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


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------


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

          In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the period
                  indicated.

         This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Dated: November 6, 2006                        By: /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  Steven R. Blake
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
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 Rosedale Decorative Products,
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Norman Maxwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Date: January 25, 2006                                   By: /s/ NORMAN MAXWELL
                                                         ----------------------
                                                         Norman Maxwell
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 20-F of Alto Palermo Sociedad Anónima (the company) for the year ended June 30, 2006
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Alejandro G. Elsztain, as Chief Executive Officer of the company, hereby certifies, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                          
|--- |  | -------------------------
|    |  | /s/ Alejandro G. Elsztain
|By: |  | Alejandro G. Elsztain    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer  
|    | 
|    |  | December 27, 2007        

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except as to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Postell *vs.*Chapman.

Where, on the trial of a claim interposed to the levy of an execution on a boat, it appeared that a half-interest in the boat belonged to the claimant and the other half to the defendant in execution, and the jury found that a half-interest was subject to the levy, the *680costs of the case should have been apportioned equally between the claimant and the plaintiff in execution.

(a) In such a case as this, equality is equity. Both parties were at fault, the plaintiff in levying on too much of the boat, and the claimant in claiming too much of it. If the claimant had claimed merely an undivided half-interest, the costs would have fallen entirely upon the plaintiff in execution,

July 11, 1888.

Executions. Claims. Costs. Before Judge Harden. City court of Savannah. November term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

Garrard & Meldrim, by brief, for plaintiff in error.

DuBignon & Fraser, by R. G. Erwin, *contra.*

Blandford, Justice.

An execution in favor of Chapman was levied upon a boat as the property of Inness, the defendant in execution. Postell interposed a claim. On the trial, it áppeared that a half-interest in the boat belonged to the claimant, and the other half-interest to the defendant in execution; and the jury found that a half-interest was subject to the levy. The court awarded all the costs against the claimant; to which the claimant excepted.

We think the costs should have been apportioned equally between the claimant and the plaintiff in execution. In such a case as this, equality is equity. Both parties were at fault, the plaintiff in levying on too much of the boat, and the claimant in claiming too much of it. If the claimant had merely claimed an undivided half-interest, the costs would have fallen entirely upon the plaintiff in execution. Our view of this case is sustained by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in the case of Storey *vs.*Bailey, decided March 1, 1888, (The Reporter, Vol. 25, p. 504,) and by the authorities cited in that case; Martin *vs.*Vallance, 1 East, 350; Day *vs.*Hanks, 3 T. R. 654; Seymour *681*vs.*Billings, 12 Wend. 285; Johnson *vs.*Fellows, 6 Hill, 353; Porter *vs.*Willett, 14 Abb. Pr. 319; Summers *vs.*Jarvis, *Id.*322, note.

We reverse the judgment of the court below, and direct that half of the costs be entered against the plaintiff in execution and the other half against the claimant.

Judgment reversed.
Before the First Division,

May 3, 1962

No. 66732.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/17400 (San Diego).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature car sets, etc., similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66106, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(i) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company at the dates and for the period indicated.



This Certificate
has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





|                       | INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC |                         
|---------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------
|                       |                                     |                         
|Dated: August 10, 2012 | By:                                 | /s/ Kenneth K. Westbrook
|                       |                                     | Kenneth K. Westbrook    
|                       |                                     | Chief Executive Officer 
|                       |                                     |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

v. : Crim. No. 04-278

: Crim. No. 04-552

DEMETRIUS JERMAINE ANDERSON :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The April 4, 2019 hearing is CONTINUED; and

2. The Parties shall, by April 17, 2019, SUBMIT legal memoranda in which they address 

whether Defendant still has an obligation to pay the $4,140 in restitution and $400 special 

assessment as ordered on May 4, 2005, and, if so, how that obligation is to be structured and

enforced.

 AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Paul S. Diamond

_______________________

 Paul S. Diamond, J.

