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



EXHIBIT 32.2 SECTION 906 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND
ACCOUNTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code I, Lawrence R. Kuhnert, the Vice Chairman of Finance (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer), President and Chief Operating Officer of Arcadia Resources, Inc., certify that, to the
best of my knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Arcadia Resources, Inc. /s/ Lawrence R. KuhnertVice Chairman of Finance(Principal Financial and
     Accounting Officer), President
     and Chief Operating Officer Dated: February 14, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Arcadia Resources, Inc. The statement will be retained by Arcadia Resources, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1543

In re: TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Nos. 1:08

- cr - 00322

- TDS

- 1; 1:16

- cv - 00725

- TDS

- JEP)

Submitted : September 28, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Travis Denorris Arnold petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our revie w of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court dismissed the motion on June 23, 2017 . Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Arnold ’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny Arnold’s motion to suspend appellate proceedings. 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 decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 3, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-14054

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 99-01317-MD-PAS

VALLEY DRUG COMPANY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

TRUSTEES OF THE CORRECTION OFFICERS BENEVOLENT 

ASSOCIATION

SECURITY BENEFITS FUND- RETIREES, 

CORRECTIONS OFFICERS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION

SECURITY 

BENEFITS FUNDS ACTIVE,, 

TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 445 FREIGHT DIVISION WELFARE

FUND, 

TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 445 CONSTRUCTION DIVISION

WELFARD FUND, 

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 

BLUECROSS BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, 

BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF MINNESOTA, 

BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, 

CAREFIRST, 

FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

HEALTH CARE SERVICES CORPORATION, 

MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
2

versus 

GENEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, 

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

 (May 3, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this class action, the district court, pursuant to a settlement agreement that

had been negotiated and would be presented to the court for approval, established

April 11, 2005, as the deadline for the claims administrator’s receipt of opt-out

requests. Appellants missed this deadline and moved the court for Fed. R. Civ. P.

6(b) relief – so that they could take their claims elsewhere. The court held a

hearing on appellants’ motions, considered the parties submissions and arguments,

and denied the motions. Appellants appeal the court’s rulings.

We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. After
3

considering the parties briefs and the relevant portions of the record, we find no

such abuse.

AFFIRMED.
## I

N T H E C O U R

T O F C R I M I N A L A P P EA L S O F T EX A S
N O S. A P - 75, 860 & A P - 75, 861

EX PA R TE D A N I EL EL I A R A N D A JR. , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ONS F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N OS . 0 8 3 7 1 3 4 A & 0 8 3 7 1 3 6 A I N T HE 2 1 3 t h DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM TARRA NT CO UNTY

P ercur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the p ro v i s i o n s of Article 11.07 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure, the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt these a pplications for a

writ of habe as corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convi ct edof two ag gravated robbe ries and sente nced to tenyear s’ imprisonment in each c ause. Appl i ca n t contends, inte r a lia , that his counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive assistanc e bec ause he failed to timely

file notices of

appea l. The trial court has deter

mined, afte r obtaining an aff idavit f rom trial counsel, th at trial counsel fa iled to timely file notices of appea l. We f ind, the ref

ore, that Applicant is entitled to theopportunity to file out -of- time appea ls of the judgments of conviction in Cause Nos. 0837134A and 0837136Afrom the 213thJ udicial District Court of TARRANT County . Applicant is order ed
re tur ne d to that ti me at whic h he may g ive writt e n n oti c e s o f a

pp e a l so that he may

the n, wi th t

he a id of counse l, obtain meani n gfu l ap p ea ls. All ti me limits shall be ca lculated a s if the sentenc es had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. W e hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute appea ls in these causes, he must take affirmative steps to file written notices of
a pp e a l in the tr ia l c ourt

wi thi n 3 0 d ay s a ft e r t

he mand ate of

thi s Co ur t is su e s. Applicant’s other

claims are dismiss ed. Deliver ed: Marc h 5, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7109

TERRELL JOYNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00661-MSD-RJK)

Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrell Roshad Joyner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrell Joyner seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Joyner has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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 decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 17, 2009 

0714 

Order 

 

July 17, 2009 

139190 & (32)(33) 

THOMAS WELGOSH and MARIE ANNE 

WELGOSH, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 139190 

 COA: 290196 

Oakland CC: 2002-042140-CH 

TRI-MOUNT CUSTOM HOMES, INC. and 

MARK DEMBS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should now be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay of arbitration proceedings is 

DENIED.
**Exhibit32.1**

Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

In connection with the Annual Report ofGB&T Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard A. Hunt, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ Richard A. Hunt                      |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Richard A. Hunt, Chief Executive Officer |

 

March 16, 2007

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to GB&T Bancshares,Inc. and will be retained by GB&T and furnished to the SEC or its staffupon request.

