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

---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Defense Industries International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tsippy
Moldovan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Tsippy MoldovanTsippy Moldovan
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2007



---

---
---

Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 
Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 
as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Brad Jacoby, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Global Innovation Corp. ("GIC");

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for GIC 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of GIC's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 quarterly report any change in GIC's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during GIC's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, GIC's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. GIC's other certifying officer 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which could adversely affect GIC'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 GIC's internal control over financial reporting,

|Date: June 16, 2008 | /s/    BRAD JACOBY     
|------------------- | -----------------------
|                    | Brad Jacoby            
|                    | Chief Executive Officer
§ 96.43 Procedures during FY 1982. ( a ) This section applies to the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1981.
( b ) A request for direct funding must be received by the Secretary before the Secretary has awarded all of the allotment to the State involved. The application and related submission may be submitted later but must be submitted within 75 days after the beginning of the quarter in which the State qualified for block grant funds, (or by August 20, 1982 in the case of an Indian tribe located in a State that has not qualified for block grant funds in FY 1982) except that the application and related submission for the low-income home energy assistance program must be submitted by December 15, 1981. A separate request and application are required for each block grant.
[47 FR 29486, July 6, 1982; 47 FR 43062, Sept. 30, 1982]
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 182 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 182

To provide discretionary authority to an immigration judge to determine 
  that an alien parent of a United States citizen child should not be 
     ordered removed, deported, or excluded from the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2009

 Mr. Serrano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide discretionary authority to an immigration judge to determine 
  that an alien parent of a United States citizen child should not be 
     ordered removed, deported, or excluded from the United States.

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

SECTION 1. DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO REMOVAL, 
              DEPORTATION, OR EXCLUSION OF PARENTS OF CITIZEN CHILDREN.

    Section 240(c)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1229a(c)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) Discretion of judge in case of citizen 
                child.--In the case of an alien subject to removal, 
                deportation, or exclusion who is the parent of a child 
                who is a citizen of the United States, the immigration 
                judge may exercise discretion to decline to order the 
                alien removed, deported or excluded from the United 
                States if the judge determines that such removal, 
                deportation, or exclusion is clearly against the best 
                interests of the child, except that this subparagraph 
                shall not apply to any alien who the judge determines--
                            ``(i) is described in section 212(a)(3) or 
                        237(a)(4); or
                            ``(ii) has engaged in conduct described in 
                        paragraph (8) or (9) of section 103 of the 
                        Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 
                        U.S.C. 7102).''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of Florida Bank Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John R. Garthwaite, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, 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 period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 31, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ JOHN R. GARTHWAITE 
|                     |  |     |  | John R. Garthwaite     
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
# CE2010045EN.01010101.xml

| 23.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 45/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 45/101

---

Agreement between the EC and India on certain aspects of air services *

P6_TA(2008)0587

European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 December 2008 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of India on certain aspects of air services (COM(2008)0347 — C6-0342/2008 — 2008/0121(CNS))

(2010/C 45 E/23)

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2008)0347), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2008)0347),

| — | having regard to Article 80(2) and Article 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, of the EC Treaty, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 80(2) and Article 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, of the EC Treaty,

| — | having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0342/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0342/2008),

| — | having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0471/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0471/2008),

1.   Approves conclusion of the agreement;

2.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Republic of India.

---
#### Jacob S. Haws and Elias Cooper, *as Executors, etc., Appellants, v.*Catharine Scott, *Respondent*.

The decree of the surrogate modified by striking out the item of twelve dollars charged against the executors, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the respondent. Opinion by

Haight, J.
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 64 FR 6247, Feb. 9, 1999.

