alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<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 the Annual Report of Eye Dynamics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 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) 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 operation of
         the Company

Date:  April 6, 2005                 /s/ Charles E. Phillips
                                     --------------------------------------
                                     Charles E. Phillips
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                     (Principal Financial Officer)
COA # 13-14-00002-CR 

### Francisco Javier Gonzalez v. The 

### STYLE: State ofTexas TRIAL COURT: 370th District Court TRIAL COURT#: CR-2705-13-G 

### TRIAL COURTJUDGE: Hon. Noe Gonzalez DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED 

### DATE: 

### JUSTICE: PUBLISH: CLK RECORD: RPT RECORD: 

### STATE BR: APP BR: PC DNP: 

# \HM-W

OFFENSE: Murder 

## COUNTY: Hidalgo
MOTIONFOR REHEARING IS: DATE: August 28, 2014 JUDGE: LONGORIA

SUPP CLK RECORD



### SUPP RPT RECORD. SUPP BR

PROSE BR FILE COPY



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

# APPfUAA/r]SPetition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: l&llJfl JUDGE: 

# J 2±

# *0— CCA# 

# \HO*-/U Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: 

### SIGNED:. PUBLISH: PC: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS: CCA IS:. JUDGE: ON ON JUDGE:
No. 49703.

#### Protest 653847-G of Luigi Volpe (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and *Locatelli*v. *United States,*T. D. 48284. This claim was therefore sustained.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00309-CV 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.H. AND A.R.H., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 362nd District Court 

 Denton County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 15-08449-211, Honorable Robert Bruce McFarling, Presiding 

November 21, 2022 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Rodolfo G. Rosa, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Order 

of Dismissal.

1

 The clerk’s record has been filed. The reporter’s record was due October 

11, 2022, but was not filed because Rosa purportedly failed to request and make payment 

arrangements for the record. On October 20, 2022, Rosa filed a copy of a “Request for 

Court Records and Reporter’s Records for Appeal.” The document indicates that Rosa 

also filed a statement of inability to afford payment of court costs. The reporter has since 

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalizations efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

notified the Court that she has yet to a receive a designation or payment for the reporter’s 

record from Rosa. 

It is the appellant’s responsibility to request preparation and make payment 

arrangements for the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b). When an appellant 

fails to do so, we may consider and decide an appeal without a reporter’s record, unless 

appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). 

Here, we are unable to determine whether Rosa has requested preparation of the 

reporter’s record, made payment arrangements, or sought to proceed without payment of 

costs. 

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand this cause to the trial court to 

determine (1) whether Rosa requested preparation of the reporter’s record; (2) if so, what 

portions of the reporter’s record were requested; (3) whether Rosa paid for the reporter’s 

record; and (4) if Rosa has not paid for the reporter’s record, whether he is entitled to 

proceed without payment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (providing that the trial 

and appellate court are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely 

filed); TEX. R. CIV. P. 145 (concerning indigence and payment of costs). The trial court 

shall enter its findings in a written order and include the order in a supplemental clerk’s 

record which shall be filed with this Court by December 21, 2022.

Per Curiam
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL JAMES LONGORIO,

Plaintiff, No. 2:04-cv-02650 DFL KJM (PC)

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file an amended complaint pursuant

to the court’s order of May 18, 2005. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 14, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an

amended complaint.

DATED: June 20, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

long2650.36 

Case 2:04-cv-02650-JAM -KJM Document 6 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 57328.

protests 960931-G, etc. (Boston and New York).

#### Dodwell & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

When this case was called for trial, it was submitted on the same basis as the submission in Abstract 57282, namely, that the right to move to reopen or to set aside the submission was abandoned. An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protests were overruled. *(T. M. Duche & Sons*v. *United States,*39 C. C. P. A. 186, C. A. D. 485, certiorari denied, *T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc.*v. *United States,*344 U. S. 830, followed.)
No. 64157.

protests 165776-K, etc. (New York).

#### Benthan, Ltd., and American Shipping Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
FEDERAL AVIATION • ADMINISTRATION 

COMPLIANCE WITH E.O. 12866 

Section 6(a)(3)(E) of E.O. 12866 requires ag!~ncies to identify for the public, in 

a complete, clear, and simple manner, those changes in a regulatory action 

made at the suggestion or recommendation of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget. 

