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 Annual Report of Bond Laboratories, Inc, (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott
Landow, 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 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 results of operations of the Company.





BOND
LABORATORIES, INC


By /s/ Scott
Landow


Scott
Landow


Chief
Financial officer


March 27,
2009
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JACOBO FLORES-VASQUEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50066

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02162-GPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2015** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Jacobo Flores-Vasquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

FEB 24 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Flores-Vasquez contends that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment

because the fact of the prior conviction that subjected him to a higher statutory

maximum under section 1326(b) was not admitted by him or proven to a jury. The

Supreme Court rejected this argument in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998). Flores-Vasquez’s contention that Almendarez-Torres has

been overruled is incorrect. See Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1

(2013) (declining to revisit holding in Almendarez-Torres); see also United States

v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (Supreme Court precedent is

controlling until it is explicitly overruled by the Court).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50066
Exhibit 13.1





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 Rodman International Enterprise I, Ltd.(the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arnold P. Kling, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and





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





Dated: June 16, 2011





/s/ Arnold P. KlingArnold P. KlingPresident(Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 58.129 Cleanliness.

All employees shall wash their hands before beginning work and upon returning to work after using toilet facilities, eating, smoking or otherwise soiling their hands. They shall keep their hands clean and follow good hygienic practices while on duty. Expectorating or use of tobacco in any form shall be prohibited in each room and compartment where any milk, dairy products, or supplies are prepared, stored or otherwise handled. Clean white or light-colored washable or disposable outer garments and caps (paper caps, hard hats, or hair nets acceptable) shall be worn to adequately protect the hair and beards when grown by all persons engaged in receiving, testing, processing milk, manufacturing, packaging or handling dairy products.
52.216-27 Single or Multiple Awards.

As prescribed in 16.506(f), insert the following provision:

Single or Multiple Awards (Oct 1995)

The Government may elect to award a single delivery order contract or task order contract or to

award multiple delivery order contracts or task order contracts for the same or similar supplies or

services to two or more sources under this solicitation.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.216 [Reserved]
42.1304 Government delay of work.

(a) The clause at 52.242-17, Government Delay of Work, provides for the administrative settlement

of contractor claims that arise from delays and interruptions in the contract work caused by the acts,

or failures to act, of the contracting officer. This clause is not applicable if the contract otherwise

specifically provides for an equitable adjustment because of the delay or interruption; e.g., when the

Changes clause is applicable.

(b) The clause does not authorize the contracting officer to order a suspension, delay, or interruption

of the contract work and it shall not be used as the basis or justification of such an order.

(c) If the contracting officer has notice of an unordered delay or interruption covered by the clause,

the contracting officer shall act to end the delay or take other appropriate action as soon as

practicable.

(d) The contracting officer shall retain in the file a record of all negotiations leading to any

adjustment made under the clause, and related certified cost or pricing data, or data other than

certified cost or pricing data.

Parent topic: Subpart 42.13 - Suspension of Work, Stop-Work Orders, and Government Delay of

Work
#### § 701.22 Eligibility to file for cost-share assistance.

Any eligible participant, as defined in this part, who paid part of the cost of an approved practice may file an application for cost-share payment.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:89cr4006-WS

KENNETH GASTON,

Defendant.

 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the court is the defendant's motion for reconsideration. Doc. 791. The

defendant, Kenneth Gaston ("Gaston"), seeks reconsideration of the court's order (doc.

789) denying Gaston's motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Amendment 706. 

Amendment 706 reduced the guideline sentencing range under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for

certain categories of offenses involving cocaine base. It did not reduce the sentencing

range for defendants sentenced under the career offender provisions. 

While Gaston admits that he was sentenced pursuant to the career offender

provisions, he now contends that he was not, in fact, a career offender. Such

contention is not one that this court may consider pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

Gaston also asks the court to apply the same standard in his case that it applied

in the case of Larry Leroy Butler, who—according to Gaston—was sentenced as a

career offender yet received the benefit of a reduction in sentence pursuant to

Amendment 706. While the career offender provisions were controlling when Butler

Case 4:89-cr-04006-WS-WCS Document 795 Filed 07/16/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

was originally sentenced in 1993, his guideline range was revised in 1996 based on a

retroactive amendment to the career offender provisions. For Butler, that retroactive

amendment meant that the career offender provisions were no longer controlling. He

accordingly received a reduced sentence in 1996 pursuant to the crack cocaine

guidelines in section 2D1.1. Amendment 706 thus applied to Butler's 1996 sentence,

resulting in a reduction in sentence in March of 2008. In contrast, Gaston is not entitled

to a reduction under Amendment 706 because the career offender provisions controlled

the sentence that Gaston is currently serving.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The defendant's motion for reconsideration (doc. 791) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of July , 2008.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:89-cr-04006-WS-WCS Document 795 Filed 07/16/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,041
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           22,591
<PREFERRED>                                    263,551
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2
**Section 302 Certification of Principal Financial Officer**
I, Frederic T. Boyer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of QualstarCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 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 flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) [Paragraph (b) is omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986] (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 10, 2004   /S/ Frederic T. Boyer  Frederic T. Boyer, Chief Financial Officer
20
#### § 51.1169 Slightly rough texture.

*Slightly rough texture* means that the skin is not of smooth texture but is not materially ridged, grooved, or wrinkled.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Criminal Case No. 2:06-CR-169-WHA

)

WILMONT TIMOTHY BARNETT )

MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR PRETRIAL MOTIONS

COMES NOW Defendant Wilmont Timothy Barnett, by and through counsel, to move

the Court to enlarge the time within which Defendant may file pretrial motions and as grounds

for which would show as follows:

1. Pursuant to the Order on Arraignment, retrial motions are to be filed on or before March

29, 2007 (assuming that motions are to be filed two BUSINESS days prior to the pretrial

hearing).