#### § 302.11 State financial participation.

The State plan shall provide that the State will participate financially in the program.
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-141077, 333-149127 and 333-149130 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-159344 on Form S-3 of our reports relating to the consolidated financial
statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of PAETEC Holding Corp. and subsidiaries dated March 12, 2010 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the acquisition of McLeodUSA
Incorporated on February 8, 2008 and the merger with US LEC Corp. on February 28, 2007) and the effectiveness of the PAETEC Holding Corp. and subsidiaries internal over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
PAETEC Holding Corp. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2009.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                         
|Rochester, New York      
|March 12, 2010
#### The People’s Bank, *Appellant, v.*William Heerdt, *Respondent*.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
Exhibit 35.1**[CHASE LOGO]****SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**RE: Chase Mortgage Finance Trust (CMFT) 2006-A1: The Pooling and Servicing Agreement by and amongChase Mortgage Finance Co as Depositor, U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee, JPMorganChase Bank, NA as Custodian, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Paying Agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank,N.A. as Servicer, (the “Agreement”)The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, asservicer (the “Servicer”) pursuant to the Chase Mortgage Finance Trust (CMFT) 2006-A1 (The“Agreement”), does hereby certify that:          (1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ending December 31,2006 and of the performance of the Servicer under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;and          (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year.Date: 02/28/2007         JPMorgan Chase Bank,National Association,as Servicer    By:
§ 79.23 Subpoenas for attendance at hearing. ( a ) A party wishing to procure the appearance and testimony of any individual at the hearing may request that the ALJ issue a subpoena.
( b ) A subpoena requiring the attendance and testimony of an individual may also require the individual to produce documents at the hearing.
( c ) A party seeking a subpoena shall file a written request therefor not less than 15 days before the date fixed for the hearing unless otherwise allowed by the ALJ for good cause shown. Such request shall specify any documents to be produced and shall designate the witnesses and describe the address and location thereof with sufficient particularity to permit such witnesses to be found.
( d ) The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the witness is to appear and any documents the witness is to produce.
( e ) The party seeking the subpoena shall serve it in the manner prescribed in § 79.8, except that a subpoena on a party or upon an individual under the control of a party may be served as prescribed in § 79.26(b).
( f ) A party or the individual to whom the subpoena is directed may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena within ten days after service or on or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance if it is less than ten days after service.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_____________________________________ 

 ) 

CITIZENS UNITED, ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 07- 2240 (RCL) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) RESPONSE 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

_____________________________________ ) 

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF CITIZENS UNITED’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE 

 

In this constitutional challenge to the electioneering communications reporting and 

disclaimer provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. §§ 434(f)(2), 441(d), 

plaintiff Citizens United has filed a complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, motion for 

consolidation of the trial on the merits with the hearing on the preliminary injunction, and a 

motion to expedite. Pursuant to section 403 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 113-14, Congress has provided for expedited judicial review of 

certain constitutional challenges to the Act as amended, and the Commission agrees that this case 

should be advanced on the docket and expedited in accordance with that provision. As the 

Commission explains at length in its opposition to plaintiff’s motion for consolidation (filed 

separately this day), however, a full and adequate record is critical given the broad scope of 

plaintiff’s challenge and the importance of the statutory provisions at stake. FEC Opp. to Pl. 

Mot. for Consolidation at 4-12. 

1

Case 1:07-cv-02240-RCL Document 20 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 1 of 2
In requiring expedition, Congress also made clear that courts should not rush into 

deciding cases without the benefit of full and adequate records. Id. at 4. This is especially true 

given the federal courts’ longstanding recognition of the importance of concrete factual settings 

to constitutional decision in general and in campaign finance cases in particular. Id. at 6-7. 

Accordingly, the Commission believes that the Court should issue an expedited case schedule 

that allows the Commission a reasonable opportunity to present its case in defense of the 

significant provisions of federal law at issue. In addition, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 

injunction, through the procedures set forth in the federal and local rules, will provide for even 

more rapid consideration of temporary relief for plaintiff’s expansive claims under the standards 

applicable for such relief. To the extent that plaintiff’s motion suggests, however, that additional 

expedition is sought, the Commission objects to that request. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Thomasenia P. Duncan 

General Counsel 

David Kolker 

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

/s/ Steve N. Hajjar 

Steve N. Hajjar 

Attorney 

FOR THE DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

 (202) 694-1650 

December 20, 2007 (202) 219-0260 (fax) 

2

Case 1:07-cv-02240-RCL Document 20 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 2 of 2
Preliminary Injunction Motion 2d 1

United States District Court

Eastern District of Virginia

Richmond Division

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v.

Federal Election Commission and

United States Department of Justice,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:08-cv-00483-JRS

Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. (“RTAO”) moves for an injunction pending appeal of

this Court’s September 11, 2008 Order (Doc. No. 65) denying RTAO’s motions for preliminary

injunction (Doc. Nos. 3, 53). Fed. R. App. P. 8 (a)(1)(C).

Brief in Support

In light of the need for haste and the use of the same considerations for preliminary injunctions and injunctions pending appeal, RTAO relies upon and incorporates its preliminary

injunction briefing in support of the present motion. See Doc. Nos. 4, 50, 53.

James Bopp, Jr.,* jboppjr@aol.com

Richard E. Coleson,* rcoleson@bopplaw.com

Barry A. Bostrom,* bbostrom@bopplaw.com

Clayton J. Callen,* ccallen@bopplaw.com

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South Sixth Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

812/232-2434 telephone

812/234-3685 facsimile

*pro hac vice motion granted

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff

Respectfully submitted,

s/

Michael Boos (VA State Bar No. 37524)

Law Office of Michael Boos

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313

Fairfax, VA 22030

703/691-7717 telephone

703/691-7543 facsimile

michael.boos@gte.net

Local Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 68 Filed 09/12/2008 Page 1 of 2
Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal 2

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on September 12, 2008, I served upon the below listed persons copies

of this document by electronically filing this document for electronic transmission.

John Richard Griffiths

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

P.O. Box 883

Washington, DC 20044

john.griffiths@usdoj.gov

Debra Jean Prillaman

Office of U.S. Attorney

600 East Main Street, Suite 1800

Richmond, VA 23219

debra.prillaman@usdoj.gov

J. Gerald Hebert J. Gerald Hebert, P.C. 5019

Waple Ln Alexandria, VA 22304

ghebert@campaignlegalcenter.org

Audra Anne Hale-Maddox

ahale-maddox@fec.gov

Thomasenia P. Duncan

tduncan@fec.gov

David Kolkler. dkokler@fec.gov

Kevin Deeley, kdeeley@fec.gov

Holly Baker, hbaker@fec.gov

Vivien Clair, vclair@fec.gov

Seth Nesin, snesin@fec.gov

Adav Noti, anoti@fec.gov

Claire Rajan, crajan@fec.gov

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20463

And I hereby certify that I will mail the document by U.S. mail to the following non-filing users:

Daniel R. Ortiz John Allan Love Professor of

Law University of Virginia School of Law

580 Massie Road

Charlottesville, VA 22903-1738

Richard Briffault Joseph P. Chamberlain

Professor of Legislation Columbia University

School of Law 435 West 116th Street

New York, NY 10027

/s/

Michael Boos (VA State Bar No. 37524)

Law Office of Michael Boos

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313

Fairfax, VA 22030

703/691-7717 telephone

703/691-7543 facsimile

michael.boos@gte.net

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 68 Filed 09/12/2008 Page 2 of 2
§ 410.1209 Requesting specific consent from ORR regarding custody proceedings. ( a ) An unaccompanied child in ORR custody is required to request specific consent from ORR if the child seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of a juvenile court to determine or alter the child's custody status or release from ORR custody.
( b ) If an unaccompanied child seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of a juvenile court for a dependency order to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification or to otherwise permit a juvenile court to establish jurisdiction regarding a child's placement and does not seek the juvenile court's jurisdiction to determine or alter the child's custody status or release, the unaccompanied child does not need to request specific consent from ORR.
( c ) Prior to a juvenile court determining or altering the unaccompanied child's custody status or release from ORR, attorneys or others acting on behalf of an unaccompanied child must complete a request for specific consent.
( d ) ORR shall acknowledge receipt of the request within two business days.
( e ) Consistent with its duty to promptly place unaccompanied children in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child, ORR shall consider whether ORR custody is required to: ( 1 ) Ensure a child's safety; or
( 2 ) Ensure the safety of the community.
( f ) ORR shall make determinations on specific consent requests within 60 business days of receipt of a request. When possible, ORR shall expedite urgent requests.
( g ) ORR shall inform the unaccompanied child, or the unaccompanied child's attorney or other authorized representative of the decision on the specific consent request in writing, along with the evidence utilized to make the decision.
( h ) The unaccompanied child, the unaccompanied child's attorney of record, or other authorized representative may request reconsideration of ORR's denial with the Assistant Secretary for ACF within 30 business days of receipt of the ORR notification of denial of the request. The unaccompanied child, the unaccompanied child's attorney, or authorized representative may submit additional (including new) evidence to be considered with the reconsideration request.
( i ) The Assistant Secretary, or their designee, shall consider the request for reconsideration and any additional evidence, and send a final administrative decision to the unaccompanied child, or the unaccompanied child's attorney or other authorized representative, within 15 business days of receipt of the request.