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





**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





The
      undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      the Annual Report of Vista International Technologies Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.





**VISTA
                INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**Date: May
                15, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Barry
                J.
                KembleBarry
                J. KembleChief
                Executive Officer





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





The
      undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      the Annual Report of Vista International Technologies Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.




**VISTA
                INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**Date: May
                15, 2008
            By:
            */s/
                Timothy A. Peach*Timothy
                A. PeachChief
                Financial Officer
#### HELENE ZALEJKO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER AND RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ASSEMBLERS UNION, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 98 *N. J. Super.*16.

*Messrs. Gassert Murpky*and *Messrs. Archer,*Greiner, *Hunter & Read*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Graner & Brennan*for the respondent.

March 26, 1968.

Denied.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 12 - 00 383 - CR

KERRI IRENE DANZ APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------ FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 1 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------ Appellant Kerri Irene Danz appeals the trial court’s revocation of her community supervision

. Danz’s court
- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Danz had the opportunity to file a pro se brief but did not do so; the State has not filed a brief. Once an appellant’s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdr aw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W .2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We hav e carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief

. We agree with

coun sel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: MCCOY , DAUPHINOT , and GARDNER , J J

. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 27, 2013
Order entered September 1 4 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00741

- CV

IN RE JOHN CREUZOT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY , Relator

O riginal Proceeding from the 3 05th Judi cial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JC

- 21

- 00754

O RDER Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Before the Court is relator ’ s September 2, 2021 motion for leave to file

amended petition

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER relat or ’ s first amended

petition for writ of mandamu s , received on September 2, 2021

, fi led as of the date

of this order

.

We also request that real parties in interest and resp ondent file a response, if

any, to the first amended petition for writ of mandamus b y Oct obe r 4, 2021.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
No. 64214.

protests 59/1815, etc. (New York).

#### Walter Hatches, Inc., and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mottahedeh Creations, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 9, C.D. 2095), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### THEODORE VAN HEEK, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. BOROUGH OF FORT LEE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Mr. Robert*W. *Dempsey*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Breslin & Monaghan*for the respondent.

April 30, 1968.

Denied.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 818 

To expand labor representation on State and local workforce development 

boards, to provide a definition of labor organization, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2023 

Ms. SHERRILL (for herself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, and Mrs. HAYES) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce 

A BILL 

To expand labor representation on State and local workforce 

development boards, to provide a definition of labor organization, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Expanding Labor Rep5 resentation in the Workforce System Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARDS. 

7 Section 101(b)(1)(C)(ii) of the Workforce Innovation 

8 and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3111(b)(1)(C)(ii)) is 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 818 IH

1 amended by striking ‘‘20 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘30 per2 cent’’. 

3 SEC. 3. LOCAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARDS. 

4 Section 107(b)(2)(B) of the Workforce Innovation 

5 and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3122(b)(2)(B)) is amend6 ed by striking ‘‘20’’ and inserting ‘‘30’’. 

7 SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF LABOR ORGANIZATION. 

8 Section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and Oppor9 tunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102) is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following: 

11 ‘‘(72) LABOR ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘labor 

12 organization’ has the meaning given the term in sec13 tion 2(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

14 U.S.C. 152(5)), except that such term shall also in15 clude— 

16 ‘‘(A) any organization composed of labor 

17 organizations, such as a labor union federation 

18 or a State or municipal labor body; and 

19 ‘‘(B) any organization which would be in20 cluded in the definition for such term under 

21 such section 2(5) but for the fact that the orga22 nization represents— 

23 ‘‘(i) individuals employed by the 

24 United States, any wholly owned Govern25 ment corporation, any Federal Reserve 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 818 IH

1 Bank, or any State or political subdivision 

2 thereof; 

3 ‘‘(ii) individuals employed by persons 

4 subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 

5 U.S.C. 151 et seq.); or 

6 ‘‘(iii) individuals employed as agricul7 tural laborers.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TYRONE PARKER, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Peter Murray, Mr. Bichard Newman*and *Mr. Claude J. Minter*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Bobert N. McAllister, Jr.*and *Mr. Ernest M. Curtis*for the respondent.

May 28, 1968.

Denied.
#### Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, Appellant *v.*Theodore K. Lilley, Jr., Appellee.

Argued April 10, 1981,

before Judges Rogers, Craig and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three.

*377June 1, 1981:

*Harold H. Cramer,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Ward T. Williams,*Chief Counsel, Transportation, and *Harvey Bartle, III,*Acting Attorney General, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Opinion by

Judge Rogers,

Theodore K. Lilley was convicted on January 11, 1977, of failure to stop and disclose his identity at the scene of a motor vehicle accident in violation of Section 1027 of The Vehicle Code of 1959 (old Code), Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, *as amended, formerly,*75 P.S. §1027, repealed by the Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162. In accordance with Section 616(a)(3) of the old Code he was notified by the Department of Transportation (Department) of a one-year suspension of his driving privileges beginning July 28, 1977. On July 25, 1977, Lilley appealed the suspension to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County arguing that the one-year suspension was not authorized by the newly enacted Vehicle Code of 1976 (new Code), 75 Pa. C. S. §101 *et seq.*which became effective on July 1, 1977. The Court of Common Pleas sustained the appeal and *378the Department here seeks review of that determination.

As the Court below recognized in its memorandum opinion, decisions of this Court, not available when the appeal was sustained, hold that provisions of the old Code remain applicable to offenses which occurred while the old Code was in effect although the convictions or suspension actions occur after the effective date of the new Code. These decisions require us to reverse the order below. *Hergenrother v. Commonwealth,*45 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 175, 406 A.2d 575 (1979); *Ellis v. Commonwealth,*46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 383, 406 A.2d 1180 (1979).

