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

**CERTIFICATION          PURSUANT TO**

**18          U.S.C. SS.1350,**

**AS          ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION          906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                           |                                                   | ** **                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ** **                                     | **IR                      BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.** |
|                                      |                                              |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| Date: April                      17, 2007 | By:                                          | /s/ John                    N.                    Fermanis                                                                    |
|                                           | John N. Fermanis                                       |
|                                           | Chief                      Financial Officer           |

----
Order entered February 12 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01258
- CV
LINDA HENDERSON AND/ OR ALL OTHER OCCUPAN TS OF 1225 KENSINGTO N DR. DESOTO, TX 75115 , Appe l lant

V. FREEDOM MORTGAGE COR PORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 19
- 04797
- D



### O RDER The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated January 7, 2020 , we i nf o rmed appellant the court reporter notified us that the reporter’s record had not been filed
because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid fo r or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court wi th wr i tten verification showing the reporter’s record had been requested and that appellant had paid for or made arrangements to pay
for the record or had been fo un d entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to pr ovide t h e required documentation within ten days might result in the appeal being ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant ha s not
pr ovide d the required documentation nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding thesta tus of th e reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a

reporter’s record. Ap pellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of thi s or de r.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
(86 Misc. Rep. *52)*

#### MENDETZ et al. v. S. N. WOOD & CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

1. Sales (§§ 62, 180*)—Partial Acceptance—Effect.

Where several lots of clothing were sold upon a single order and on one bill, and all delivered at one time, the contract was indivisible, and the acceptance by defendant of part of the goods constituted an acceptance of the whole.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 171-179, 469-472;. Dec. Dig. §§ 62, ISO.*]

2. Evidence (§ 21*)—Judicial Notice—Custom—Validity—Contravention of Rule of Law.

Judicial cognizance cannot be taken of a custom of the trade that parts of a single shipment might be returned, if they did not conform to agreement, because such custom contravenes an established rule of law.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 25; Dec. Dig. § 21.*]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Harry J. Mendetz and another against S. N. Wood & Co. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.

Morris & Samuel Meyers, of New York City (Samuel Meyers and Henry Swartz, of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Stephen Van Wyck, of New York City, for respondents.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiffs, upon a single order and on one bill, including all the items, sold defendants several lots of clothing. Plaintiffs de*93livered them all at one time. Defendants retained the.major portion, but returned one entire lot and a part of items out of every other lot, claiming that they were not as agreed.

[1] The chief point raised by plaintiffs appellants is that the contract was a whole and indivisible, and that the acceptance by defendants of part of the goods constituted an acceptance of the whole. The learned judge below, in a memorandum on the denial of the motion for a new trial, cites Ming v. Corbin, 142 N. Y. 334, 37 N. E. 105, as justifying the application of the contrary doctrine; but I find nothing in that case to warrant that view. On the contrary, the doctrine seems to be well recognized in that case; but the conduct of the parties, and particularly their communications, are held to " have indicated plainly an intention to separate the two classes of securities there sold. Furthermore, even by the original contract they were to have been delivered at entirely different times.

[2] Defendants in the case at bar sought to overcome the application of the doctrine of a single contract, by offering evidence—which was duly objected to—of a custom of the trade that parts of a single shipment might, if they did not conform to agreement, be returned. Apart from the fact that, on the record, the custom was not sufficiently proved, it was not, I think, a custom of which judicial cognizance can be taken, because it would contravene an established rule of law. See Hopper v. Sage, 112 N. Y. 530, 20 N. E. 350, 8 Am. St. Rep. 771.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.
#### § 28.121 Advance deposits.

Upon request, the person from whom any payment under this subpart may become due shall make an advance deposit to cover such payment in such amount as may be necessary in the judgment of the official of the Program requesting the same.

[81 FR 7030, Feb. 10, 2016]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case Nos.: 3:94cr3136/RV/CJK

 3:15cv7/RV/CJK

MARIO EUGENE PRIDE,

Defendant. 

