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 Duke Capital LLC (Duke Capital) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven K. Young, Chief Financial Officer
and Controller of Duke Capital, 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 Duke Capital.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/    STEVEN K. YOUNG                
|Steven K. Young                       
|Chief Financial Officer and Controller
|August 21, 2006
No. 59947.

#### Bel Paese Sales Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 243088-K (New York).

*445Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that duty was assessed on the basis of a weight in excess of the actual net weight of the Bel Paisino cheese contained in cases 541 to 580, inclusive, and that said cases have a net weight of 2,235 pounds, the collector was directed to refund all duties taken in excess, as claimed.
QS rrcaen:

IPAC Operational Metrics for April 2021

‘Volume by Transaction Type
Dollar. % of Total Dollar Amount| Number of Transactions| _ % of Total Number of Transactions |
Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 18,420,778, 106,171) 99.71% 19,583] 15.14%)
[Buy/Sell 45,288,519,182| 0.25%] 108,514] 83.87%
[Benefits (RITS) 8,519, 141,737] 0.05% 381) 0.29%
[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 275,164,978) 0.00% 904] 0.70%
|Zero Dollar ol 0.00% 2 0.00%
|Grand Total - April 2021 18,474,860,932,067 | 100.00%| 129,389) 100.00% |
|Grand Total - March 2021 19,712,317,345,609] 100.00%| 127,104) 100.00%|
March to April Change -1,237,4S6,413,542|
[Percentage Change 6.3%)
[Grand Total - April 2020 19,004,983,384,153| po 93,5 35}
[April 2020 to April 2021 Change -530,122,452,086| ; 58
eee 2.8% ee
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0977 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-190-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit 12.1  I, J. Paul Sorbara, President, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Golden Goliath Resources Ltd.;  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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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 (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 21, 2012   /s/ J. Paul Sorbara J. Paul Sorbara, President/Director
Appendix 4	

	Appendix 4 	

	4	November 2022

	3	November 2022
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 Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Bruce Ross, Executive Vice President and 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 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.

/s/Bruce RossExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                   November 9, 2006

---
No. 58891.

protest 232184-K (New York).

#### Rootes Motors, Inc., and Vandegrift Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, it appeared that the protest was not filed until 104 days after liquidation. Inasmuch as section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514), requires that a decision of the collector shall be protested within 60 days after his liquidation of an entry of merchandise, the protest was dismissed as untimely.
NUMBER 13-16-00421-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JUAN M. GARCIA, M.D.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus filed in this case on July 22, 

2016. See In re Garcia, No. 13-16-00421-CV, 2016 WL __, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus 

Christi July 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam). This cause is currently 

before the Court on relator’s motion to seal “Appendix 1, Appendix A Original Petition, 

Exhibit B, pages 23-31.”

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion to seal, is of the 

opinion that the motion should be granted. Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to seal 

and ORDER the documents at issue to be SEALED to the public. Any public access to 
2

these documents shall be determined by written motion filed with this Court, with 

appropriate notice to the parties, and upon a showing of good cause. This order does 

not affect or limit the rights of the parties to this original proceeding to view the records at 

issue without further order from this Court. The parties are ordered to maintain the 

confidentiality of the information contained in this sealed record and are prohibited from 

disseminating the sensitive information contained within the sealed record to any person. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

1

st day of August, 2016.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8066

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM HAMMOND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-94-110)

Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 28, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Hammond, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

In 1995, William M. Hammond was convicted of five counts

related to attempting to blow up an automated teller machine.

Following his 1996 sentencing, counsel appealed the conviction.

This court affirmed. United States v. Hammond, No. 96-4231 (4th

Cir. Feb. 11, 1997) (unpublished).

In November 2001, Hammond filed a notice of appeal from these

convictions. He contends that he never received a copy of the

appellate briefs or of a decision by this court; therefore, he

believes that counsel did not pursue the appeal.

This court has already exercised its jurisdiction to review

the final decision of the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994),

in ruling on Hammond’s direct appeal. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(a) (West

2000). Even if we had not, Hammond’s notice of appeal would be

untimely. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The appeal periods defined in

Rule 4 are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director,

Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). Therefore, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 57146.

protest 191961-K (New York).

