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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Birch Branch, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”), I, Lei Wang, 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), as applicable, 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: August 14, 2012 | /s/ Lei Wang                                                 
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | Lei Wang                                                     
|                      | Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed from within the
electronic version of this written statement 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.
§ 19.345 What happens if I fail to disclose information required under § 19.335? If we later determine that you failed to disclose information under § 19.335 that you knew at the time you entered into the covered transaction, we may— ( a ) Terminate the transaction for material failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the transaction; or
( b ) Pursue any other available remedies, including suspension and debarment.
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6658-1 Addition to tax in case of jeopardy.

Upon a finding by the district director that any taxpayer violated, or attempted to violate, section 6851 (relating to termination of taxable year) there shall, in addition to all other penalties, be added as part of the tax 25 percent of the total amount of the tax or deficiency in the tax.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MARK DEVIN PARTMAN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 00377

- CMC

- 1 )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Mark Devin Partman , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mark Devin Partman, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. The district
court denied Partman’s motion after assessing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explained its reasons for the denial. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denia l of compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decision al process.
AFFIRMED
(Superior Court of Cincinnati,

1901.)

#### WEBER v. NALTNER.

While under the old chancery practice claims-against a receiver, like those against the estate in receivership,- were presented by intervening petition; under the code such claims may be presented by cross-petition, or even by mere motion.

Where, without formal leave a person interested comes into the case, and his application is entertained by the court, and his claim: heard and determined on the merits, such action of the court is- equivalent to a leave to-come into the case, notwithstanding such informality.

Dempsey, J.

The motion herein filed must be granted on the ground that the matters presented by said' answer and petition have been once before-presented to the court by said Burton on a motion made at least in open court and were determined by a hearing on the evidence before his Honor Judge Jackson. The plea presented by this answering defendant that he was not formally made a party defendant herein, and that he now wishes to have this answer and cross-petition filed so that he can make a perfect record is answered by the fact that the state of the record shows that his application was formally presented to' the court, although he was not formally made a party; that it was heard upon its merits, and was denied. Claims against a receiver, like those against the estate in receivership under the old chancery petition were presented by intervening petition. See Beach on Receivers, section 819, Alderson’s Ed. Under the code, I see no reason why they might not be presented by what is now designated a cross-petition, or *325even by motion. A motion it seems to me would be a proper method of calling the court’s attention to claims against the receiver, and asking an order on him for the payment thereof. Of course, the person interested urged to have leave to come in; but where without formal leave, the person did come in, and his application was entertained by the court, and passed upon, all of which the record shows, the very action of the court is equivalent and more than an. equivalent to a leave to come in, and especially as no objection was interposed to the informality of the application. See Myers v. Fenn, 5 Wallace, 205. My judgment is that Mr. Burton is now in this case; that he has had his claim adjudicated in this case, and that he cannot now have it even formally passed upon under a new answer and cross-petition. .

Wm. Worthington, for the motion.

Clyde Johnson, contra.

Motion granted.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of GTECH Holdings Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 27, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jaymin
B. Patel, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to sections 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date: October 4, 2005                   /s/ Jaymin B. Patel
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jaymin B. Patel, Senior Vice President
                                        and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 101.8 Discretion of the Secretary.

The Secretary of the Treasury retains complete discretion to deny any claim of any petitioner when the Secretary believes it is not in the best interest of the Government to return the bullion to the petitioner or when the Secretary is not convinced that the petitoner was an innocent purchaser or holder without knowledge that the gold coins were counterfeit.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for CSMC 2016-NXSR Commercial Mortgage Trust,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-NXSR

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of December 1, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as followsas of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1287

For the relief of Nguyen Quy An and Nguyen Ngoc Kim Quy.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 1995

Mr. MINETA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Nguyen Quy An and Nguyen Ngoc Kim

Quy.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR NGUYEN

4 QUY AN AND NGUYEN NGOC KIM QUY.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

7 Act, Nguyen Quy An and Nguyen Ngoc Kim Quy shall

8 each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for

9 adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted

10 for permanent residence upon filing an application for is11 suance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such
2

•HR 1287 IH

1 Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resi2 dent.

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Nguyen Quy An

4 or Nguyen Ngoc Kim Quy enters the United States before

5 the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he or she

6 shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully

7 and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment

8 of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Na9 tionality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

10 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

11 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap12 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica13 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

14 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

15 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

16 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res17 idence to Nguyen Quy An and Nguyen Ngoc Kim Quy,

18 the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to

19 reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal

20 year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made

21 available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth

22 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality

23 Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas
3

•HR 1287 IH

1 that are made available to natives of the country of the

2 aliens’ birth under section 202(e) of such Act.

Æ
### The Honorab le Joseph E. Stevens, Jr., United States District 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-3324

___________ Pamela S. Freitag, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * ELI, also known as Employer * [UNPUBLISHED] Advantage; Wilson, Turner, Gavin,* Inc., * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 1, 1996 Filed: August 9, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Pame la Freitag brought an employment discrimination action agains t ELI, also known as Employer Advantage, and Wilson, Turner, Gavin, Inc . ("WTG"). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, supported by affidavits, arguing that neither ELI nor WTG wa s an " employer" within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) . Fre itagresponded and submitted exhibits for the district court's 1 evaluation. After considering the parties' submissions, the district cour t granted defendants' motion. Freitag appeals.

