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



CERTIFICATION



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), each of the undersigned officers
of China Marine Food Group Limited, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:



The Amendment
No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the "Amendment") of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Amendment fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to China Marine Food Group Limited and will be retained by China Marine Food Group Limited
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|Dated: December 13, 2012 | /s/ Marco Hon Wai Ku                     
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------
|                         | Marco Hon Wai Ku, Chief Financial Officer
Celebrate the Senior Nutrition Program
Cinda Foundation Inc

Business Name Loan Type Date Amount Trans Type Lender Acct #

Cinda Foundation Inc PPP Loan 4/9/2021 $104,166.67 Preauthorized Credit Itria Ventures LLC 6917

Funded Loans 

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 204-49 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

JAMES BRANDON, CASE NO.: 9:22-cv-81327

Plaintiff,

v.

PARAMOUNT RECOVERY SYSTEMS, L.P.;

HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC;

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC;

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; and

TRANSUNION LLC, 

Defendants.

______________________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

The undersigned hereby appears in this action as lead counsel for Defendant, 

PARAMOUNT RECOVERY SYSTEMS, L.P., and requests that all future pleadings, motions, 

notices, and correspondence be served on undersigned counsel pursuant to the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court.

Dated the 3

rd day of October, 2022. PARAMOUNT RECOVERY SYSTEMS, 

L.P.

By: /s/ Hector E. Lora

Hector E. Lora, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 755842

MAURICE WUTSCHER LLP

1801 N.E. 123rd Street, Suite 314

North Miami, Florida, 33181

Direct Tel. No. (786) 553-8082

Fax: (305) 757-6682

Email: HLora@MauriceWutscher.com and 

Litigation@MauriceWutscher.com 

Case 9:22-cv-81327-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Certificate of Service

I CERTIFY that on the 3

rd day of October, 2022, a copy hereof was served on the 

following interested parties via CM/ECF:

Trescot Gear, Esq.

McCarthy Law PLC

4250 North Drinkwater Blvd., Suite 320

Scottsdale, AZ 85281

E-mail: trescotgear@gmail.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

s/ Hector E. Lora

Case 9:22-cv-81327-DMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 2 of 2
459 P.2d 349

#### MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James P. KELLY and Ynes Kelly, husband and wife, Defendants, Counter-claimants and Appellants.

No. 10361.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Sept. 29, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1969.

James P. Kelly and Ynes Kelly, pro se.

Stephan & Balleisen, Twin Falls, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, James P. Kelly and Ynes Kelly, are the owners of real property situated in Jerome County, Idaho. Prior to their acquisition of the property, the State of Idaho secured a highway right-of-way across the property from the federal government in conformance with the Federal Aid Plighway Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 212). Also prior to acquisition of the property by the Kellys, Plaintiff-respondent, telephone company, placed and thereafter maintained telephone poles and lines upon and along said highway right-of-way. Plaintiff-respondent sought to remove its telephone facilities and defendant-appellants prevented the removal claiming ownership of the facilities and that they were entitled to delinquent rental for the use of the facilities. Plaintiff-respondent brought action to enjoin defendant-appellants from hindering its efforts to remove the facilities. Plaintiff sought and gained summary judgment in the district court and defendants appeal.

This Court in State ex rel. Burns v. Kelly, 89 Idaho 139, 403 P.2d 566 (1965), held that the portion of highway right-of-way in controversy here not used for actual road purposes is not forfeited to the owner of the fee title. The telephone company had the clear legal right to place and maintain their facilities upon the highway right-of-way, Idaho Constitution, Article 11, § 13, § 62-701, I.C., and such facilities impose no additional burden for which the owner of the fee is entitled to compensation. United States v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 318 U.S. 206, 63 S.Ct. 534, 87 L.Ed. 716 (1943).

The entry of summary judgment by the district court is affirmed. Costs to respondent.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14555]



[[Page 36685]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-200-054]


Reliant Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

June 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 31, 2000, Reliant Energy Gas Transmission 
Company (REGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective 
June 1, 2000:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 8F
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 8G

    REGT states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect the 
expiration of an existing negotiated rate contract and the addition of 
a new negotiated rate contract.
    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, NE., Washington, DC 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 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. 00-14555 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  Agency Information

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/Agency Information Agency InformationADR2022-02-17T18:31:00-05:00
			
			Agency InformationBecause of the different structures and various missions of the various federal agencies, a one-size-fits-all approach is not feasible.  This is why the FAR permits federal agencies to issue supplemental acquisition regulations as a way to explain or implement the basic FAR requirements in a way that fits their particular Agency.  Agencies vary widely regarding the details they provide regarding their agency-level protest procedures.  For example:
The Department of Defense has the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, also referred to as DFARS.  Individual agencies within the Department of Defense may have additional policies and directives, such as —
The Air Force has the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS)
The Army has the Army Federal Acquistion Supplement (AFARS)
The Navy and Marines have the Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Supplement (NMCARS)
The Department of Transportation has the Transportation Acquisition Regulation (TAR)
The Department of the Treasury has the Department of the Treasury Acquisition Regulation (DTAR)
The Internal Revenue Service has the Internal Revenue Service Acquisition Procedure (IRSAP).
The Justice Acquisition Regulation (JAR) covers the following offices and agencies: Assistant Attorney General for Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Prison Industries, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Marshals Service, and the Office of the Inspector General.The benefit of the FAR permitting federal agencies to implement agency guidance is that it permits a particular agency to conduct business in a way that best fits is mission needs.  However, the drawback is that not all federal agencies will conduct business in the same manner, which can potentially lead to confusion when federal agencies conduct transactions with each other. Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
# A-1 sel info by St
Exhibit 32.2