#### Amity Silk Corporation *v.*United States,

*377Opinion by

Rao, J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any facts tending to controvert the classification and assessment of the collector,which were presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
EXHIBIT 32

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

     The undersigned, Dickson Wong, the Chief Financial Officer of Cimbix
Corporation (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY 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 Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
September 30, 2003 (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.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 27th
day of January, 2004.


                                  By:  /s/ Dickson Wong
                                  --------------------------------
                                           Dickson Wong,
                                           Chief Financial Officer
# C_2015354EN.01004201.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/42

---

Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY PRO)

(Case T-500/15)

(2015/C 354/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY PRO’ — Application for registration No 9 125 071

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 in Case R 1940/2014-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

Plea(s) in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 64760.

#### The Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/31433 (New York).

Opinion by

Don,lon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lamb similar in all material respects to the beef the subject of *United States*v. *J. S. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), except that the merchandise here involved is lamb, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# MSPhotography

Professional Photographic and Media Services Addr: 33 Sea Ave Quincy, MA, 02169-3135 Ph: +1-(857)-204-2448 Email: mindi@msaerial.com Web: msaerial.com

33 Sea Ave, Quincy, MA Docket Management System U.S. Dept. of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20590

MSPhotography, November 6, 2015 Supplement C : Amendment to Exemption: #11333

Dear Sir or Madam, Please find in this document, an amendment to petition FAA-2015-0015-0001 submitted on January 7, 2015 and granted April, 16, 2015 as Exemption#: 11333. The purpose of this amendment is to declare our intent to supplement our piloting team with one Mr. David G. Price. Mr. Price holds licenses as a commercial pilot in airplane single engine with landing, and instrument airplane. He also hold certification as an advanced ground instructor. We also respectfully request an amendment to our exemption adding a DJI Inspire 1 and a DJI Phantom 3+ to our fleet of service sUAS devices. The condensed operating specifications are detailed below. Please note that the reported metrics constitute ideal testing measurements. In daily operation these performance metrics may never be reached due to safety or other decisions.

Manufacturer Details Specification Value Manufacturer DJI Website www.dji.com Contact (Ph) us.support@dji.com Contact (Em) +1 (818) 235-0789Supplement C : Amendment to Exemption: #11333 DJI Phantom 3 Operation Details Specification Value Weight (including battery and propellers) 1280 g Diagonal size (including propellers) 590 mm Max Ascent Speed 5 m/s Max Descent Speed 3 m/s Hover Accuracy V: +/- 0.1 m, H: +/- 1.5 m Max Speed 16 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind) Max Service Ceiling (Above Sea Level) 6000 m (limited to 120 m above takeoff point) Operating Temperature 0 ◦ C to 40 ◦ C GPS Mode GPS/GLONASS Operating Frequency 2.400 GHz-2.483 GHz Max Distance Up to 5 km (unobstructed) Battery 6000 mAh LiPo 2S Max Flight Time ∼ 23 minutes

DJI Inspire 1 Operation Details Specification Value Weight (Battery Included) 2935 g Diagonal Size 581 mm Max Ascent Speed 5 m/s Max Descent Speed 4 m/s Hovering Accuracy (GPS mode) V: 0.5 m, H: 2.5 m Max Speed 22 m/s Max Service Ceiling (Above Sea Level) 4500 m (limited to 120m above takeoff point) Operating Temperature 0 ◦ C to 40 ◦ C GPS Mode GPS/GLONASS Operating Frequency 2.400 GHz-2.483 GHz Max Distance Up to 5 km (unobstructed) Battery 5700 mAh LiPo 6S Max Flight Time ∼ 18 minutes

Best, Melinda Sokoloski

33 Sea Ave, Q uincy, MA 02169-3135 mindi@msaerial.com +1-(857)-204-2448
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
      OF
      2002**





I,
      Daniel
      Vesco, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Texhoma
      Energy, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended September 30, 2006
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of Texhoma Energy, Inc.





By*:/s/
      Daniel Vesco*


Daniel
      Vesco


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Accounting Officer)




November
      9, 2007
Case 2:04-cv-01103-LP Document 68 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XIII, L.P. (the“Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporategeneral partner of the General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of his knowledge and belief: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 Registrant. 

 

/s/ LEO F. WELLS, III 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the
undersigned officer of GMX Resources Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                                         
|------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ James A. Merrill                    
|                   |  |  |  | James A. Merrill Chief Financial
Officer