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

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the annual report of Staktek Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, W. Kirk Patterson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: March 8, 2006



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|/s/ W. Kirk Patterson                            
|W. Kirk Patterson                                
|Senior Vice President and Chief 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 form within the electronic version 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.
Order entered November 18, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00856-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.B AND R.D.B, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-15158

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s November 15, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by DECEMBER 30, 2015.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
§ 90.490 One-way paging operations in the private services. ( a ) Subject to specific prohibition or restriction by rule provisions governing the radio service in which a licensee's radio system is authorized, paging operations are permitted: ( 1 ) Where the signals and messages are transmitted by a control operator of the licensee stationed at a licensed control point in the licensee's system of communication.
( 2 ) Where the signals and messages are transmitted from an operating position within an internal system of communication which meets the tests of §§ 90.471 through 90.475.
( 3 ) Where the signals and messages are transmitted from a dispatch point within the licensee's system of communication, as defined as § 90.7.
( b ) Systems employing dial-up circuits (§ 90.461(c)) may be used in one-way paging operations, but only where the paging signals are transmitted as provided at paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( c ) Paging may be initiated directly from telephone positions in the public switched telephone network. When land stations are multiple licensed or otherwise shared by authorized users, arrangements for the telephone service must be made with a duly authorized carrier by users, licensees, or their authorized agents on a non-profit, cost-shared basis. When telephone service costs are shared, at least one licensee participating in the cost sharing arrangements must maintain cost sharing records and the costs must be distributed at least once a year. Licensees, users, or their authorized agents may also make joint use arrangements with a duly authorized carrier and arrange that each licensee or user pay the carrier directly for the licensee's or user's share of the joint use of the shared telephone service. A report of the cost distribution must be placed in the licensee's station records and made available to participants in the sharing arrangement and the Commission upon request. In all cases, arrangements with the duly authorized carrier must disclose the number of licensees and users and the nature of the use.
[47 FR 39509, Sept. 8, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 56231, Dec. 20, 1983; 52 FR 15501, Apr. 29, 1987]
§ 87.135 Bandwidth of emission. ( a ) Occupied bandwidth is the width of a frequency band such that, below the lower and above the upper frequency limits, the mean powers emitted are each equal to 0.5 percent of the total mean power of a given emission.
( b ) The authorized bandwidth is the maximum occupied bandwidth authorized to be used by a station.
( c ) The necessary bandwidth for a given class of emission is the width of the frequency band which is just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions.
Case 16-25207 Doc 43 Filed 11/28/16 Entered 12/02/16 11:10:41 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.02


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


In connection with the Annual Report of Phoenix Leasing Cash  Distribution  Fund
V, L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31,
2002 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  Andrew  Gregson,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the General
Partner,  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 Partnership.

                                                      /S/ANDREW GREGSON
                                                      -----------------
                                                      Andrew Gregson
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                                      March 28, 2003
§ 80.933 General small passenger vessel exemptions. ( a ) Subject U.S. vessels less than 50 gross tons which are navigated not more than 300 meters (1,000 feet) from the nearest land at mean low tide are exempt from the provisions of title III, part III of the Communications Act.
( b ) All U.S. passenger vessels of less than 100 gross tons, not subject to the radio provisions of the Safety Convention, are exempt from the radiotelegraph provisions of Part II of Title III of the Communications Act, provided that the vessels are equipped with a radiotelephone installation fully complying with subpart S of this part.
( c ) These exemptions may be terminated at any time without hearing, if in the Commission's discretion, the need for such action arises.
[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 58 FR 44954, Aug. 25, 1993; 60 FR 58245, Nov. 27, 1995; 68 FR 46974, Aug. 7, 2003; 73 FR 4488, Jan. 25, 2008]
- 
      - **  Home
      - **   About Us
      - **  Archives
      - **  News
      - **  Publications

### Contact Us

To provide feedback on the Community Policing Dispatch, e-mail the editorial board at CPDispatch@usdoj.gov.

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, publications, and resources, contact the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770 or AskCopsRC@usdoj.gov

**U.S. Department of Justice**        Office of Community Oriented Policing Services            145 N Street, N.E.       Washington, DC 20530      www.cops.usdoj.gov×         Menu         - Home
- About Us
- Archives
- News
- Publications
- Contact Us
**Rescue, Response, and Resilience: An incident review of the Orlando public safety response to the attack on the Pulse nightclub**
 January 2018 | Volume 11 | Issue 1

On Monday, December 18, 2017, the  COPS Office released its after-action assessment of the law enforcement and  public safety response to the Pulse nightclub attack on June 12, 2016. The  shooting, which was determined to be a terrorist attack, injured more than 100  people and resulted in the loss of 49 lives.