### -2- After carefully reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, w e conclude the district court's judgment was corre ct. Contrary to Freitag's ar gument on appeal, the district court properly considered material s outsid e the pleadings without treating defendants' motion as one fo r summaryjudgment, and could undertake its jurisdictional inquiry without conducting a formal evidentiary hearing or forewarning the parties. See Osborn v. United States , 918 F.2d 724, 729-30 (8th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Quarterly Report of JMAR Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), C. Neil Beer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Dennis E.Valentine, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of ourknowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.         By: /s/ C. Neil Beer             C. Neil Beer      Chief Executive Officer           By: /s/ Dennis E. Valentine             Dennis E. Valentine      Chief Financial Officer         August11, 2006
§ 1.6052-2 Statements to be furnished employees with respect to wages paid in the form of group-term life insurance. ( a ) *Requirement.* Every employer filing a return under section 6052(a) and § 1.6052-1, with respect to group-term life insurance on the life of an employee, shall furnish to the employee whose name is set forth in such return the tax return copy and the employee's copy of Form W-2. Each copy of Form W-2 must show the information required to be shown on the Form W-2 filed under § 1.6052-1. An employer may truncate an employee's social security number to appear in the form of an IRS truncated taxpayer identification number (TTIN) on copies of Forms W-2 furnished to the employee. For provisions relating to the use of TTINs, see § 301.6109-4 of this chapter (Procedure and Administration Regulations). The rules in § 31.6051-1 of this chapter (Employment Taxes and Collection of Income Tax at Source Regulations) shall apply with respect to the means and time (including extensions thereof) for furnishing the employee's copy of Form W-2 required by this section to the employee and making corrections to such form.
( b ) *Definitions.* Terms used in this section and in section 79 and the regulations thereunder have the meaning ascribed to them in section 79 and the regulations thereunder.
( c ) *Penalty.* For provisions relating to the penalty provided for failure to furnish a statement under this section, see section 6722 and the regulations in part 301 under section 6722.
( d ) *Applicability date.* This section is applicable for statements required to be furnished under section 6052 after December 31, 2020.
[T.D. 6888, 31 FR 9205, July 6, 1966, as amended by T.D. 7284, 38 FR 20828, Aug. 3, 1973; T.D. 7580, 43 FR 60160, Dec. 26, 1978; T.D. 7623, 44 FR 28800, May 17, 1979; T.D. 9861, 84 FR 31719, July 3, 2019]
#### § 20.620 Cooperative agreement.

*Cooperative agreement* means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6305, is used to enter into the same kind of relationship as a grant (see definition of grant in § 20.650), except that substantial involvement is expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award. The term does not include cooperative research and development agreements as defined in 15 U.S.C. 3710a.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 14, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 14, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0298. WILLIE SHEPHERD, III v. CYNTHIA M. THORNTON.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2013V309
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Penions Assets Partnership 1989-2, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations  contained  in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         118,072
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  45,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,323
<PP&E>                                         1,416,807
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,182,522)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 397,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,766
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     394,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   397,608
<SALES>                                        68,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               70,310
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  20,739<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                31,948
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            31,948
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   31,948
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
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
 .
  1.
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
 Date: February 17, 2009
    
    /s/ J. Marcus ScrudderJ. MARCUS SCRUDDERChief Executive Officer
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1070

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 20 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam in the

Central Valley project, California, as ‘‘Trinity Lake’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF TRINITY LAKE.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The reservoir created by Trinity

5 Dam in the Central Valley project, California, and des6 ignated as ‘‘Clair Engle Lake’’ by Public Law 88–662 (78

7 Stat. 1093) is hereby redesignated as ‘‘Trinity Lake’’.
2

HR 1070 RFS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula2 tion, document, record, map, or other paper of the United

3 States to the reservoir referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be considered to be a reference to ‘‘Trinity Lake’’.

5 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Public Law 88–662

6 (78 Stat. 1093) is repealed.

Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Reaffirmation of Guaranty



 Exhibit 10.4 
 REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY 
 This Reaffirmation of Guaranty is made
by the undersigned in favor of COMERICA BANK, a Texas banking association (“Bank”). The undersigned acknowledges that MANITEX LIFTKING, ULC, a corporation incorporated under the provincial laws of Alberta (“Borrower”) and Bank
have executed that certain Amendment No. 1 to Note dated August 10, 2012 (“Amendment”), which amends that certain US$6,500,000.00 Amended and Restated Master Revolving Note dated December 23, 2011 by Borrower payable to Bank
(as amended, the “Revolving Note”) to increase the face amount of the Revolving Note to US$8,000,000. 
 The
undersigned consents to Borrower’s execution of the Amendment, ratifies its obligations under its Guaranty dated December 23, 2011 executed and delivered to Bank (“Guaranty”), confirms that the Guaranty remains in full force and
effect with respect to the Revolving Note, as amended by the Amendment, and certifies that it does not have any defense or setoff to its obligations under the Guaranty. 
 The undersigned certifies to Bank that its (i) Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, and (ii) Corporate Resolutions and Incumbency Certification (Authority to Support Another’s Borrowings)
dated December 23, 2011, each previously delivered to Bank: (x) remain in full force and effect, (y) have not been amended, rescinded or repealed in any respect, and (z) may continue to be relied upon by Bank until express
written notice to the contrary is delivered to Bank. 
 Execution of this Reaffirmation does not amend or modify any of the
terms and conditions of the Guaranty, and Bank may continue to rely thereon without qualification. 
 Dated: August 10, 2012 

 

			
	MANITEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David H. Gransee

	Name:	 	David H. Gransee
	Its:	 	VP &CFO