

. The district court properly dismissed Akinola’s Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection claim based on a hostile work environment theory because
Akinola failed to allege facts sufficient to show conduct severe or pervasive
enough to alter the terms or conditions of his employment. See Manatt v. Bank of

Am

. , NA , 339 F.3d 792, 79 8

- 9 9 (9th Cir. 2003) ( setting forth elements of a hostile

work environment claim ).
After considering Akinola’s response to the Order to Show Cause Re: Case
Dismissal (Docket Entry No. 41), w e decline to consider Akinola’s First

Amendme nt retaliation claim be cause this court already considered th is claim in

Case No. 15

- 16066

. Akinola v. Severns , --- Fed. App’ x
---- , 2017 WL 1089547, at

*1 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2017).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brie f. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

1 After considering the parties’ responses to the Order to Show Cause Re: Jur isdiction (Docket Entry No. 30), we are satisfied that we have jurisdiction

.3 14

- 15302

Akinola’s motion for leave to file a late letter brief (Docket Entry No. 38) is
granted. The Clerk shall file the letter brief submitted by Akinola on March 1,
2017 (Docket Entry No. 36).

AFFIRMED

.
<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 Warp Technology Holding, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 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, 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.

Dated: October 12, 2004                    /s/ Ron Bienvenu
                                               -----------------------
                                               Ron Bienvenu
                                               Chief Executive Officer

Dated: October 12, 2004                    /s/ Gus Bottazzi
                                               -----------------------
                                               Gus Bottazzi
                                               Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMI CLAIRE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv20-MW/MAF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE

This Court held a telephonic scheduling conference on August 16, 2024. The 

parties proposed a pre-trial briefing schedule, which this Court adopts by reference 

herein. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing regarding available relief and 

the effect the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to vacate the Lange decision pending 

rehearing en banc has on Plaintiffs’ claims moving forward is due on or before 

September 6, 2024. Defendant’s response is due on or before September 27, 2024.

SO ORDERED on August 16, 2024.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 179 Filed 08/16/24 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 1955
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1955.136 Environmental review requirements. ( a ) Prior to a final decision on some disposal actions, the action must comply with the environmental review requirements in accordance with the agency's environmental policies and procedures found in 7 CFR part 1970. ( 1 ) The conveyance is controversial for environmental reasons and/or is qualified within those categories described in § 1955.137 of this subpart.
( 2 ) The Rural Development approval official has reason to believe that conveyance would result in a change in use of the real property. For example, farmland would be converted to a nonfarm use; or an industrial facility would be changed to a different industrial use that would produce increased gaseous, liquid or solid wastes over the former use or changes in the type or contents of such wastes. Assessments are not required for conveyance where the real property would be retained in its former use within the reasonably foreseeable future.
( b ) When an EA or EIS is prepared it shall address the requirements of Departmental Regulation 9500-3, “Land Use Policy,” in connection with the conversion to other uses of prime and unique farmlands, farmlands of statewide or local importance, prime forest and prime rangelands, the alteration of wetlands or flood plains, or the creation of nonfarm uses beyond the boundaries of existing settlements.
[50 FR 23904, June 7, 1985, as amended at 81 FR 11032, Mar. 2, 2016; 81 FR 26667, May 4, 2016; 82 FR 19320, Apr. 27, 2017]
Order entered Ma y 21 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01496
- CR ZACHERY LEATCH, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. F12
- 51448
- R



### O RDER The record before this Court does not contain a copy of the trial court’s order appointing counsel. On March 11, 2015, this Court ordered appellate counsel Kathleen Walsh, who fled a motion to withdraw as counsel and an Anders b rief, to ensure that the Dallas County District Clerk has a copy of the order appointing counsel. We further ordered Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file a supplemental record containing the order appointing counsel within fifteen days. To date, we have not received the supplemental record nor any correspondence from either Ms. Walsh or Ms. Pitre regarding the status of the record. Accordingly, we ORDER Kathleen Walsh to ensure the Dallas County District Clerk has a copy of the order appoint ing the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office as counsel. We ORDER Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk, to file, within TEN DAYS of the date ofthis order, a supplemental record containing the order appointing the Dallas County Public

Defender’s Office as counsel for appellant on this appeal.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Jennifer Bennett, Presiding Judge, 265th Judicial District Court; Kathleen Walsh, Dallas County Public Defender’s Office; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### § 20.10 Place of submission of reports.

Weekly reports and information required to be submitted in connection therewith shall be addressed to or delivered to the following office FAX: (202) 690-3270 or (202) 690-3273:

Foreign Agricultural Service, Export Sales Reporting Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

[Amdt. 4, 45 FR 8562, Feb. 8, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 62215, Nov. 3, 2003]
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.77 Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

Pursuant to § 2.22(a), subject to reservations in § 2.22(b), and subject to policy guidance and direction by the Under Secretary, the following delegation of authority is made by the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to the Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, to be exercised only during the absence or unavailability of the Under Secretary: Perform all the duties and exercise all the powers which are now or which may hereafter be delegated to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs: Provided, that this authority shall be exercised by the respective Deputy Under Secretary in the order in which he or she has taken office as a Deputy Under Secretary.

[75 FR 79950, Dec. 21, 2010]
#### § 160.51 Report of non-conformance.

Each licensed inspector shall promptly report to his supervising inspector and to the accredited processor, any evidence of which he has knowledge indicating non-conformance with the provisions in this part, and shall also so report any attempt or effort to influence him to sample, grade, or certify any naval stores incorrectly or contrary to the provisions in this part.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFatigue crack initiation and small crack growth in several airframe alloysThe growth of naturally-initiated small cracks under a variety of constant amplitude and variable amplitude load sequences is examined for several airframe materials: the conventional aluminum alloys, 2024-T3 and 7075-T6, the aluminum-lithium alloy, 2090-T8E41, and 4340 steel. Loading conditions investigated include constant amplitude loading at R = 0.5, 0, -1 and -2 and the variable amplitude sequences FALSTAFF, Mini-TWIST and FELIX/28. Crack growth was measured at the root of semicircular edge notches using acetate replicas. Crack growth rates are compared on a stress intensity factor basis, to those for large cracks to evaluate the extent of the small crack effect in each alloy. In addition, the various alloys are compared on a crack initiation and crack growth morphology basis.Document ID19900009430Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSwain, M. H.*(Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co. Hampton, VA., United States)*Newman, J. C., Jr.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Phillips, E. P.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Everett, R. A., Jr.*(Army Aerostructures Directorate Hampton, VA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberAVSCOM-TM-90-B-001NAS 1.15:102598NASA-TM-102598Accession Number90N18746Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-01-05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900009430.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
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement No. 333-130712 of CKX, Inc, on Form S-3and Registration Statement No. 333-127119 of CKX, Inc. on Form S-8of our report dated March 13, 2006, relating to the 2005 financialstatements and financial statement schedule of CKX, Inc., appearing in theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of CKX, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2005 and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts”in the Prospectus, which is part of the Registration Statements.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPNew York, New YorkMarch 13, 2006

----
#### § 201.20 Germination

The label shall show the percentage of germination for each kind, kind and variety, kind and type, or kind and hybrid of agricultural seed comprising more than 5 percent of the whole. The label shall show the percentage of germination for each kind, kind and variety, kind and type, or kind and hybrid of agricultural seed comprising 5 percent of the whole or less if the seed is identified individually on the label.

[85 FR 40579, July 7, 2020]