At the request of City of Orlando  Police department (OPD) Chief John Mina, the COPS Office and its research  partner, the Police Foundation, conducted a critical incident review of the OPD  response to the attack. The thorough assessment determined that the OPD and  their law enforcement partners responded to the attack in a manner consistent  with recognized practices. It also produced other significant findings, to  include: 
- The  tactical response by the OPD was consistent with the department’s policies,  procedures, and training as well as recognized practices;
- The  OPD successfully leveraged existing relationships with federal, state, and  local public safety agencies in their response to the Pulse nightclub terrorist  attack; 
- OPD  leadership prioritized the mental health of all OPD personnel following the  response to the Pulse attack;
- Pre-existing  Orlando police-community relationships, fostered and sustained over time,  enhanced the resilience of the community in the aftermath of the Pulse  terrorist shooting.
Rescue,  Response, and Resilience: An incident review of the Orlando public safety  response to the attack on the Pulse nightclub is available on the COPS Office  website: http://ric-zai-inc.com/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0857.			  
 

Tweet
**Subscribe to Email Updates**
To sign up for monthly updates or to access your subscriber preferences, please enter your email address in the Subscribe box.
Email
The Community Policing Dispatch is the e-newsletter of the COPS Office. 

The Community Policing Dispatch is the e-newsletter of the COPS Office. 

**Explore**
- Home
- About Us
- Archives
- News
- Publications
- Contact Us
**Connect With Us**
Want to stay connected with the COPS office?             Follow us on social media!
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
 FOIA 

 No FEAR Act 

 Open Government 

 Plain Writing 

 USA.gov 

 Legal Policies and Disclaimers 

 Language Access Plan 

 DOJ Privacy Policy
No. 11-177.

#### Alt et al. *v.*Robertson Stephens Group, Inc.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 90.529 State License. ( a ) Narrowband channels designated as state channels in § 90.531 are licensed to each state (as defined in § 90.7) as follows: ( 1 ) Each state that chooses to take advantage of the spectrum designated as state channels must file an application for up to 2.4 megahertz of this spectrum no later than December 31, 2001. For purposes of this section, the elected chief executive (Governor) of each state, or his or her designee, shall be deemed the person authorized to apply for the State License.
( 2 ) What ever part of this 2.4 megahertz that a state has not applied for by December 31, 2001, will revert to General Use and be administered by the relevant RPC (or RPCs in the instances of states that encompass multiple RPCs).
( b ) Each state license will be granted subject to the condition that the state certifies on or before each applicable benchmark date that it is: ( 1 ) Providing or prepared to provide “substantial service” to one-third of their population or territory by June 13, 2014, i.e., within five years of the date that incumbent broadcasters are required to relocate to other portions of the spectrum;
( 2 ) Providing or prepared to provide “substantial service” to two-thirds of their population or territory by June 13, 2019, i.e., within ten years of the date that incumbent broadcasters are required to relocate to other portions of the spectrum.
( c ) The Commission will deem a state “prepared to provide substantial service” if the licensee certifies that a radio system has been approved and funded for implementation by the deadline date. “Substantial service” refers to the construction and operation of 700 MHz facilities by public safety entities providing service which is sound, favorable , and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal.
( d ) If a state licensee fails to meet any condition of the grant the state license is modified automatically to the frequencies and geographic areas where the state certifies that it is providing substantial service.
( e ) Any recovered state license spectrum will revert to General Use. However, spectrum licensed to a state under a state license remains unavailable for reassignment to other applicants until the Commission's database reflects the parameters of the modified state license.
[65 FR 66654, Nov. 7, 2000, as amended at 79 FR 20106, Apr. 11, 2014]
No. 11-9127.

#### Dugan *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00021-CR

AUSTIN KENNETH CHURKEY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court 

No. 2

of Tarrant County (1523478D)

December 14, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
Laconia District Court

No. 80-132

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Gardner G. Greene, Jr.

September 26, 1980

*664
      *Gregory H. Smith,*acting attorney general, and *Peter W. Heed,*assistant attorney general, by brief for the State.

*Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell,*of Concord, by brief for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

This is an interlocutory transfer without ruling by *Huot,*J., requesting answers to the following questions:

> 1. “Does RSA 105:13 authorize a chief of police to deputize all of the police officers of another city or town without limitation by writing a letter to the chief of police of another city or town?”

