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

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 10-K of Alamosa (Delaware), Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kendall Cowan, as 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, 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/ Kendall W. Cowan
--------------------------------------
Name:  Kendall W. Cowan
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  March 15, 2004



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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

 

1 The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in

the preparation of the joint status report does not excuse the other

parties from their obligation to timely file a status report in

accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails to participate

as ordered, the party timely submitting the status report shall

include a declaration explaining why it was unable to obtain the

cooperation of the other party or parties.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON HOPE, ) NO. CV S-04-2223 GEB CMK

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. ) 

)

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, OHANA )

HOTELS-RESORTS, OUTRIGGER HOTELS- )

RESORTS, )

Defendants. )

)

In light of the nature of Outrigger Hotels-Resorts’s

objection to the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed April 13,

2005, the Order is vacated. A status conference is scheduled for July

11, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed no later

than June 27, 2005.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: May 13, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02223-GEB-CMK Document 34 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENISE WHITE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-55561 

D.C. No. 

5:15-cv-01198-VAP-KES 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2019**

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Denise White appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the 

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of White’s applications for disability 

insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the 

Social Security Act. Reviewing de novo, we may set aside a denial of benefits 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 9 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-55561 

only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the administrative law 

judge (“ALJ”) applied the wrong legal standard. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 

1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The ALJ’s findings concerning White’s back injury are supported by

substantial evidence. See id. at 1111 (if the record contains evidence “susceptible 

to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they 

are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record”); Thomas v. 

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 948, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The opinions of non-treating or nonexamining physicians may also serve as substantial evidence when the opinions are 

consistent with independent clinical findings or other evidence in the record.”). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's 1999 audited financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                     2000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                          1000                    1000
<OTHER-SE>                                         250                   (1200)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1250                     100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1250)                   (100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1250)                   (100)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
# C_2007011EN.01000101.xml

| 17.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 11/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 17.11.2006 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 658/06 |
| Member State | France |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Aide d'État N 658/2006 — Extension du périmètre de 3 Zones Franches Urbaines — France — Modification du régime N 70 A/2006 — Prorogation et extension du dispositif des Zones Franches Urbaines (ZFU) |
| Legal basis | Loi sur l'égalité des chances |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | The objective of the scheme is to promote and develop depressed urban areas in France, determined on a geographical basis.
  The measures notified aim to strengthen the local economic fabric, comprising for the most part small businesses, allowing for new developments and the creation of businesses, via incentives in the form of specific tax exemptions and exemptions from social security contributions that will help promote employment |
| Form of aid | Reduction of social security contributions |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 35 million; Overall budget: EUR 100 million |
| Duration | 31.12.2011 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Délégation interministérielle à la ville |
| 194, Av. du Président Wilson |
| F-93217 La Plaine Saint Denis |

Date of adoption of the decision

17.11.2006

Reference number of the aid

N 658/06

Member State

France

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Aide d'État N 658/2006 — Extension du périmètre de 3 Zones Franches Urbaines — France — Modification du régime N 70 A/2006 — Prorogation et extension du dispositif des Zones Franches Urbaines (ZFU)

Legal basis

Loi sur l'égalité des chances

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

The objective of the scheme is to promote and develop depressed urban areas in France, determined on a geographical basis.

The measures notified aim to strengthen the local economic fabric, comprising for the most part small businesses, allowing for new developments and the creation of businesses, via incentives in the form of specific tax exemptions and exemptions from social security contributions that will help promote employment

Form of aid

Reduction of social security contributions

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 35 million; Overall budget: EUR 100 million

Duration

31.12.2011

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Délégation interministérielle à la ville

194, Av. du Président Wilson

F-93217 La Plaine Saint Denis

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
No. 58583.

protests 168925-K, etc. (New York).

#### Albert Bonnier Publishing House, Inc., and Milton Snedeker Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the paper napkins the subject of *Freund Mayer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 123, C. A. D. 474). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise is dutiable at 15 percent under said paragraph 1413, as modified, *supra.*
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

KEITH M. CASSELLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 04-1798 FCD PAN P

vs.

D. MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On July 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

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

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Defendants have filed

objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings

and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/22/05 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

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 13, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ December 3, 2004, motion is granted in part; 

3. Plaintiff’s claim that in 2002 defendant Mehta was deliberately indifferent to

his serious medical needs by misdiagnosing plaintiff’s symptoms is dismissed without prejudice;

and,

4. Defendants’ December 3, 2004, motion to dismiss is denied in all other

respects and defendants are directed to file and serve an answer to the complaint within 30 days. 