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26597-26598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11354]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT00-29-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

May 2, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 28, 2000, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised 
tariff sheets to become effective April 28, 2000:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 6A
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 8
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 9

    Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets are being 
filed simply to update its System Maps with the most recent information 
available.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public

[[Page 26598]]

inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on 
the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11354 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 27.901 Installation. ( a ) For the purpose of this part, the powerplant installation includes each part of the rotorcraft (other than the main and auxiliary rotor structures) that— ( 1 ) Is necessary for propulsion;
( 2 ) Affects the control of the major propulsive units; or
( 3 ) Affects the safety of the major propulsive units between normal inspections or overhauls.
( b ) For each powerplant installation— ( 1 ) Each component of the installation must be constructed, arranged, and installed to ensure its continued safe operation between normal inspections or overhauls for the range of temperature and altitude for which approval is requested;
( 2 ) Accessibility must be provided to allow any inspection and maintenance necessary for continued airworthiness;
( 3 ) Electrical interconnections must be provided to prevent differences of potential between major components of the installation and the rest of the rotorcraft;
( 4 ) Axial and radial expansion of turbine engines may not affect the safety of the installation; and
( 5 ) Design precautions must be taken to minimize the possibility of incorrect assembly of components and equipment essential to safe operation of the rotorcraft, except where operation with the incorrect assembly can be shown to be extremely improbable.
( c ) The installation must comply with— ( 1 ) The installation instructions provided under § 33.5 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) The applicable provisions of this subpart.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, and 603, 72 Stat. 752, 775, 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423; sec. 6(c), 49 U.S.C. 1655(c))
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-2, 33 FR 963, Jan. 26, 1968; Amdt. 27-12, 42 FR 15044, Mar. 17, 1977; Amdt. 27-23, 53 FR 34211, Sept. 2, 1988]
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Eric J. Pulaski, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1 of BindView Development
Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control 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 financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: December 20, 2004 /s/ ERIC J. PULASKI
Eric J. Pulaski
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10(k)


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT UNDER THE

HAGGAR CORP. SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


 


This First Amendment to Participation Agreement Under the Haggar Corp.
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (this “Amendment”) is entered into this 14 day of February, 2003
(the “Effective Date”), by
and between Haggar Clothing Co., a Nevada corporation, having its principal
place of business in Dallas, Texas (“Participating
Employer”), and Frank D. Bracken (the “Participant”).  Capitalized terms used herein, but not
otherwise defined, shall have the same meaning assigned to them in the
Participation Agreement (as defined below).


 


RECITALS


 


A.            Participating
Employer and Participant entered into that certain Participation Agreement
Under the Haggar Corp. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, dated as of
October 1, 1999 (the “Participation Agreement”);  and


 


B.            The
parties desire to amend the terms of the Participation Agreement as set forth
herein.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and agreements herein
contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.             Amendment of Section 4.  Section 4 of the Participation Agreement is
hereby amended by adding the following to the end of the Participant’s Vested
Benefit Schedule:


 




	
  Percent Vested

  	
   

  	
  Continued
  Service Until Attainment of Age

  
	
  100%

  	
   

  	
  Any age upon
  a Change of Control under Section 4.2 of the Plan.

  






 


2.             Effect.  Except as amended by this Amendment, all of the provisions of the
Participation Agreement are hereby affirmed, ratified and declared to be in
full force and effect.


 


3.             Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original and together shall constitute one and the
same Amendment.


 


4.             Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas without application
of the conflict of laws principles thereof, except to the extent preempted by
federal law, which shall govern to such extent.


 


[REMAINDER OF PAGE
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been entered into as of the date
and year first above written.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  PARTICIPATING EMPLOYER:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  HAGGAR CLOTHING CO.,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  a Nevada corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/  David Tehle

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:  David Tehle

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:  Executive Vice
  President

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  and Chief
  Financial Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  PARTICIPANT:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/  Frank D. Bracken

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Frank D. Bracken

  



 


2
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to the requirement
set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), the undersigned officer of
Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to the
best of such officers knowledge, that:  (i)    the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2007, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Annual
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of
the Exchange Act; and  (ii)   the
information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  In Witness
Whereof, the
undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 17th day of March,
2008.  /s/ ERIC H. BJERKHOLTEric H. BjerkholtSenior Vice President,
  Corporate Development and Finance,Chief Financial Officer   This certification
accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### ATLAS INSURANCE CO. v. JOHNSON-ALLEN UNDERTAKING CO.

(Decided April 6, 1916.)

Appeal from Mobile Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. Safeold Berney.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.