> 2. “Does RSA 105:13 authorize a chief of police to deputize all of the police officers of another city or town without naming the said officers?”

On August 24, 1979, the defendant was driving his motor vehicle behind a Laconia Police Department cruiser when the cruiser stopped in the highway in Laconia. The defendant, for some reason, was unable to stop before colliding with the cruiser. The Gilford Police Department, in response to a call, sent a cruiser to the scene and a Gilford officer arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. RSA 262-A:62.

During the course of the trial, the question was raised whether the Gilford police officer had authority to make the arrest in Laconia. RSA 105:13 extends the authority of police officers of any town to any other city or town provided the chief law enforcement officer of that other town has requested in writing the mutual assistance of such officer. On May 24, 1979, the chief of police of Laconia wrote a letter to the chief of police of Gilford requesting assistance if it became necessary over “motorcycle weekend . . . and throughout the year.” No specific officers were requested.

The defendant argues that the statute does not authorize a blanket request but requires the naming of the officers and for a limited time. Therefore, he contends, the officer acted outside his jurisdiction in making the arrest and the charge must be dropped. We disagree.

An illegal arrest, without more, is neither a bar to subsequent prosecution nor a defense to a valid conviction. *United States v. Crews,*100 S. Ct. 1244, 1251 (1980). Whether the arrest was legal or not is immaterial unless evidence is obtained as the result of the allegedly illegal detention. *See Rawlings v. Kentucky,*100 S. Ct. 2556 (1980); *United States v. Crews supra.*

*665
      *State v. Goff,*118 N.H. 724, 393 A.2d 562 (1978), does not help the defendant because in that case the defendant was in court at his trial because of an illegal summons. Here it does not appear that the defendant’s appearance in court was under an illegal summons. The validity of the arrest was immaterial in this case, and we therefore decline to answer the transferred questions.

*Remanded.*
#### § 95.367 Transmitting power.

For transmission of emergency messages, where operators of Personal Radio Services stations have the ability to select transmitting power levels, the highest transmitting power available may be used. In all other circumstances, the minimum amount of transmitting power necessary to carry out the desired communications must be used. *See* section 324 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 324).
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 for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) of
Lighting Science Group Corporation (the Company), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigneds knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report 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 Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |        |  |                                                      
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 13, 2010 |  | By:    |  | /s/ ZACHARY S. GIBLER                                
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Zachary S. Gibler                                    
|                     |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|                     |  |       
|Date: April 13, 2010 |  | By:    |  | /s/ JONATHAN T. COHEN                                
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Jonathan T. Cohen                                    
|                     |  | Title: |  | Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer          
|                     |  |        |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)         

The
foregoing certification is furnished as an exhibit to the Report and will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
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 Jones Soda Co. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jennifer L. Cue, Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



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.



|                                                    |  |  |  |             
|--------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------
|                                                    |  | 
|/s/ Jennifer L. Cue                                 |  |  |  | May 16, 2005
|Jennifer L. Cue                                     |  |  |  |             
|Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer |  |  |  |
No. 10-10592.

#### Holman *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 80.177 When operator license is not required. ( a ) No radio operator authorization is required to operate: ( 1 ) A shore radar, a shore radiolocation, maritime support or shore radionavigation station;
( 2 ) A survival craft station or an emergency position indicating radio beacon;
( 3 ) A ship radar station if: ( i ) The radar frequency is determined by a nontunable, pulse type magnetron or other fixed tuned device, and
( ii ) The radar is capable of being operated exclusively by external controls;
( 4 ) An on board station; or
( 5 ) A ship station operating in the VHF band on board a ship voluntarily equipped with radio and sailing on a domestic voyage.
( b ) No radio operator license is required to install a VHF transmitter in a ship station if the installation is made by, or under the supervision of, the licensee of the ship station and if modifications to the transmitter other than front panel controls are not made.
( c ) No operator license is required to operate coast telephone stations or marine utility stations.
( d ) No radio operator license is required to install a radar station on a voluntarily equipped ship when a manual is included with the equipment that provides step-by-step instructions for the installation, calibration, and operation of the radar. The installation must be made by, or under the supervision of, the licensee of that ship station and no modifications or adjustments other than to the front panel controls are to be made to the equipment.
[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 53 FR 41434, Oct. 28, 1987; 62 FR 40305, July 28, 1997]
No. 11-5152.

#### Benjamin *v.*New York.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.