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 on Form 10-QSB of Sunrise Energy
      Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Roman Livson, 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, 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.





Date:
      November 13, 2006




By:
            /s/
                Roman LivsonRoman
                LivsonChief
                Financial Officer
From: ronhuffy@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptives

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:29:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ron Hoffman

Powder Springs, GA 30127
EUGENIO VALERIANO

,

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. 1D 13

- 5880

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 24, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County

. Robert M. Foster , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and M. J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, C.J., BENTON and THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
No. 68934.

#### Aristo-Craft Distinctive Miniatures et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/21864, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GEORGE SWINYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BALINDA COLE et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5610FDB

ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF

TIME

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff asks for an extension of time to respond to Clark County’s motion for summary judgment. 

The County argues plaintiff’s case is time barred and without merit. (Dkt. # 35). 

Plaintiff asks for the extension of time because he is incarcerated, and lack of information. 

Plaintiff fails to inform the court what information he needs and what steps he has taken to obtain

information. Further, in a subsequent filing plaintiff indicates he is being released as of July 14th,

2006 as homeless and will be without an address. (Dkt. # 42).

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for a continuance. The issue on summary judgment is

Case 3:05-cv-05610-FDB Document 44 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER

whether this action is time barred. Plaintiff needed to address that issue and has not done so. The

motion for an extension of time is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

DATED this 20th day of July 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05610-FDB Document 44 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 10, 2010

p0910 

# Order

September 10, 2010

141595

In re T.V.C. FRY, Minor.

_____________ _______________ _____________ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 141595 COA: 295682 St. Joseph CC Family Div: 2007-001105-NA TRINA HERINGTON, Respondent-Appellant

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
From: mjzag@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:40:31 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Zagzebski

Carmel, IN 46033
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 17, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00562

- CV

Jesus DE LOS SANTOS , Jr., Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jesus Francisco

De Los Santos, Deceased, and Juan De Los Santos, Individually,

Appellant s

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 08

- 50394

- CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez

, Justice 1

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice 2

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice 3

Jason Pulliam, Justice

T he court has considered the appellant s ’ motion for en banc reconsideration, and the

motion is DENIED.

1 Dissents to the denial of the motion for en banc reconsideration without requesting a response. See Tex. R. App. P.

49.2.

2 Dissents to the denial of the motion for en banc reconsideration without requesting a response. See Tex. R. App. P.

49.2.

3 Dissents to the denial of the motion for en banc reconsideration without requesting a response. See Tex. R. App. P.

49.2._________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of September, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ex parte Douglas Clinton Siddle, * Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding

No. 11-19-00163-CR * June 6, 2019

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

 This court has considered Douglas Clinton Siddle’s application for writ of 

habeas corpus and concludes that the application for writ of habeas corpus should 

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the application for habeas corpus is dismissed.
October 8, 1962

No. 67112.

Appeal 5093.

#### United States v. Selectile Co., Inc., and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A., et al.

C.D. 2281 affirmed July 25, 1962. C.A.D. 805.
#### Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, as Assignee of Simon Greenbaum, Appellant, v Empire Insurance Co., Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 340]

—In an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) to recover the payment of a hospital no-fault billing, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated October 24, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. .

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s assignor exhausted his $50,000 no-fault policy limits *(see, Presbyterian Hosp. v Empire Ins. Co.,*220 AD2d 733 [decided herewith]). The plaintiff contends that the defendant insurance carrier’s failure to deny the instant claim precluded *734it from asserting the exhaustion of the policy limits as a defense. However, when, as here, a carrier "has paid the full monetary limits set forth in the policy, its duties under the contract of insurance cease” *(Presbyterian Hosp. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*216 AD2d 448; *see also, Champagne v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*185 AD2d 835, 837). Further, "the failure to disclaim coverage does not create coverage which the policy was not written to provide” *(Zappone v Home Ins. Co.,*55 NY2d 131, 134), "since that defense is never waived by a failure to assert it in a notice of disclaimer” *(Schiff Assocs. v Flack,*51 NY2d 692, 700; *see, Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*168 AD2d 121). Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### Warren HOLLINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-5069.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2001.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule *95931(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40225 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ARMANDO ARMENDARIZ-MORENO, also known as Armando Moreno-Ortiz Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-1029-ALL
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Armando Armendariz-Moreno (Armendariz) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. On appeal, Armendariz challenges the district court’s characterization of his prior Texas conviction of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as an aggravated felony for sentencing purposes. Armendariz concedes that this issue is foreclosed, but he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for Supreme Court review United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40225

2 in light ofthe Supreme Court’s decision in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004). As Armendariz concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See Brieva-Perez v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 356, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169 F.3d 217, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1999). In light ofApprendi v. NewJersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Armendariz also challenges the constitutionality of8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment ofprior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). AFFIRMED.
Before the First Division,

March 28, 1963

No. 67541.

#### M. Adler’s Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/6129, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES *of*America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saul Antonio CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50094.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*372Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Saul Antonio Cruz raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 3 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 4 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 5 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 6 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 7 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 8 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 9 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 10 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 11 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 12 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 13 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 14 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 15 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 16 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 17 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 18 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 19 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 20 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 21 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 22 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 23 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 24 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 25 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 26 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 27 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 28 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 29 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 30 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 31 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 32 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 33 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 34 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 35 of 36
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315 Filed 09/01/05 Page 36 of 36
From: gurparis@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:34:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

par ranaudo

, 346060
## Jfourtl)**Court of** **Antonio, November** **25, 2014** **No. 04-14-00197-CR** **The State** **of Texas,** **Appellant v.** **Robert Romo,** **Appellee Trial** **Court Case** **No. 414481** 

### ORDER**The Court** **has reviewed** **the record** **and briefs** **in this appeal** **and has** **determined that** **oral argument** **will not** **significantly aid** **it in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Therefore, all** **requests for** **oral argument** **are denied,** **and the** **cause is** **advanced for** **ON BRIEFS** **submission on** **January 7,** **2015, to** **the following** **panel: Justice** **Angelini, Justice** **Barnard, and** **Justice Martinez.** **All parties** **will be** **notified of** **the Court's** **decision in** **this appeal** **in accordance** **with Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 48.** 

### Either**party may** **file motion** **requesting the** **Court to** **reconsider its** **determination that** **oral argument** **will not** **significantly aid the** **Court in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Such motion** **should be** **filed within** **ten (10)** **days from** **the date** **of this** **order. It** **is so** **ORDERED on** **November 25,** **2014.**

### Karen**Angelini^stice**

### IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and a/fixed** **the seal** **o/the said** **court on** **this November** **25, 2014.**
No. 61538.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 304926-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest'was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20074

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GREGORY HOLDEN, also known as Doug,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-231-2

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gregory Holden

raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Robinson, 119 F.3d 1205, 1208, 1215 (5th Cir. 1997), which held

that in Hobbs Act prosecutions based on local activities that

affect interstate commerce, the Government need not prove that

the effect of an individual defendant’s conduct was substantial

so long as the regulated activity, in the aggregate, could

reasonably be thought to substantially affect interstate
No. 06-20074

-2-

commerce. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.