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 Golden Star Resource Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period
ended June 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Marilyn
Miller, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company.



|Dated
    this 29th day of September, 2016. |                            
|------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------
|                                            | /s/
    MARILYN MILLER     
|                                            | Marilyn
    Miller         
|                                            | Chief
    Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RA’MI TIYE SEKHMET,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-306-TKW/MJF

KINDLE DIRECT 

PUBLISHING/AMAZON,

Defendant.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 9). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed for failure to 

comply with court orders. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LEROY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION, JOE MCINNES,

etc.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-658-ID

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COME NOW Defendants, the State of Alabama Department of Transportation and Joe

McInnes, by and through their undersigned counsel, and move this Court to grant summary

judgment in this matter and as grounds therefore, show unto this Court as follows:

1. The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

2. The Plaintiff has failed to set forth a prima facie claim for racial discrimination

under either Title VII or 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

3. The Plaintiff has failed to set forth a prima facie claim for retaliation under either

Title VII or 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

4. Defendants are entitled to favorable summary judgment as a matter of law.

Defendants file contemporaneously herewith their Memorandum Brief and Evidentiary

Materials in Support of this Motion for Summary Judgment.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

TROY KING

ATTORNEY GENERAL

s/ Andrew W. Redd

Jim R. Ippolito, Jr. (IPP001)

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 13 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

Assistant Attorney General

Chief Counsel

Andrew W. Redd (RED001)

R. Mitchell Alton, III (ALT003)

Assistant Attorneys General

Assistant Counsel

ADDRESS OF COUNSEL:

State of Alabama Department of Transportation

1409 Coliseum Boulevard

Montgomery, Alabama 36110

Telephone: (334) 242-6350

Facsimile: (334) 264-4359

redda@dot.state.al.us

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 13 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LEROY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION, JOE MCINNES,

etc.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-658-ID

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on March 26 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECT system, which will send notification to the following:

Mr. Russell W. Adams, Esq.

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, L.L.C.

Attorneys at Law

301 19th Street, North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

s/ Andrew W. Redd

Andrew W. Redd (RED001)

Assistant Attorney General

Assistant Counsel

ADDRESS OF COUNSEL:

State of Alabama Department of Transportation

1409 Coliseum Boulevard

Montgomery, Alabama 36110

(334) 242-6350 (office)

(334) 264-4359 (facsimile)

altonm@dot.state.al.us

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 13 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 3 of 3
The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which

Wilkins' counsel testified that Wilkins did not ask him to file an appeal. The district court denied Wilkins' appeal-deprivation claim after finding that counsel's testimony was credible. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 254, 71 P.3d 503, 507 (2003) (counsel is ineffective if he fails to file a direct appeal only if "a defendant has requested or expressed a desire for a direct appeal"). And the district court denied Wilkins' remaining claims, concluding that no constitutional law prohibits an arrest warrant authorizing a nighttime arrest and therefore Wilkins failed to support his assertion that counsel would have been successful had he challenged the constitutionality of the arrest warrant, see generally Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 754 (1984) (suggesting approval of nighttime arrests pursuant to a warrant); Sanchez v. State, 103 Nev. 166, 169, 734 P.2d 726, 728 (1987); see alsoNRS 171.136(2)(a) (authorizing a nighttime arrest for a misdemeanor offense "[u]pon the direction of a magistrate, endorsed upon the warrant"), the award of restitution did not create a double recovery, see Martinez v. State, 115 Nev. 9, 12, 974 P.2d 133, 135 (1999), and Wilkins did not prove any other defects with the restitution amount. We conclude that the district court did not err by denying these claims.