DATED:August 19, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Granted and Order filed October 30, 2014
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00850

- CV

IN RE RICHARD PARKER , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 247th District Court Harris County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. 2012

- 13073


### ORDER
This c ourt has reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus of relator, Richard Parker

. The c ourt is of the opinion that relator’s petition requires further consideration. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b)(3). We therefore order the c lerk of this

c ourt to issue a writ of habeas corpus, returnable on December 4 , 2014, pending2 final determination of the relief requested in the petition. We further order that relator be discharged upon execution and filing of a bond as set for th below. See id. The relator will be admitted to bail upon him giving a good and sufficient bond, signed by relator as principal and his attorney, Walter P. Mahoney, Jr. , as surety, conditioned as required by law, or by any other surety acceptable to the Sheriff of Harris County, or cash in lieu of bond, in the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) , pending the hearing on the return date of this writ, and until otherwise ordered by this c ourt. A response to the petition is hereby requested to be filed on or before November 14 , 2014. The cause is set for submission without oral argument on December 4 , 2014.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan

.
Exhibit 32 Section 1350 Certifications  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 Global Agri-Med Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger L. Fidler, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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:  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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: November 15, 2006  __/s/Roger L. Fidler_______ Roger L. Fidler President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
No. 65545.

#### Kane Import Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 308955-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Donlon, 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. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 10.3


Verbal Agreement by and between
the Company and Paramount Trading Ltd.


As of December 31, 2014, Paramount
and Richard Gilbert have advanced and paid expenses for an aggregate amount of $219,806, including $32,809 of accrued interest,
on behalf of the Company. There is currently no written agreement in effect with respect to repayment of such fees and expenses,
although the Company has agreed to repay such amounts upon the Company entering into a business combination transaction.


The Company has verbally agreed
to repay to Paramount Trading Ltd. all amounts that have been or may in the future, from time to time, be advanced to it or any
third parties on behalf of the Company on the earliest to occur of any one of the following events (a) a Business Combination,
(b) the third anniversary of the date such advance was made and (c) the Company becoming insolvent. “Business Combination”
means an acquisition by or of the Company by merger, capital stock exchange, asset or stock acquisition, reorganization or otherwise,
of or with an operating business. The Company has verbally agreed that the loans will bear annual interest at 5% and will be due
on demand.
No. 60892.

#### Browne Vintners Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 278447-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It *was*stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 52643.

protests 126917-K, etc. (New York).

#### Chanticleer Press, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted evidence establishing that the electrotype plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc.*v. *United States*(20 Cust. Ct. 78, C. D. 1088), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10770)

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 3779; 4971.

(Decided June 9, 1964)

*SrooTcs & BrooTcs*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated, in schedule A, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain bicycle tireS- and tubes, imported from Holland.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed as follows:

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States were the invoiced unit prices as entered.

Upon the agreed facts of record, tbe court finds and holds that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of' 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the bicycle tires and. tubes in issue and that said value is represented by the invoiced unit prices as entered.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### Ralph M. Jones v. W. A. Warner

162 So. 927.

Opinion Filed June 20, 1935.

7. 7. *Canon, C. S. Green*and *Hilburn & Merryday,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Thomas B. Dowda,*for Defendant in Errro.

Per Curiam.

The writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a suit in ejectment.

In short, the only question presented is, does the evidence support the judgment?

We think the evidence sufficient.

Judgment affirmed.

Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
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 the Annual Report of IceWEB, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John R. Signorello, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 result of operations of the Company.  December 26, 2007
        /s/ John R. Signorello
 John R. Signorello, Chief Executive Officer and
 principal executive officer
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 52058.

#### Gabriel Sonnino *v.*United States,

protest 130619-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the Government raised the question as to whether the protest was timely. On December 14, 1946, plaintiff sent a letter to the collector of customs claiming the merchandise to be free of duty as antiques and requesting that the amount paid as customs duty be returned to him. Subsequently, on February 17, 1947 (more than 60 days after liquidation), plaintiff sent another letter to the customs officials setting forth his claim. The collector stated in a letter to plaintiff, dated March 12, 1947, that the protest had been *180numbered as of December 16, 1946. It was held that the letter of December 14 was a protest and was timely, the court-stating that a protest is not required to be in a particular form nor need it designate the paragraph under which the claim is made, provided that it informs the collector of the real ground of the complaint. *(Carter v. United States,*1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 64, T. D. 31033; *Frankenberg*v. *United States,*13 Cust. Ct. 123, C. D. 882; and *Raybestos Manhattan, Inc.*v. *United States,*27 C. C. P. A. 340, C. A. D. 109, cited.) On the advice of the examiner, counsel for the Government conceded that the pieces of lace in question are artistic antiquities. It was therefore held that'the merchandise is free of duty under paragraph 1811 as artistic antiquities produced prior to the year 1830.
Before the Third Division,

June 30, 1943

N0. 48499.

#### Protests 766274-G, etc., of W. R. Zanes & Co. et al. (Galveston, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.