alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED BY**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert J. Zatta,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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 ofthe Company.

 
| Date: May 9, 2008                             |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                               |   |
| /s/ ROBERT J.  ZATTA                          |   |
| Robert J. Zatta                                    |   |
| Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Rivera, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 306]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered September 9, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 41⁄2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the testimony of police witnesses concerning police procedures and terminology for participants in drug transactions and the targeting of areas, because of neighborhood complaints about drug trafficking, and to the prosecutor’s use of this testimony in summation, are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, no objection having been made to either the testimony or the summation comment *(People v Graves,*85 NY2d 1024). We decline to review them in the interest of justice. If we were to review them, we would find that the challenged testimony was admissible to explain why prerecorded buy money and drugs were not recovered from defendant upon his arrest *(People v Gonzalez,*180 AD2d 553, *lv denied*79 NY2d 1001; *People v Applewhite,*202 AD2d 250, *lv denied*83 NY2d 868), and that the challenged comment with respect to defendant’s job as a steerer was not unfair. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Westchester County Department of Social Services, on Behalf of Terri L. and Another, Children *345Alleged to be Abused and Neglected, Appellant. Terry L. et al., Respondents.

[635 NYS2d 471]

—In child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 to extend the placement of children alleged to be abused and neglected, the Westchester County Department of Social Services appeals (1) as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Scancarelli, J.), dated September 7, 1995, as, *inter alia,*directed the removal of Terri L. and Lisa L. from their respective foster homes, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated September 13, 1995, which, without a hearing, *inter alia,*directed the Westchester County Department of Social Services to make reasonable efforts to place Terri L. and Lisa L. at the Andrus Facility for purposes of clinical evaluations and diagnostic testing. The appeals from the orders dated September 7, 1995, and September 13, 1995, bring up for review an order of the same court, dated September 21, 1995, which, upon granting the application by the Law Guardian for resettlement, directed, *inter alia,*(1) that the children, Terri L. and Lisa L., be removed from their respective foster homes, and (2) the Westchester County Department of Social Services make reasonable efforts to place Terri L. and Lisa L. at the Andrus Facility *(see,*CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeals from the orders dated September 7, 1995, and September 13, 1995, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as those orders were superseded by the resettled order dated September 21, 1995; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 21,1995, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the specific circumstances of this case, the Family Court was within its authority and properly exercised its discretion in directing that the subject children be removed from their foster homes and placed at the Andrus Facility during the evaluation process in order to assure that the evaluations of the children be performed in an independent setting, free from the influence of outside factors *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1017 [2] [b]). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### Charles A. Limeburner, *Respondent, v.*John H. Neilly, *Appellant.*

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted at circuit, with costs to abide event. Reference vacated. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of David Gruber, Respondent. New York City Department of Personnel, Appellant; John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 242]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 4, 1994, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant was eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant, a medical school graduate, left his position as a research assistant with the New York City Department of Health (hereinafter the City) to accept a position in a residency program at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital (hereinafter St. Luke’s). Shortly after starting the residency program, claimant resigned due to emotional illness. Thereafter, the Board deemed claimant eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits and found the City to be claimant’s employer for purposes of charging those benefits. Initially, we reject the City’s contention that the Board erred in excluding claimant’s tenure at St. Luke’s from covered employment. Inasmuch as claimant’s participation in the residency program was an integral part of his clinical training and licensing, we find based upon our decision in *Matter of Mitromaras (Roberts)*(122 AD2d 368) that the Board properly excluded the residency program from claimant’s covered employment. We have considered the City’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-3727

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Albert Kelly Price, also known as Anthony Sutton lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

____________ Submitted: August 17, 2021 Filed: August 23, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Albert Price appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to sex trafficking children. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging his

sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that district court correctly calculated Price’s offense level. See United States v. Davenport, 910 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 2018) (factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and application of Guidelines are reviewed de novo; application of sentencing enhancements must be supported by preponderance of evidence). Specifically, the record supported the enhancements for undue influence, see U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) ; for physical restraint, see U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3; and for being a repeat sex offender, see U.S.S.G. §4B1.5(b)(1). We also conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
#### The Kerosene Lamp Heater Company, *Plaintiff, v.*John F. Rathbone and others, *Defendants.*

Judgment for defendants, with costs. Opinion by Learned, P. J.
(Reap. Dec. 8569)

#### Royal Cathay Trading Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7789, etc.

(Decided April 20, 1956)

*Forrest E. Macomber*for the plaintiff.

*George S. Leonard,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation of fact entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

*554On 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 value of each and every item was the invoice price, plus 50 per centum, plus packing.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case Wo. 5,372.