Having considered Wilkins' contentions and concluded that no relief is warranted, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

,J. Hardesty

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) I947A 2

### cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Janet S. Bessemer Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A ) ■ 

### 3
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 11 of 11
Subpart 236.1 - GENERAL    **Parent topic:** Part 236 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT — ENGINEER CONTRACTS236.102 Definitions.       “Construction activity” means an activity at any organizational level of the DoD that—          (1)  Is responsible for the architectural, engineering, and other related technical aspects of the planning, design, and construction of facilities; and          (2)  Receives its technical guidance from the Army Office of the Chief of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, or Air Force Directorate of Civil Engineering.          “Marshallese firm” is defined in the provision at                 252.236-7012             , Military Construction on Kwajalein Atoll—Evaluation Preference.          “United States firm” is defined in the provisions at                 252.236-7010             , Overseas Military Construction—Preference for United States Firms, and                 252.236-7011             , Overseas Architect-Engineer Services—Restriction to United States Firms.
158 So.2d 604

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dan MARICLE.

No. 46714.

Dec. 16, 1963.

John P. Navarre, Oakdale, for appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. ECulligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bernard N. Marcantel, Dist. Atty., Alfred R. Ryder, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

McCALEB, Justice.

Appellant was charged in the Juvenile-Court with contributing to the delinquency of a minor under the age of 17, as denounced by R.S. 14:92, in that he intentionally aided and permitted the said minor to visit Maride’s Lounge in Oakdale, Louisiana where spiritous and intoxicating liquors are the principal commodity sold or given away. Following a trial, he was convicted and sentenced to serve ten days in the parish jail and to pay a fine of $50, plus costs. He has appealed to this Court from the judgment of conviction relying principally on two of the sixteen bills of exceptions he reserved below to rulings of the trial judge.

We notice, ex proprio motu, our lack of appellate jurisdiction of the case, our ruling herein being governed by the views expressed in State v. Thomas, 245 La. 444, 158 So.2d 606. As pointed out in the Thomas case, this Court was formerly vested with appellate jurisdiction of all appeals from juvenile courts by specific provisions of the Constitution (Section 96 of Article *4427 in cases tried in the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court and Section 52 of Article 7 from the other juvenile courts, which is applicable in this case) but, due to the general revision of appellate jurisdiction which became effective on July 1, 1960, criminal prosecutions against persons other than juveniles are appealable to this Court only in felony cases or in misdemeanors in which a fine exceeding $300 or imprisonment exceeding six months has been actually imposed.

Since the instant appeal does not fall within either category, it must be dismissed. However, in view of the circumstances of the case, appellant should be allowed a reasonable time to give notice to the judge of the Juvenile Court of his intention, if it is his desire, to apply to this Court for a writ of certiorari or review in order that he may be granted a stay of further proceedings during the interval in which his application may be filed here and his bills of exceptions perfected (see State v. Richardson, 220 La. 338, 56 So.2d 568) conformably with Section 2 of Rule XII of the Rules of this Court.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed; appellant is allowed fourteen days from the date of this decree to notify the Judge of the Juvenile Court of his intention to apply to this Court for a writ of certiorari or review.
EXHIBIT 32.2



April 30, 2010

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F
Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                            
|----------------------------
|                            
|/s/    Michael J. Castellano
|Michael J. Castellano       
|Chief Financial Officer     



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
619519-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELRICK HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION, H&R BLOCK 

MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 

PREMIER MORTGAGE 

FUNDING, INC.; AND MORGAN 

TITLE SERVICE, LLC,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

2:06-cv-630-ID

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST

AMENDMENT TO ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS

COME NOW defendants, Option One Mortgage Corporation and H&R 

Block Mortgage Corporation and move this Honorable Court for permission to file 

the attached First Amendment to Answer of defendants. In support of this motion, 

defendants state as follows:

1. Defendants have not previously sought to amend their answer in this 

case.

2. This motion has been filed within the time established by this Court's 

scheduling order for defendants to amend their answer.

3. Plaintiff will not be unduly prejudiced if this amendment is allowed.

Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 17 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 3
619519-1 2

4. The undersigned defense counsel has spoken with plaintiff's counsel, 

and plaintiff's counsel does not oppose this motion. 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendants respectfully request that 

they be allowed to file the attached First Amendment to Answer of Defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen A. Walsh

Stephen A. Walsh

Attorney for Defendants

Option One Mortgage Corporation and 

H & R Block Mortgage Corporation

OF COUNSEL:

ADAMS AND REESE LLP

2100 Third Avenue North, Suite 1100

Birmingham, Alabama 35203-3367

Telephone: (205) 250-5000

Facsimile: (205) 250-5034

Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 17 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 3
619519-1 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 8, 2006, 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:

Robert E. Kirby, Jr.