Order reversed.

Order

And Now, this 1st day of June, 1981, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County sustaining the appeal of Theodore K. Lilley is reversed.
Case No. 5,353.

#### The GEORGIA D. LOUD.

[8 Ben. 392.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Feb. 1876.

Pilotage Through Hell Gate—Tender or Services—Long Island Sound—Construction of State Statute.

Where a Hell Gate pilot offered his services to a vessel bound through Hell Gate, at a point 17 miles east of Sand’s Point, and was refused: *Hdd,*that, under the statute of the state of New York such tender of pilotage services at that place was effective, and the libel-lant might recover half pilotage upon such refusal.

[Cited in The Glaramara, 10 Fed. G79.]

In admiralty.

Beebe, Wilcox & Hobbs, for libellant

W. W. Goodrich, for claimant

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This is an action by a Hell Gate pilot to recover half pilot-age, as provided in the laws of the state, by reason of a tender of services and a refusal thereof at a point off Norwalk Island, some 17 miles eastward of Sand’s Point, to a vessel then on a voyage through Hell Gate.

The evidence shows a tender and a refusal, and the only question left for determination is the question referred to and left undecided in Horton v. Smith [Case No. 6,709], whether a tender, at a point as far distant, as 17 miles to eastward of Sand’s Point, entitles the pilot to half pilotage, in case of a refusal of his services then made. I have examined the statute of this state with care to see if any ground exists therein for the limitation which the claimants here contend for; and certainly without any desire to give to the statute any more extended operation than its language compels—for the necessity of compulsory pilotage for a thoroughfare like Hell Gate in the present state of commerce in the port of New York may well be questioned. But I fail to find any ground for saying that an effective tender of pilotage services may not be made at the point where the libellant made his tender.

The provisions of the. act clearly indicate an intention to afford an inducement to pilots to go further east than Sand’s Point, and a tender off Norwalk Island is within the letter and the spirit of the statute. The libellant must accordingly have his decree.
No. 46782.

#### Protest 789346-G of Q. W. Lung Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the dried lily flowers are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 24624. In accordance therewith the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 775 was sustained.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, Monica M. Weed certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Information Resources, Inc.Litigation Contingent Payment Rights Trust;

 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statementsof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the“Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)     presentedin this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the EvaluationDate;

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)     allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)    anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changesin internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affectinternal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

 

 
| /s/ MONICA M. WEED |   |
|--------------------|--------|
| Monica M. Weed     |
| Litigation Trustee |
| May 24, 2004       |

 

1

----
No. 49699.

#### Protests 46015-K, etc., of Seaboard Western Grain Corp. et al. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is the same as that passed upon in *Richardson*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 6, C. D. 823), the protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 56013.

protests 151776-K and 156410-K (New York).

#### Kittay & Blitz, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoices should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
#### Gustav Pantzar, *Respondent, v.*The Tilly Foster Iron Mining Company, *Appellant*

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by Daniels, J.
CHAPTER 7-12-03

RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR AGRICULTURAL ANHYDROUS

AMMONIA FACILITIES

Section

7-12-03-01 Scope

7-12-03-02 Incorporation by Reference

7-12-03-03 Denitions

7-12-03-01. Scope. The requirements of this chapter apply only to

agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities.

History: Effective April 1, 2013.

General Authority: NDCC 28-32-02

Law Implemented: NDCC 19-20.3

7-12-03-02. Incorporation by reference. The provisions of 40 CFR part 68

as they existed on June 30, 2011, are incorporated by reference into this chapter,

with the following exceptions:

1. Where the term "stationary source" appears in 40 CFR part 68, for the

purposes of this chapter only reference the term "agricultural anhydrous

ammonia facility" as dened in section 7-12-03-03.

2. Not adopted by reference in 40 CFR section 68.120.

3. Not adopted by reference are 40 CFR section 68.210, and 40 CFR

section 68.215.

History: Effective April 1, 2013.

General Authority: NDCC 28-32-02

Law Implemented: NDCC 19-20.3

7-12-03-03. Denitions. The denitions in 40 CFR part 68 apply to this

chapter. The following additional denitions also apply:

1. "Agricultural anhydrous ammonia facility" means any facility that has

at least ten thousand pounds [4535 kilograms] of storage capacity and

stores anhydrous ammonia intended to be used as a fertilizer or in the

manufacturing of a fertilizer.

2. "Fertilizer" means any substance regulated as a fertilizer under North

Dakota Century Code chapter 19-20.1.

History: Effective April 1, 2013.

General Authority: NDCC 28-32-02

Law Implemented: NDCC 19-20.3

1
#### WILLOW BROOK RECREATION CENTER, INC., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. SUSAN SELLE, *ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

See same case below: 96 *N. J. Super.*358.

Messrs. *Marcus & Levy*and *Mr. Harry Q. Ghashin*for the petitioner.

January 29, 1968.

Denied.
No. 65565.

#### Philkam Cycle Supply Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/33502, etc. (New York).

*460Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, R. Byron Carlock, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, certifies that
(1) this Quarterly Report of CNL Income Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the
Company as of September 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005, and its results of operations for the quarters and nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005.



|                        |  |                           |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                        |  | /s/ R. Byron Carlock, Jr.
|Date: November 13, 2006 |  | Name:                     |  | R. Byron Carlock, Jr.                
|                        |  | Title:                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF ACTING 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, William D. Eglin, Chief Financial Officer of MD
Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MD Technologies Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MD
Technologies Inc.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 9, 2004 |  | /s/ William D. Eglin   
|                       |  | William D. Eglin       
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer