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


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  section  1350,  chapter  63 of  Title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned  officer  of Patron  Systems,  Inc.,  a  Delaware  corporation  (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify  with  respect to the report of the Company on
Form 10-QSB/A for the fiscal quarter ended  September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB/A Report") that:

1.       the 10-QSB/A  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 10-QSB/A Report fairly  presents,  in
         all  material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  results  of
         operations of the Company.


Date: May 21, 2007                    /S/ MARTIN T. JOHNSON
                                      ------------------------------------
                                      Martin T. Johnson
                                      Chief Financial Officer
1

The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1313

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

Israel John Patrick Davis, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 28, 2010

Filed: February 3, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Israel John Patrick Davis pleaded guilty

to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 500 grams or more

of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and

846. After granting the government’s substantial-assistance motions under U.S.S.G.

§ 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), the district court1

 sentenced Davis below the

mandatory term of life in prison to 204 months in prison and 5 years of supervised

release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
-2-

738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. In a pro se supplemental brief, Davis

requests new counsel, and argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the

district court proceedings below and in this appeal. 

Davis entered his guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement that contains

(1) a waiver of his right to appeal the district court’s entry of judgment, except for the

right to appeal an upward departure, and (2) a waiver of his right to bring

postconviction proceedings, except for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this appeal, because the record shows that Davis

entered his plea voluntarily, with full knowledge of and consent to the appeal waiver.

See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(enforceability of appeal waiver); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070,

1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). 

We reject as meritless Davis’s argument that counsel was ineffective in this

appeal, because he cannot demonstrate the requisite prejudice from counsel’s alleged

deficiencies. See United States v. Davis, 508 F.3d 461, 463-64 (8th Cir. 2007)

(defendant did not establish prejudice where counsel tendered Anders brief, because

appellate court reviews record and will order full briefing of any nonfrivolous issues).

Davis’s claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the proceedings

below should be raised (if at all) in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which Davis

reserved the right to do. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-

27 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the

appeal waiver. Accordingly, we deny Davis’s request for new appellate counsel; we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw; and we dismiss this appeal. 

______________________________
****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 annual report on Form 10-K of MGE Energy,  Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gary J. Wolter,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Gary J. WolterChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer  Date: March 15, 2004
#### § 9.33 Mediation.

The parties are encouraged to resolve disputes by using settlement judges to mediate settlement negotiations pursuant to the procedures and requirements of 29 CFR 18.13 or any successor to the regulation. Any settlement agreement reached must be approved by the assigned Administrative Law Judge consistent with the procedures and requirements of 29 CFR 18.71.
§ 510.2 Purpose and scope of regulations. ( a ) The purpose of these regulations is to implement the 1989 Amendments to the FLSA with respect to minimum wage increases in Puerto Rico. These regulations establish the applicable wage rates and effective dates in the four statutory tiers and categorize industries and governmental entities in Puerto Rico in those tiers according to average hourly wage rates. In addition, these regulations explain the methodology used to determine appropriate tiers, including the use of standard industrial classification (SIC) codes to categorize industries.
( b ) Subpart A of this part summarizes the provisions of the Amendments as applicable to Puerto Rico and defines the terms used herein. Subpart B of this part states the specific minimum wage rates for each tier and the effective dates of those rates. Subpart C of this part explains how industry and governmental categories were determined, the general methodology used to conduct the surveys which provided the data used to determine average hourly wage rates, and special issues in the classification of governmental entities. Appendix A of this part contains a listing of manufacturing industries by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code and indicates the tier to which each industry is subject. Appendix B of this part contains a listing of nonmanufacturing industries by SIC code and indicates the tier to which each industry is subject. Appendix C of this part contains a listing of government corporations and indicates the tier to which each such corporation is subject. Appendix D of this part contains a listing of municipalities and indicates the tier to which each municipality is subject.
( c ) Nothing contained in this part should be construed as precluding the Puerto Rico Minimum Wage Board, which has been granted authority to promulgate minimum wage rates above the Federal statutory minimum, from providing for increases in any industry which would exceed the rates provided for in these regulations or in section 6(a)(1) of the Act.
#### Katherine Venizelos, Respondent, v Nikitis Venizelos, Appellant.

Submitted August 7, 1995;

decided October 24, 1995

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed, with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Cross motion for incidental relief denied.
**Exhibit 99.1****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 on Form 10-K of MGE Energy,  Inc. for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gary J. Wolter,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that:

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

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations  of the Company.  /s/ Gary J. Wolter   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer  March 26, 2003
From: Charles Byrum/R6/USEPA/US@EPA

To: Russ Patterson <russ.patterson@wipp.ws>, Steve Kouba <steve.kouba@wipp.ws>

Cc: Jonathan Walsh/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Peake/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Thurber <wcthurber@verizon.net>

Date: 03/10/2010 08:25 AM

Subject: Fluid Injection Question, Increase rate and total volume

Russ, Steve,

While working on CARD 15 we saw that the average fluid injection rate has increased to 1,480

BWPD from 1,250 BWPD and the total injection volume has increase by 75%. But we could

not find in the 2009 CRA where this was considered, analyzed, and compared to the CCA

modeling to determine its impact or importance. Did we miss it, please help us out or we need

an analysis to be done?

Thanks,

Chuck Byrum
SHONDARIOUS CLEO BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2342

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 20, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Darlene F. Dickey, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 373 

Encouraging all employers to target veterans for recruitment and to provide 

preference in hiring to qualified veterans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2007 

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. AKAKA, and Mr. COLEMAN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Encouraging all employers to target veterans for recruitment 

and to provide preference in hiring to qualified veterans. 

Whereas the people of the United States have sincere appreciation and respect for the individuals who serve in the 

Armed Forces; 

Whereas in order to recognize their sacrifices, including time 

out from their civilian careers while serving in the Armed 

Forces, Congress enacted the Veterans’ Preference Act of 

1944 to restore veterans to a more favorable competitive 

position for Federal Government employment; 

Whereas, although veterans acquire skills and qualities during their military service that make them ideal candidates 

for employment, some veterans need assistance in readjusting to civilian life, including some young veterans who 

experience high unemployment rates; 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 373 ATS 

Whereas it is acknowledged that the dignity, pride, and satisfaction of a civilian job are essential to the smooth and 

full reintegration into civilian life of those who have answered our Nation’s call to arms; and 

Whereas all citizens and all employers benefit from the service of members of the Armed Forces and thus bear some 

responsibility to assist in the reintegration of former 

servicemembers into civilian life: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) urges all employers, private sector as well as 

3 State, county, and local government, to target vet4 erans for recruitment and to afford qualified vet5 erans hiring preference similar to the benefits pro6 vided by chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, 

7 to preference eligibles, as defined in section 2108 of 

8 such title. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
(77 South. 1005)

#### TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R. CO. v. ELLIS.

(6 Div. 447.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 29, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Romaine Boyd, Judge.

Percy, Benners & Burr, of Birmingham, for appellant. Beddow & Oberdorfer, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 111 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 111

 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Citizens' Stamp Advisory 
      Committee should recommend to the Postmaster General that a 
  commemorative stamp be issued honoring the life of Oskar Schindler.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 19, 2007

  Mr. Coleman (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
   Levin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Specter, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. 
    Feinstein, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Menendez) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Citizens' Stamp Advisory 
      Committee should recommend to the Postmaster General that a 
  commemorative stamp be issued honoring the life of Oskar Schindler.