Smith, Hanson & Kirby, LLC

4401 Gary Avenue

Fairfield, AL 35064

Richard M. Allen

Chad W. Bryan

Capell & Howard

150 South Perry Street 

Montgomery, AL 36104

Joseph C. Espy, III

Melton Espy & Williams, PC 

P. O. Drawer 5130 

Montgomery, AL 36103-5130

/s/ Stephen A. Walsh

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 17 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 782
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 782 appear at 61 FR 32643, June 25, 1996.

§ 782.21 End-user and exporter records and reports. ( a ) The end user or exporter shall retain a copy of each form FSA-751, Wheat Consumption and Resale Report, that is filed with KCCO in accordance with § 782.15(a)(2).
( b ) The end user or exporter shall retain a copy of each form FSA-750, End-Use Certificate for Wheat, provided to the end-user or exporter in accordance with § 782.17(b).
( c ) The exporter shall maintain records to verify that wheat purchased for the purpose of export was stored identity preserved until such time as the wheat was loaded onto a conveyance for delivery to the foreign country or instrumentality.
( d ) Copies of the documents required in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section shall be kept on file at the end-user's or exporter's headquarters office or other location designated by the end user or exporter for the period specified in § 782.25.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

PAUL JONATHAN ENDSLEY,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 5:04cv16-LAC/WCS

JAMES CROSBY,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This cause is before the court on Petitioner's notice of appeal and motion to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Docs. 22 and 23. Petitioner appeals the denial

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, so a certificate of appealability is required. §

2253(c)(1)(A); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b)(1). 

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstration

that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable jurists could

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were

"'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" 

Case 5:04-cv-00016-LC-WCS Document 30 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:04cv16-LAC/WCS

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542

(2000); quoting, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, n. 4 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394, n. 4,

77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983). 

For the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation as adopted by the

court, docs. 17 and 20, Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability as he

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Leave to

proceed in forma pauperis should also be denied. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE. Petitioner's motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (doc. 23) is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of January, 2006.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

Senior United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-00016-LC-WCS Document 30 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2
250.103-6 Disposition.       For requests denied or approved below the Secretarial level, follow the disposition procedures at PGI                 250.103-6             .    **Parent topic:** 250.103 Contract adjustments.
215.404-73 Alternate structured approaches.

(a) The contracting officer may use an alternate structured approach under 215.404-4 (c).

(b) The contracting officer may design the structure of the alternate, but it shall include—

(1) Consideration of the three basic components of profit—performance risk, contract type risk

(including working capital), and facilities capital employed. However, the contracting officer is not

required to complete Blocks 21 through 30 of the DD Form 1547.

(2) Offset for facilities capital cost of money.

(i) The contracting officer shall reduce the overall prenegotiation profit objective by the amount of

facilities capital cost of money under Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) 414, Cost of Money as an

Element of the Cost of Facilities Capital (48 CFR 9904.414). Cost of money under CAS 417, Cost of

Money as an Element of the Cost of Capital Assets Under Construction (48 CFR 9904.417), should

not be used to reduce the overall prenegotiation profit objective. The profit amount in the

negotiation summary of the DD Form 1547 must be net of the offset.

(ii) This adjustment is needed for the following reason: The values of the profit factors used in the

weighted guidelines method were adjusted to recognize the shift in facilities capital cost of money

from an element of profit to an element of contract cost (see FAR 31.205-10) and reductions were

made directly to the profit factors for performance risk. In order to ensure that this policy is applied

to all DoD contracts that allow facilities capital cost of money, similar adjustments shall be made to

contracts that use alternate structured approaches.