Title of Rulemaking: 

Regulatory Identification Number: 

Attachment 

OIRA did not review the rulemaking document. 

OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document, but did not 

suggest or recommend any changes. 

OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document, and we have 

documented the changes we made at OIRA's suggestion or 

recommendation in an attachment to this sheet. 

[Attach a list of the changes ·we have made to the rulemaking document at the 

suggestion or recommendation o.fOIRA. Use a lisr rather than a 

redlinelstrikeout version o.fthe document. Place a copy ofthisform in the 

docket and in the project.folder.} 
] 

2
CERTIFICATION OF				PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF				HYBRID DYNAMICS CORPORATION				PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Leonard DuCharme, Chief Executive Officer of Hybrid Dynamics Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  August 13, 2007                                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                    |
| By:  /s/ LEONARD DUCHARME              |
| Leonard DuCharme                                                                                             |
| Principal Executive Officer                                                                                  |

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kent A. Murphy, Chief Executive 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 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/ KENT A. MURPHY                   
|Kent A. Murphy, Ph.D.                
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 6,
2008.
No. 59034.

protest 246675-K (New York).

#### Carole Stupell, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
#### David B. Jacobs, Appellant, v Linda Cirnigliaro, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 478]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover fees for legal services allegedly rendered to the defendant, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated May 19, 1994, as (1) granted the branches of the defendant’s motion which were to strike scandalous and prejudicial material from the complaint and for an award of attorney’s fees to the extent of awarding the defendant $2,500 and (2) denied the branch of his cross motion which was for summary judgment on the causes of action to recover fees for the legal services that he allegedly rendered to the defendant.

Ordered that, on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal from so much of the order as granted the branch of the defendant’s motion which was to strike scandalous and prejudicial material from the complaint is treated as an application for leave to appeal and leave to appeal is granted *(see,*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further;

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there are is*320sues of fact regarding the value, if any, of the plaintiff’s purported legal services to the defendant. Thus, the branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for summary judgment on the causes of action to recover for those services was properly denied *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]).

A review of the plaintiff’s pleadings supports the striking of the scandalous and prejudicial material in the complaint and the award of attorney’s fees of $2,500 to the defendant *(see, 22*NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4562 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4562

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
 practice of feeding excrement to farm animals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2024

  Mr. Booker introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
 practice of feeding excrement to farm animals, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``NO Stool in Herds' Troughs Act'' or 
the ``NO SHT Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON INTENTIONAL ADDITION OF EXCREMENT TO ANIMAL 
              FOOD.

    Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
331) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(jjj)(1) The manufacture or the introduction or delivery for 
introduction into interstate commerce of an animal food that contains 
intentionally-added excrement.
    ``(2) For purposes of subparagraph (1), the use of livestock or 
poultry manure as crop fertilizer shall not be considered to be the 
intentional addition of excrement.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Served: December 5, 2014

NOTICE SHORTENING ANSWER PERIOD

On December 1, 2014

, Alitalia

– Compagnia Aerea Italiana S.p.A. (Alitalia) and Alitalia

– Società Aerea Italiana S.p.A. ( Società Italia) ( collectively, the Joint Applicants) filed an

application for : 1) an exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 ; 2) transfer of foreign air carrier

p ermit u nder 49 U.S.C. § 41303 ; and 3) transfer of related code

- share a uthoriz ations . A nswers to each request would normally be due as follows:

Transfer of Code

- Share Authorizations

– December 10, 2014

Exemption

– December 16, 2014

Transfer of Foreign Air Carrier Permit

– December 22, 2014

The Joint Applicants included in their a pplication a motion for shortened answer period asking

that the Department instead set December 8, 2014, as the due date for answers to each of the

requests encompassed by their application

. They also served their application on interested

parties as requ ired by Department regulations.

The Joint Applicants assert that their request for a shortened answer period to their application is

to facilitate expedited Department a ction and permit the Joint Applicants to proceed with the

Transaction by the Decembe r 31, 2014 closing date

. On December 5, 2014, the Joint Applicants

advised the Department that they completed their polling of carrier representatives served with the

above

- captioned Joint Application and Motion to Shorten Answer Period, and have confirme d there

are no objections to the relief requested therein.