                            RELM WIRELESS 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 RELM Wireless Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William P. Kelly, Vice President-Finance and 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 the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                 RELM Wireless Corporation


                                                 /s/William P. Kelly
                                                 ----------------------------
                                                 William P. Kelly
                                                 Executive Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                 November 5, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                                             386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                       451
<INVENTORY>                                     17,352
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,437
<PP&E>                                          32,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,447
<BONDS>                                         24,419
<COMMON>                                        23,810
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,961)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,178
<SALES>                                         91,127
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,127
<CGS>                                           67,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,866
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,610
<INCOME-TAX>                                       618
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                992
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       992
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:22-CV-61553-DIMITROULEAS/HUNT

CRUZ VALDIVIESO FIGUERA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALL VIP CARE INC. AND LIZ 

VELAZQUEZ MCKINNON,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, through her undersigned counsel, requests this Court 

grant her an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 

No. 57], which relief is not objected to by the Defendant.

1. Defendants, All VIP Care Inc. and Liz Velazquez McKinnon, filed their Amended 

Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) on July 14, 2022, making Plaintiff’s 

response due on July 28, 2022.

2. Plaintiff requests until August 2, 2023 to respond to the Motion. 

3. Undersigned counsel was in trial from July 10, 2023 to July 14, 2023 in Case No. 

1:22-cv-22671.

4. Defendants filed their Motion on July 14, 2023. 

5. After preparing for trial for more than one week, and being in trial for another week, 

undersigned counsel has been catching up on time-sensitive work in numerous cases. 

6. As such, undersigned counsel is in need of an extension of time to respond to the 

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 72 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2023 Page 1 of 2
Motion.

7. The undersigned conferred with Defense counsel, who does not oppose the extension. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant the requested extension of 

time.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

Pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1, I hereby certify that I contacted Defendants’ counsel, 

Randy Goldberg, regarding the relief requested in this Motion. Mr. Goldberg confirmed that 

Defendants do not oppose the relief sought herein.

Respectfully submitted on July 25, 2022.

/s/Toussaint Cummings, Esq.

Toussaint Cummings, Esq. (119877)

toussaint@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Ave.

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 72 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 17.01-1 Basis and purpose.

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2601 (formerly the Act of March 11, 1948, secs. 1, to 4, 62 Stat. 71, 72); and Treasury Department Order No. 167-1, dated January 16, 1953 (18 FR 671), the regulations in this part are hereby prescribed to provide for the acceptance and subsequent use of gifts, devises, or bequests of property, real or personal, made on the condition that they be used for the benefit of, or in connection with, the establishment, operation, maintenance, or administration of any school, hospital, library, museum, chapel, or other institution or organization under the jurisdiction of the United States Coast Guard.

[CGFR 61-36, 26 FR 9321, Oct. 3, 1961]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,332
<SECURITIES>                                        90
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,999
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,672
<PP&E>                                          93,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 357,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,539
<BONDS>                                         41,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                     239,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   357,773
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,887
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (18)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,514
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,054
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (46,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,188
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,875)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,875)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAVID M. WILLIAMS, § § No. 347, 2014 Defendant-Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware in and v. § for New Castle County § STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Cr. ID Nos. 9803018202A Plaintiff-Below, § 9803018202B Appellee. § Submitted: July 15, 2014 Decided: July 17, 2014 O R D E R This 17th day of July 2014, it appears to the Court that on June 27, 2014, David M. Williams filed a notice of appeal seeking “review” of the “Rule 61” dated “6-11-14” in Cr. ID Nos. 9803018202A and 9803018202B. On June 30, 2014, the Clerk issued a notice under Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing that Williams show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed “for this Court’s lack of jurisdicti on because it appears no final order was entered on June 11, 2014 in the Superi or Court.” Willia ms did not respond to the notice to show cause. Under Supreme Court Rule 3(b)(2), Williams’ failure to respond to the notice to show cause is deemed to be his consent to the dismissal of this appeal.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERE D, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice
#### Darby *v.*The State.

Submitted November 19,

Decided December 11, 1906.

Accusation of vagrancy. Before Judge Willis. City court of Columbus. October 20, 1906.

*S. T. Pinlcston,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. H. Swift, solicitor,*and *L. O. Slade,*contra.

Cobb, P. J.

1. Evidence which establishes that one is an habitual loafer and loiterer both morning and evening “in the tenderloin district” of a city, who is able to work and has no property, no reasonably continuous employment, and no regular income, is sufficient to support a conviction for the offense of vagrancy under the provisions of the Penal Code, § 453, par. 3. *Carter*v. *State,*126 *Ga.*570.

2. While there were serious conflicts in the evidence on pome of the material points involved in the ease, there was ample evidence to authorize the verdict; and the discretion of the judge in overruling the motion for new trial will not be interfered with.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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 Avenue Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Levi Mochkin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.



Date: May 28, 2008

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ Levi Mochkin                     
| | Levi Mochkin                         
| | Chief Executive Officer and President
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Introduction","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"aDlq5hn9RB\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/intro\/\">Introduction<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/intro\/embed\/#?secret=aDlq5hn9RB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Introduction” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"aDlq5hn9RB\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}