2. Counsel for Defendant has paid for and received discovery from the government through

Pro-Legal Copying consisting of 7,428 pages of documents, 10 DVDs, 19 CDs, 6

videotapes, 23 cassette tapes, and one 3 1/4" floppy disk containing data in some

unknown format using the file extension .trk. 

3. Since the undersigned is unable to view anything on the floppy disk it will doubtless turn

out to be the most damning evidence against Defendant.

4. The undersigned counsel has been diligent in plowing through the documents, it appears

extremely unlikely that he will have been through enough of it by March 29th to determine

whether pretrial motions will be necessary.

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 148 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
5. As the trial of this case is set for June 4, 2007, it should not inconvenience the Court nor

prejudice the government to enlarge the time within which Defendant may file pretrial

motions by thirty days.

WHEREFORE, the premises considered, Defendant prays that the Court will enlarge the

time within which he may file pretrial motions until and through April 30, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this __26th__ day of March, 2007.

/s/ JAY LEWIS

Law Offices of Jay Lewis, L.L.C.

P.O. Box 5059

Montgomery, Alabama 36103

(334) 263-7733 (Voice)

(334) 832-4390 (Fax)

J-Lewis@JayLewisLaw.com

ASB-2014-E66J

Attorney for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the _26th_ day of March, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing

to the following parties or counsel:

A. Clark Morris

Office of the United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

/s/ JAY LEWIS

Law Offices of Jay Lewis, L.L.C.

P.O. Box 5059

Montgomery, Alabama 36103

(334) 263-7733 (Voice)

(334) 832-4390 (Fax)

J-Lewis@JayLewisLaw.com

ASB-2014-E66J

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 148 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:98cr19-MP-6

ROBERT PETRIE

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on the government’s Motion for Extension of Time

to File Response. (Doc. 1575). On August 20, 2012, the court directed the government

to respond to defendant’s motion to unseal the transcript of an in camera hearing

conducted during trial. The government is working diligently to locate witnesses and

requests and additional five (5) workdays to respond to defendant’s motion.

Accordingly, the government’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. The

government’s response to defendant’s request shall be due on or before September 7,

2012.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:98-cr-00019-MP-AK Document 1576 Filed 08/30/12 Page 1 of 1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
    I,
          Andrew
          Leszczynski, certify that:
   1.
          I have
          reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
          to be
          filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Merrill
          Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Series 2006-HE5 (the “Exchange Act periodic
          reports”);
  2.
          Based
          on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do
          not
          contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
          fact
          necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
          which
          such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
          by
          this report;
  3.
          Based
          on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
          required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this
          report is
          included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
  4.
          I am
          responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and
          based on
          my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer
          compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation
          AB,
          and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers
          have
          fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements; and
  5.
          All of
          the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
          securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
          with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
          in
          this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange
          Act Rules
          13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
          as
          otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
          described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
          10-K.
  In
          giving
          the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
          to me
          by the following unaffiliated parties: Wilshire Credit Corporation, as
          servicer;
          IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. as servicer; and Newport Management Corporation, as
          vendor.
   Date:
          March 29, 2007
  LaSalle
          Bank National Association, as Master Servicer
  /s/
          Andrew Leszczynski
 Andrew
          Leszczynski
 First
          Vice President
 (Senior
          Officer in charge of the servicing function for the Master Servicer)
# 46.306 Time-and-material and labor-hour contracts.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.246-6, *Inspection*-Time-and-Material and Labor-Hour, in *solicitations* and contracts when a time-and-material contract or a labor-hour contract is contemplated. If Government *inspection* and acceptance are to be performed at the contractor’s plant, the *contracting officer**shall* use the clause with its AlternateI.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 46.3 - Contract Clauses
# 52.242-12 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**52.242 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-214-TKW-MJF

RICKY D. DIXON,

Defendant.

/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR HIPAA-QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER

This court has considered, without hearing, Plaintiff’s Motion for HIPAAQualified Protective Order, Doc. 75, and Defendant’s response, Doc. 78. The motion 

will be granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff recognizes that the “party seeking a protective order has the burden 

to demonstrate good cause and must make ‘a particular and specific demonstration 

of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements’ supporting the 

need for a protecting order.” Doc. 75 at 3 (quoting United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 

1323, 1326 n.3 (5th Cir. 1978)). Here, however, as to paragraph 4(b) regarding 

records other than those relating to Plaintiff, and as to paragraphs 4(c) and 4(e), 

Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating good cause and has not offered 

particular, specific facts detailing the need for a protective order. Rather, this court 

determines that those requests are overly broad.

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 80 Filed 12/20/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion, Doc. 75, is GRANTED IN PART as it 

relates to Plaintiff’s requests for Defendant’s records pertaining to the treatment of 

and supplies for Plaintiff’s bowel incontinence. Plaintiff’s motion, Doc. 75, is 

DENIED IN PART as it relates to Plaintiff’s requests for Defendant’s records 

relating to medical treatment of and supplies for other prisoners.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2022.

/s/ Michael J. Frank 

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 80 Filed 12/20/22 Page 2 of 2
#### § 51.1355 Damage.

*Damage* means any injury or defect which materially affects the processing quality of the fruit. After paring, cutting in halves, and coring, each half of the pear shall be well formed or the pear is considered damaged. Pears showing surface blemishes shall be considered damaged when the injury cannot be completely removed in the ordinary process of paring for commercial use.