______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Defendant

commenced this action by filing an amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 525). By order of this court dated

August 2, 2017, Defendant had twenty-one (21) days to show cause why his amended

motion should not be dismissed in light of his release fromincarceration in July 2016. 

(ECF No. 534). The court ordered Defendant to notify the court of his current

address or to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. Defendant failed to respond to this

order, and the time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed.

Case Nos.: 3:94cr3136/RV/CJK; 3:15cv7/RV/CJK
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Defendant’s failure to

comply with an order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 29th day of August, 2017.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr. 

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed

within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate

judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to

challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and

legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case Nos.: 3:94cr3136/RV/CJK; 3:15cv7/RV/CJK
```

[109th Congress Public Law 216]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ216.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 331]]

Public Law 109-216
109th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Providing for the appointment of Phillip Frost as a citizen regent of 
 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. <<NOTE: Apr. 13, 
                        2006 -  [H.J. Res. 81]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 
in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the 
expiration of the term of Manuel L. Ibanez of Texas on May 4, 2006, is 
filled by the appointment of Phillip Frost of Florida. <<NOTE: Effective 
date.>> The appointment is for a term of 6 years, beginning on the later 
of May 5, 2006, or the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

    Approved April 13, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 81 (S.J. Res. 30):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Apr. 4, considered and passed House.
            Apr. 5, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 29.3110 Rule 7.

A lot of tobacco meets the specifications of a grade when it is not lower in any degree of any element of quality than the minimum specifications of such grade.
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 277
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 277 are contained in § 271.8.

§ 277.9 Administrative costs principles. ( a ) This section prescribes specific policies and procedures governing State agencies for funding under this part.
( b ) The incremental cost of certifying TANF households for SNAP benefits are allowable costs for FNS reimbursement.
( c ) When costs for administering the program are claimed for reimbursement, the audit trail must identify the specific activities, locations, or time periods as defined in this section. ( 1 ) *Direct cost.* Allowable direct costs may be charged to SNAP at the 50 percent or higher funding level as specified in this part.
( 2 ) *Indirect cost.* Allowable indirect costs may also be claimed at the 50 percent or higher reimbursement funding level as specified in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR parts 400 and 415.
( 3 ) Direct and indirect costs claimed for program cost reimbursement must be incurred for the time periods, the activities or for the locations for which the rates are approved by FNS.
( d ) All State agency Cost Allocation Plans for determining the costs of administering the program must be approved by the cognizant Federal agency. All Cost Allocation Plans involving program funds shall be submitted to FNS for review.
[Amdt. 188, 45 FR 85702, Dec. 30, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 385, 65 FR 33440, May 24, 2000; 79 FR 11, Jan. 2, 2014; 81 FR 66499, Sept. 28, 2016; 83 FR 14174, Apr. 3, 2018]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

###### Editorial Note on Part 276

#### Editorial Note:

OMB control numbers relating to this part 276 are contained in § 271.8.

#### § 276.5 Injunctive relief.

(a) *General.* If FNS determines that a State agency has failed to comply with the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the regulations issued pursuant to the Act, or the FNS-approved State Plan of Operations, the Secretary may seek injunctive relief against the State agency to require compliance. The Secretary may request injunctive relief concurrently with negligence billings and sanctions against State agencies affecting administrative funds.

(b) *Requesting injunctive relief.* Prior to seeking injunctive relief to require compliance, FNS shall notify the State agency of the determination of noncompliance and provide the State agency with a specific period of time to correct the deficiency. The Secretary shall have the discretion to determine the time periods State agencies will have to correct deficiencies. If the State agency does not correct the failure within the specified time period and the Department decides to seek injunctive relief, the Secretary shall refer the matter to the Attorney General with a request that injunctive relief be sought to require compliance.

[Amdt. 168, 45 FR 77263, Nov. 21, 1980]
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 51074 Summary Calendar

United States of America, Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus Jesus Guadalupe Amparano

- Torres, Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 548

- 1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Jesus Guadalupe Amparano

- Torres appeals the 30

- month sentence imposed after his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after having previously been deported, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He contends, for the first time on appeal, that it violates the Constitution to treat