Case 2:04-cr-00278-PD Document 52 Filed 04/03/19 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,747,719
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,728,699<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                   650,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,258,282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,706,221
<PP&E>                                       9,005,655
<DEPRECIATION>                                 877,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              86,320,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,425,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,268
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,800,697<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                86,320,006
<SALES>                                     44,835,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,835,866
<CGS>                                       30,002,472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,475,951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             723,609
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,633,834
<INCOME-TAX>                                   784,144
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            849,690
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   849,690
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.1
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.1
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNT REPRESENTS NET ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE.
<F2>AMOUNT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL, RETAINED EARNINGS, AND TREASURY
STOCK.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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


In connection with the annual report of BW Acquisition, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger E. Pawson, Chief Executive Officer
(or equivalent thereof) and Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)
of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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/ Roger E. Pawson
                              -------------------------
                              Roger E. Pawson
                              Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)
                              January 5, 2005
# C_2015337EN.01003702.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/37

---

Action brought on 19 August 2015 — European Food v OHIM — Société des Produits Nestlé (FITNESS)

(Case T-476/15)

(2015/C 337/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania) (represented by: I. Speciac, 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: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘FITNESS’ — Community trade mark No 2 470 326

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 June 2015 in Case R 2542/2013-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and remit the case to the Office in order to issue a decision in compliance with the Court’s ruling; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and remit the case to the Office in order to issue a decision in compliance with the Court’s ruling;

| — | as a subsidiary, alter the contested decision and cancel CTM Fitness no 2470326; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a subsidiary, alter the contested decision and cancel CTM Fitness no 2470326;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs generated by the current proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs generated by the current proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of rule 37(b)(vi), rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of rule 37(b)(vi), rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
<PAGE>

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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the period indicated

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                        INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: November 13, 2007                By: /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                            -------------------
                                            Steven R. Blake
                                            Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

                          WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
                                   FORM 10-QSB
                          QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2003

                       CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS

I, Edward J. McKeon, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Western
Reserve Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify the following:

     -    This Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Sections
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     -    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial position and results of operations of
          Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of and for the periods presented.


                                          /s/ Edward J. McKeon
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Edward J. McKeon
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          May 13, 2003


                                 Page 25 of 26
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6596

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KERMIT C. BROWN, a/k/a Brian Mackey, a/k/a

Destruction, a/k/a Bear,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:98-cr-00047-JBF)

Submitted: July 19, 2007 Decided: July 25, 2007

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kermit C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Special

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kermit C. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders construing his “Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Assistance

and Instructions on Avenue for Correction of Violation of His

Substantial Rights” as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion,

and dismissing it on that basis, and denying his subsequent motion

for reconsideration. Brown’s motion for reconsideration was not

filed within ten days of the district court’s order dismissing his

request for judicial assistance as a successive § 2255 motion as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The time for appealing that

order expired before he filed his notice of appeal on April 3,

2007, and therefore only the denial of the motion for

reconsideration is preserved for appeal. See Alston v. MCI

Commc’ns Corp., 84 F.3d 705, 706 (4th Cir. 1996) (only a timely

Rule 59(e) motion tolls time period for filing notice of appeal);

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv)-(vi).

The order denying reconsideration is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any
- 3 -

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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
# March 2015

# April 2015

# May 2015

# June 2015
AERIAL 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 NeNv .lersey Ave., SE 

1Vashington, DC 20590 

A ug. 03, 2015 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11594 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Reform Act and Part 1 1 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Re ~.;ulatory Docket 

No. FAA-2015-0480. 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

Pictorvision Inc. Nvas issued an Exemption numbered 11594 (hereinafler the Exemption) 

for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed-set filming for the motion picture and television 

industry. RDX Aerial Media, LLC. herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow 2 

additional models of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies Nvith the conditions of the 

Exernption, and to also allow the use of all their UAS systems for Aerial Data Collection. 

RDX Aerial Media, LLC. wishes to operate three additional variations of the sUAS (models number 

ALTA, AERIGON and Sensurion MAGPIE under the same terms and conditlons contalned ln the E`Cemptlon. 

Attached hereto, and submitted asa confidential document, is the Flight Operations and Procedures 

Manua) (FOPM) for the additional UAS. AII operations ofthe additional UAS will be in full 

compliance with the terrns of the Exernption. 

As this is an amendrnent to an existing eaemption asl:ing fvr the addition of 3 similar models of 

unmanned aerial vehicle and to alloNv Aerial Data Collection and Closed set operations, RDX Aerial 

respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal 

Register for the requested amendment. 

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an 

amendment to the Exemption. 

Sincerely yours, 

~ 

~ 

Patrick Morehead 

Co-ONvner 

RDX Aerial Media, LLC. 

424-258-4014 

10920 Painis Blvd. Uitiit 207, Los Angeics, Ci{ iifoE•nia 90034 

P:424-258-4M %vw1,1l.RDXAeria1.con)