#### Ex parte GETTLESON.

[The case reported under above title in 1 Gaz. 132, is the same as Case No. 5,873.]
EX 31-1

CERTIFICATION

I, Arthur Viola, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of INFe-Human
Resources, Inc.;

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

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5.I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information;

and

b) Any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

April 12, 2005

/s/  ARTHUR VIOLA
________________________
Arthur Viola
Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Sole Director
#### James G. Johnson, *Respondent, v.*Bernard Reilly, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Daniels, J.
ATTEfiiTION 

Drone 

Activity 

In Progress
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 83 

To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION 

4 ACT OF 1993. 

5 The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 

6 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.) is repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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 Report of Bay Acquisition Corp. f/k/a SecureLogic Corp.
(the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Registrant, certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
  (1)
              The
      Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, fully
      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant
 
 
  Dated:
April 15,
2010
 
 /s/  Paul
Goodman
 Paul
Goodman, Chief Executive Officer
 and
Principal Financial Officer
No. 41830.

#### Protest 193921-G of American Express Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the Normandy laces in question are similar to those the subject of *Amrein*v. *United States*(T. D. 49551). In accordance therewith the claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430' 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
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Interchange Corporation.
 Date: August 4, 2006
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer and Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Douglas S. NormanDouglas S. NormanChief Financial Officer and Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5420]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Correction of Notice of Addition

    In the document appearing on page 10640, FR Doc E7-4255, 
Procurement List Additions and Deletions, in the issue of Friday, March 
9, 2007, in the second column, the Committee published addition of a 
product NSN: 8950-01-E61-0103--Cayenne Pepper. This notice corrects 
that addition of the product to read as follows NSN: 8950-01-E61-0103--
Spice Blend Canadian Style for Beef. The other additions announced in 
the Notice remain the same. The effective date of April 8, 2007 remains 
the same.

Sheryl D. Kennerly,
Director Information Management.
[FR Doc. E7-5420 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
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 report on Form 10-QSB of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the
Company), for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, Marshall T. Leeds, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Marshall T. Leeds                                       
|Marshall T. Leeds                                           
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President

Dated: August14, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Simmons, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 373]

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and new trial granted on count 13 of the indictment in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant contends that his statement to the police was obtained in violation of his right to counsel. Although the issue may be raised for the first time on appeal *(see, People v Banks,*53 NY2d 819, 821; *People v Dyson,*221 AD2d 1004 [decided herewith]), the record does not contain facts sufficient to permit appellate review of that contention *(see, People v Steele,*135 AD2d 673, *lv denied*70 NY2d 1011; *People v Donovon,*107 AD2d 433, 440-442, *lv denied*65 NY2d 694). Defendant further contends that defense counsel’s failure to develop a sufficient factual record at the suppression hearing constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Because that contention rests upon matters outside the record, it is not subject to review on direct appeal *(see, People v Ford,*184 AD2d 1013, *lv denied*80 NY2d 929; *People v Robinson,*122 AD2d 173, 175, *lv denied*68 NY2d 1003). Rather, "the appropriate vehicle by which to obtain review of the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is through the commencement of a proceeding pursuant to CPL article 440 [citations omitted]” *(People v Steele, supra,*at 673).

*995We reject the contention that defendant was denied a fair trial by cumulative error. The court properly amended the fifth count of the indictment to correct a clerical error *(see, People v Spann,*56 NY2d 469, 473; *People v Acevedo,*215 AD2d 115, *Iv denied*85 NY2d 969). Defendant’s contention that the court erred in submitting the four counts charging criminal use of a firearm to the jury has not been preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Garner,*174 AD2d 1028, 1029, *Iv denied*78 NY2d 966; *People v Bones,*103 AD2d 1012), and we decline to exercise our power to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Defendant’s conviction of endangering the welfare of a child under count 13 of the indictment must be reversed and a new trial granted on that count because the court erred in its supplemental instruction to the jury. In response to the question whether "knowingly” can be interpreted as "should have known”, the court instructed the jury to evaluate defendant’s conduct "from the standpoint of a reasonable person” and determine whether that person "should have known and been aware that their conduct would have been injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of a child.” A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child only when he acts knowingly (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]; § 15.05). Because the degree of culpability required by the statute is actual knowledge, it was reversible error to charge the jury that it could find defendant guilty based upon what he should have known *(see, People v Price,*19 AD2d 730). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
No. 52340.

protests 620101-G, etc. (New York).

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3280

___________ Nico Redding, * * Plaintiff, * * Anthony B. Hale, * * Appeal from the United States Appellant, * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] Dennis Benson, Warden; * Otis Sanders, Associate Warden; * Dennis Hirch, Canteen Supervisor, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 14, 1997 Filed: June 3, 1997

___________ Befo reHANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circui t Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District 1 of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- Anthony B. Hale, a Minnesota inmate , appeals from the district court's grant of 1 summary judgment to defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Contrary to Hale's assertion, the district court's referral of Hale's case to a magistrate judge for proposed findings and recommendations was proper , and did not require Hale's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McCarthy v. Bronson , 500 U.S. 136, 138-40 (1991). Having carefu llyreviewed the record and the briefs, we also conlude the judgment of th e district court is correct and an extended opinion would lack precedential value

. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.