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 21, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-51074 Document: 00516365031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2022No. 21

- 51074

2 a prior conviction that increases the statutory maximum under § 1326(b) as a sentencing factor, rather than as an element of the offense. Amparano

- Torres concedes that thi s issue is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for future review. In addition, Amparano

- Torres has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. As Amparano

- Torres concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019) ; United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) . Because his position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1 969), summary disposition is proper. Accordingly, Amparano

- Torres’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED , and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 21-51074 Document: 00516365031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Wesley Hearon

Admin Docket No.

7:20-cv-26635-MCR-GRJ

Case No. 3:19md2885

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

NOTICE OF DESIGNATED FORUM

Plaintiff, Wesley Hearon, by and through counsel of record, files this Notice 

of Designated Forum, and would show the Court that venue would be proper in the 

United States District Court, Florida Northern District Court, Pensacola 

Division absent direct filing on the administrative docket. Plaintiff reserves the 

right to amend this designation of proper venue and forum, once case specific fact 

and expert discovery is complete. 

Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court take notice of this designation of 

forum. 

Dated: September 23, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bryan F. Aylstock

Bryan F. Aylstock, FL Bar No. 78263

AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC

baylstock@awkolaw.com

17 East Main Street, Suite 200

Pensacola, FL 32502

Case 7:20-cv-26635-MCR-GRJ Document 3 Filed 09/25/22 Page 1 of 2
2

Phone: (850) 202-1010

Facsimile: (850) 916-7449

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on this 23rd day of September, 2022, a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court and 

served using the CM/ECF system.

/s/ Bryan F. Aylstock

Bryan F. Aylstock

Case 7:20-cv-26635-MCR-GRJ Document 3 Filed 09/25/22 Page 2 of 2
§ 205.300 Use of the term, “organic.” ( a ) The term, “organic,” may only be used on labels and in labeling of raw or processed agricultural products, including ingredients, that have been produced and handled in accordance with the regulations in this part. The term, “organic,” may not be used in a product name to modify a nonorganic ingredient in the product.
( b ) Products for export, produced and certified to foreign national organic standards or foreign contract buyer requirements, may be labeled in accordance with the organic labeling requirements of the receiving country or contract buyer: *Provided,* That, the shipping containers and shipping documents meet the labeling requirements specified in § 205.307(c).
( c ) Products produced in a foreign country and exported for sale in the United States must be certified pursuant to subpart E of this part, labeled pursuant to this subpart D, and must comply with the requirements in § 205.273.
( d ) Livestock feeds produced in accordance with the requirements of this part must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of § 205.306.
[65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 3622, Jan. 19, 2023]
Exhibit
6  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
Petro-Canada (the Company) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, E. F. H. Roberts, Senior Vice-President and 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.   /s/ E. F. H. RobertsE. F. H. RobertsSenior Vice-President and
  Chief Financial OfficerMarch 25, 2004
#### Thomas Hirsch, appellee, v. Guy A. Richardson, as receiver of Chicago Railways Company, et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 37,025.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

Arthur J. Donovan, for appellants; John R. Guilliams, Frank L. Kriete and John E. Kehoe, of counsel. Hector A. Brouillet, for appellee; Walter H. Shurtleff, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 28.442 Middling Yellow Stained Color.

Middling Yellow Stained Color is American Upland cotton which in color is deeper than Middling Tinged Color.

[57 FR 34498, Aug. 5, 1992]
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 on
Form 10-Q of Volcom, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Richard R. Woolcott, as Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, and Douglas P. Collier, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | (ii) | 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 required by Section 906 has been provided to Volcom, Inc. and will be retained
by Volcom, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                    |  |                                                                                                                            
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 10, 2011 |  | /s/ Richard R. Woolcott                                                                                                    
|                    |  | Richard R. Woolcott Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                                     
|                    | 
|Dated: May 10, 2011 |  | /s/ Douglas P. Collier                                                                                                     
|                    |  | Douglas P. Collier Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)

The foregoing certifications are being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350. These certifications shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall they be incorporated by
reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.