Whereas Oskar Schindler acted as a hero during the Nazi occupation of Poland and 
        selflessly rescued 1,200 Jewish men, women, and children by employing 
        them in his factory, at risk to his own life and that of his wife;
Whereas Oskar Schindler also rescued approximately 100 Jewish men and women from 
        the Goleszow concentration camp, who lay trapped and partly frozen in 2 
        sealed train cars stranded near Runlets;
Whereas Oskar Schindler embodied ideals of the United States, such as the 
        pursuit of freedom, liberty, and opposition to tyranny, and many of the 
        Jewish people who fled the Nazi occupation made the United States their 
        home;
Whereas millions of people in the United States have been made aware of the 
        story of Oskar Schindler's bravery;
Whereas, on July 18, 1967, Yad Vashem decided to recognize Oskar Schindler as 
        one of the Righteous Among the Nations, or ``righteous Gentiles'', an 
        honor awarded by Israel to non-Jews who saved Jews during the Holocaust 
        at great personal risk;
Whereas the 100th anniversary of Oskar Schindler's birth is April 28, 2008; and
Whereas Oskar Schindler is a true humanitarian, deserving of honor by the United 
        States Government: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Citizens' 
Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend to the Postmaster General 
that a commemorative stamp be issued honoring the life of Oskar 
Schindler.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 794.7 Interpretations made, continued, and superseded by this part.

On and after publication of this part in the Federal Register, the interpretations contained therein shall be in effect and shall remain in effect until they are modified, rescinded, or withdrawn. Prior opinions, rulings, and interpretations and prior enforcement policies which are not inconsistent with the interpretations in this part or with the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended by the Fair Labor Standards Amendment of 1966 and which were in effect at the time of such publication are continued in effect; all other opinions, rulings, interpretations, and enforcement policies on the subjects discussed in the interpretations in this part are rescinded and withdrawn.
<PAGE>

EX-11
Statement re: computation of earnings per share

LOSS PER SHARE

Computation of loss per share
(in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                           Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                                              1998            1999
                                                                              ----            ----
<S>                                                                         <C>             <C>
Net loss                                                                    $ 20,266        $ 34,663
                                                                            ========        ========

Net loss attributable to common stockholders                                $ 20,266        $ 58,274
                                                                            ========        ========

Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding
used in computing basic and diluted net loss per share
outstanding                                                                    6,179          14,565
                                                                            ========        ========

Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to
common shareholders                                                         $  (3.28)       $  (3.98)
                                                                            ========        ========

Shares of common stock used in computing pro forma basic
and diluted net loss per share                                                                21,027
                                                                                            ========

Pro forma basic and diluted net loss per share                                              $  (2.77)
                                                                                            ========
</TABLE>
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Job Histories of Women Workers at the Summer Schools, 1931-34 and 1938

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Snyder, Eleanor M. 						*Job Histories of Women Workers at the Summer Schools, 1931-34 and 1938 : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 174*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1939,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5447,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                                                             |  |                        |  |           |  
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | --------- | -
|Subsidiary                                                                                   |  | State of Incorporation |  | Ownership |  
|Magellan Petroleum Australia Limited                                                         |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum Australia Limited owns the following subsidiaries directly or indirectly: |  |                        |  |           |  
|Magellan Petroleum (N.T.) Pty. Ltd.                                                          |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Paroo Petroleum Pty. Ltd.                                                                    |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Paroo Petroleum (Holdings), Inc.                                                             |  | Delaware, U.S.A.       |  | 100       | %
|Paroo Petroleum (USA), Inc.                                                                  |  | Delaware, U.S.A.       |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum (W.A.) Pty. Ltd.                                                          |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum (U.K.) Limited                                                            |  | United Kingdom         |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum (Eastern) Pty. Ltd.                                                       |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum (Southern) Pty. Ltd.                                                      |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum (N.Z.) Limited                                                            |  | New Zealand            |  | 100       | %
|United Oil & Gas Co. (N.T.) Pty. Ltd                                                         |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum (Qld.) Pty. Ltd.                                                          |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 80        | %
|Magellan Petroleum (Ventures) Pty. Ltd.                                                      |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Jarl Pty. Ltd.                                                                               |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
#### § 801.58 General.

Except as provided in this subpart, and to the extent they do not conflict with the provisions of this subpart, the “Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges” established by the Secretary at 29 CFR part 18 shall apply to administrative proceedings under this subpart.