W e have decided to grant the applicant ’ s request to shorten the a nswer period for this application

to December 8, 2014 . Any replies to answers will be due December 11 , 2014 . We find that , i n

the circumstances presented, including the absence of opposition to the Joint Applicant’ motion,

such action is warranted in the public interest

. Joint Application of Alitalia

– Compagnia Aerea Italiana S.p.A. and Alitalia

– Società

Aerea Italiana S.p.A. for an Exemption Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 4010 9 and Transfer of

Foreign Air Carrier Permit U nder 49 U.S.C. § 41303 and Related A uthorizations and

Motion for Shortened Answer Period

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2014

- 0210We will serve this notice by electronic mail on all parties served with the application

, and hereby

authorize s ervice of documents by facsimile and by electronic mail.

By:

PAUL L. GRETCH

Director

Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated: December 5, 2014

An electronic version of this notice is available on the World Wide Web at

www.regulations.gov
(Reap. Dec. 8537)

#### D. Hauser, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 700768, etc.

(Decided February 1, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted *524for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised unit values less three per centum packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised unit values, less 3 per centum, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICE

CHAIR OF THE APPELLATE COURT PROCEDURAL RUL ES COMMITTEE :

:

:

:

: N O

. 300

APPELLATE COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11 th day of April , 202 2

, the Honorable J. Andrew Crompton (Ret.)

is hereby designated as Chair

, and Kristen W. Brown, Esquire, is designated as Vice

Chair

, of the Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee , c ommencing Ju ne 30 , 202 2

.
No. 58569.

protests 208904-K, etc. (New York).

#### National Distillers Products Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4282]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Exporters' Textile Advisory Committee (ETAC); Notice of Open 
Meeting

    A meeting of the Exporters' Textile Advisory Committee will be held 
on Thursday, April 12, 2007 from 1:00-4:00 at the Ronald Reagan 
Building, Trade Information Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20004, Training Room A.
    The ETAC is a national advisory committee that advises Department 
of Commerce officials on the identification of export barriers, and on 
market expansion activities. With the elimination of textile quotas 
under the WTO agreement on textiles and clothing, the Administration is 
committed to encouraging U.S. textile and apparel firms to export and 
remain competitive in the global market.
    The meeting will be open to the public with a limited number of 
seats available. For further information or copies of the minutes, 
contact Rachel Alarid at (202) 482-5154.
Date: March 5, 2007.

R. Matthew Priest,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and Apparel.
[FR Doc.E7-4282 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, No. MISC. S-04-0065 FCD GGH

vs. (CR-S-02-422 FCD)

CHARLES MICHAEL ZUREK, JR.,

Defendant and ORDER

Judgment Debtor.

__________________________________/

MORGAN STANLEY,

Garnishee.

__________________________________/

On April 11, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

\\\\\

Case 2:04-mc-00065-FCD-GGH Document 31 Filed 05/31/05 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

2

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 11, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. The government’s applications for writs of garnishment against Charles and

Opal Zurek are granted in part, and the Morgan Stanley investment accounts 171-055168, 171-

055169, 171-016406 are subject to garnishment of the United States. Garnishment of account

171-055170 is denied.

DATED: May 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

zurek65.jo

Case 2:04-mc-00065-FCD-GGH Document 31 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN C. LEGGIO, Seaman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

12 USCMA 8, 30 CMR 8

No. 14,282

Decided October 21, 1960

*Captain Frederick D. Clements,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*9
      *Commander Louis L. Milano,*USN, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to his plea, the accused was found guilty of two specifications of larceny and sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $100.Ó0 per month for three months, and confinement at hard labor for three months. With some reduction in the forfeitures, intermediate appellate authorities affirmed.

During argument on the sentence, the trial counsel stated:

> . . Counsel for the defense stated that Leggio was a value to the Service. Well, not more than one week ago a message came out which requested that all El, E2, and E3 rates who show potential for trouble-making be removed from the service or not be allowed to re-enlist. Now I will agree with the defense I don’t think brig time will be necessary at all. I do think that a BCD or an administrative discharge be recommended for Leggio.”

The trial counsel’s argument was prejudicially erroneous. United States v Estrada, 7 USCMA 635, 23 CMR 99; United States v Lackey, 8 USCMA 718, 25 CMR 222. Reversal is required.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing on the sentence is ordered.