Parent topic: 215.404 Proposal analysis.
156 So.2d 607

#### STATE ex rel. Roy Lamar ROTHROCK et ux. v. Clyde Ray WEBBER, Jr., et ux.

No. 46960.

Oct. 10, 1963.

Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.

155 So.2d 763.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Minna Schlags, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 25, 1968, which determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits effective December 19, 1967 on the ground that she voluntarily left *598her employment without good cause, and charged her with an overpayment of $151.25 in benefits ruled to he recoverable upon a holding that claimant willfully made a false statement to obtain benefits for which a forfeituré of 24 effective days was imposed. Claimant, age 63, last worked for the employer herein as a bookkeeper on December 18, 1967. On that day, following a dispute with one of her employers, she made out a check for the salary due her which was then signed by both employers, and she was then driven to a beauty parlor by the employer with whom she had the dispute. On December 19, 1967 she filed for benefits stating that she had been “laid off” and, when told that this was not acceptable, crossed it out and gave the reason for leaving as “no work”. At the hearings claimant maintained that she was fired, and the employer testified that she quit and requested her salary for the time worked on the final day. The board determined that she “ left her job because of her inability to get along with this employer due to a clash of personalities ”, and that there was no evidence that this affected her health, or otherwise made it necessary for her to leave her employment. The board also determined that she knew her employment did not end by reason of “no work”, and rejected her contention that she was instructed by a local office employee to so indicate on her application for benefits, and affirmed the initial determinations that claimant left her employment without good cause; had received benefits that she was not entitled to based upon a willful misrepresentation, and that such benefits were recoverable. The issues of good cause and willful misrepresentation involve questions of fact, the resolution of which rests within the sole province of the board and, if its determination of these issues is supported by substantial evidence, it may not be disturbed. *(Matter of Kcmsky*[Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 887; *Matter of Soroka [Cather-*wood], 24 A D 2d 920.) The determination of the board is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and must be affirmed. Benefits having been paid based upon a willful misrepresentation, they are recoverable. *(Matter of Morder*[Catherwood], 16 A D 2d 303; Labor Law, § 594.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.
# 52.214 [Reserved]

- 52.214-1 [Reserved] 
- 52.214-2 [Reserved] 
- 52.214-3 Amendments to Invitations for Bids. 
- 52.214-4 False Statements in Bids. 
- 52.214-5 Submission of Bids. 
- 52.214-6 Explanation to Prospective Bidders. 
- 52.214-7 Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Bids. 
- 52.214-8 [Reserved] 
- 52.214-9 [Reserved] 
- 52.214-10 Contract Award-Sealed Bidding. 
- 52.214-11 [Reserved] 
- 52.214-12 Preparation of Bids. 
- 52.214-13 [Reserved] 
- 52.214-14 Place of Performance-Sealed Bidding. 
- 52.214-15 Period for Acceptance of Bids. 
- 52.214-16 Minimum Bid Acceptance Period. 
- 52.214-17 [Reserved] 
- 52.214-18 Preparation of Bids-Construction. 
- 52.214-19 Contract Award-Sealed Bidding-Construction. 
- 52.214-20 Bid Samples. 
- 52.214-21 Descriptive Literature. 
- 52.214-22 Evaluation of Bids for Multiple Awards. 
- 52.214-23 Late Submissions, Modifications, Revisions, and Withdrawals of Technical Proposals under Two-Step Sealed Bidding. 
- 52.214-24 Multiple Technical Proposals. 
- 52.214-25 Step Two of Two-Step Sealed Bidding. 
- 52.214-26 Audit and Records-Sealed Bidding. 
- 52.214-27 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data-Modifications-Sealed Bidding. 
- 52.214-28 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data-Modifications-Sealed Bidding. 
- 52.214-29 Order of Precedence-Sealed Bidding. 
- 52.214-30 [Reserved] 
- 52.214-31 Facsimile Bids. 
- 52.214-32 [Reserved] 
- 52.214-33 [Reserved] 
- 52.214-34 Submission of Offers in the English Language. 
- 52.214-35 Submission of Offers in U.S. Currency. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses