alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32



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 Solarte Hotel Corporation  (the "Company") on Form  20-F for the  period  ending  June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Karen Campo, President of Esthetics World, the  Chief Executive and 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 and 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.





July 14, 2011

/s/ Karen Campo

Karen Campo, for Esthetics World

Chief Executive and Financial Officer

(Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)



|Date
|----
|
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John Cajigas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The
registrants other certifying officer(s) 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)) for the registrant 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 report is being prepared;

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

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.By:

/S/ John CajigasJohn CajigasChief Financial Officer and Treasurer


Dated: March 6, 2014
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 62 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 62

   Authorizing printing of the brochure entitled ``How Our Laws Are 
                                Made''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 5, 1997

     Mr. Warner (for himself and Mr. Ford) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Authorizing printing of the brochure entitled ``How Our Laws Are 
                                Made''.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That (a) a revised edition of the brochure entitled ``How Our Laws Are 
Made'', under the direction of the Parliamentarian of the House of 
Representatives in consultation with the Parliamentarian of the Senate, 
shall be printed as a Senate document, with suitable paper cover in the 
style selected by the chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing.
    (b) There shall be printed--
            (1)(A) 250,000 copies of the brochure for the use of the 
        House of Representatives, distributed in equal numbers to each 
        Member;
            (B) 100,000 copies of the brochure for the use of the 
        Senate, distributed in equal numbers to each Member;
            (C) 2,000 copies of the brochure for the use of the Joint 
        Committee on Printing; and
            (D) 1,400 copies of the brochure for distribution to the 
        depository libraries; or
            (2) if the total printing and production costs of copies in 
        paragraph (1) exceed $180,000, such number of copies of the 
        brochure as does not exceed total printing and production costs 
        of $180,000, with distribution to be allocated in the same 
        proportion as in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
Case No. 12,934.

#### SLACUM v. BROWN.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 315.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1837.

Landlord and Tenant — Right or Tenant to Abandon fob Want of Repairs — Sublease.

A lessee cannot abandon for want of repairs, if he has underlet a part of the premises for a year not yet expired, although the premises are in a ruinous condition. The receipt by the lessor of rent from an under-tenant of part of the premises, is no evidence of the lessor's consent to the lessee’s abandonment.

[Cited in brief in Prior v. Iviso, 81 Mo. 242.]

Debt for two quarters’ rent on a demise at - per annum due November, 1832, and February, 1833.

[John M.] Brown, the lessee, underlet part of the premises to one Thomas, for a year ending on the 1st of November, 1833, who paid Mrs. [Jane H.] Slacum for the two first quarters of the year at $50 a quarter, and tendered to her the rent for the two next quarters.

*316Mr. Semmes, for defendant,

offered evidence to prove that the premises were very much out of repair, so that he had a right to abandon them, and did abandon them before the rent accrued for which this action was brought, and prayed the court to instruct the jury “that if they believed, from the evidence, that the premises were so much out of repair as to do damage to the tenant’s goods and chattels; and the landlord, on notice thereof, refused or neglected to repair; then that the tenant was not responsible for rent after quitting the premises, although no notice of quitting was given to the landlord;” and cited Edwards v. Ether-ington, 1 Ryan & M. 268; Com. Landl. & Ten. 804; 6 Law Lib. 304, 450.

' Mr. Taylor, for plaintiff,

contended that if the premises were so out of repair, yet, as the defendant had underlet a part of them for a year ending on the 1st of November, 1833, he could not in the meantime abandon so as to put an end to the demise, which was from year to year; and that Mrs. Sla-cum’s receipt of rent from the under-tenant of part of the premises, is not evidence of her assent to the abandonment by the lessee.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) refused to give the instruction prayed by Mr. Semmes, being of opinion that Mr. Brown could not abandon after underletting a part of the premises for the year. That in such a case the ruinous state of the premises, so that the defendant’s goods were liable to be injured thereby, is not sufficient to justify the abandonment; and that the receipt by Mrs. Slacum of rent from the subtenant of part of the premises, is not evidence of her assent to such abandonment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                       766
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,785
<PP&E>                                          17,027
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,328
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,788
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,707
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,180
<SALES>                                         50,949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,981
<CGS>                                           46,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,692
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,336
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,336
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND THE STATEMENTS OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,216,952
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,549,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,545,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,549,410
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,009
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (175,795)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (149,392)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 61

Authorizing printing of a revised edition of the publication entitled ‘‘Our

Flag’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 5, 1997

Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. FORD) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing printing of a revised edition of the publication

entitled ‘‘Our Flag’’.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That (a) a revised edition of the publication

3 entitled ‘‘Our Flag’’, revised under the direction of the

4 Joint Committee on Printing, shall be reprinted as a Sen5 ate document.

6 (b) There shall be printed—

7 (1)(A) 250,000 copies of the publication for the

8 use of the House of Representatives, distributed in

9 equal numbers to each Member;
2

SCON 61 ATS

1 (B) 51,500 copies of the publication for the use

2 of the Senate, distributed in equal numbers to each

3 Member;

4 (C) 2,000 copies of the publication for the use

5 of the Joint Committee on Printing; and

6 (D) 1,400 copies of the publication for distribu7 tion to the depository libraries; or

8 (2) if the total printing and production costs of

9 copies in paragraph (1) exceed $150,000, such num10 ber of copies of the publication as does not exceed

11 total printing and production costs of $150,000,

12 with distribution to be allocated in the same propor13 tion as in paragraph (1).

Æ
* 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

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51236

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ANGEL ESCARCEGA-BRIONES,

also known as Roberto Ross Macias,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-869-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Angel

Escarcega-Briones raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
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
SK Shasta Acquisition Corp. 3 (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kurt Pichler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
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.





/s/ Kurt PichlerKurt
      PichlerPrincipal
      Financial OfficerJuly
      21, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5               
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-1-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                         4,810
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,864
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    49,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               59,694
<PP&E>                                         36,898
<DEPRECIATION>                                 14,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 85,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29,958
<BONDS>                                        7,513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       85
<OTHER-SE>                                     46,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   85,962
<SALES>                                        17,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,458
<CGS>                                          9,820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,887
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (685)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (125)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (560)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (560)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.07)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 542 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 18, 2007.
Whereas the National Guard has made tremendous contributions in support of 
        United States military operations around the world;
Whereas, between September 11, 2001, and September 30, 2007, 329,982 members of 
        the National Guard have been mobilized to support numerous military 
        operations;
Whereas members of the National Guard typically leave other employment to serve 
        on active duty in the Armed Forces;
Whereas the National Guard has responded admirably in times of domestic 
        emergencies to lead rescue and recovery efforts; and
Whereas many members of the National Guard have made the ultimate sacrifice, 
        giving their lives in service to the United States: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) unconditionally supports the members of the National Guard;
            (2) recognizes the tremendous sacrifices made by members of the 
        National Guard on behalf of the United States;
            (3) will work to ensure that the National Guard receives the 
        resources it needs; and
            (4) will support the families of members of the National Guard, 
        especially those who have died while serving on active duty.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Jesus MIRANDA-GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. J.L. GARCIA, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 00-1852.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

June 27, 2001.

*12Jesus Miranda-Gonzalez, on brief pro se.

Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega Pacheco, Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

Before SELYA, Circuit Judges, CAMPBELL and STAHL, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The district court dismissed the habeas petition filed by Jesus Miranda-Gonzalez under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and petitioner has appealed. After carefully reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and in the district judge’s Opinion and Order. Specifically, petitioner’s double jeopardy argument is meritless because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply in prison disciplinary proceedings. Any due process argument also lacks merit because, even assuming, without deciding, that petitioner possessed some kind of liberty interest, he received all the process he was due under *Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

*Affirmed. See*Local Rule 27(c).
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 12-6 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 3

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 12 Att. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 12-6 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 12-6 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 3 of 3