alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the Company), for the
quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven C. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 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/ Steven C. Jacobs                                
|Steven C. Jacobs                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



Dated: November 14, 2005



19
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Lentini, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 569]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered October 4, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing concurrent sentences of two and two-thirds to seven years imprisonment for his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and one and one-half to four and one-half years imprisonment for his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed upon the defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree to one and one-half to four and one-half years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the jury found that the actual shooting was justified under the particular circumstances of the case, that does not mean that the defendant lacked the intent to use the gun unlawfully during the time prior to the shooting when he admittedly possessed it *(see, People v Pons,*68 NY2d 264; *People v Steward,*213 AD2d 570; *People v Lopez,*204 AD2d 488). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

*475Nor was it error for the court to withdraw the justification charge from the jury’s consideration in connection with the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. "[Bjecause possession of a weapon does not involve the use of physical force, there are no circumstances under which justification *(see,*Penal Law § 35.15) can be a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree” *(People v Perez,*218 AD2d 754, citing *People v Pons, supra,*at 267; *People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126).

We find, as the People agreed at oral argument, that the defendant’s sentence is excessive. We reduce the sentence to the extent indicated herein.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2




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




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ChinaCast Education Corporation on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Antonio Sena, Chief Financial Officer
of ChinaCast Education Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted by 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 operations of ChinaCast Education
Corporation.




Dated:
      November 9, 2010
            /s/ Antonio
      SenaAntonio SenaChief Financial Officer (Principal
              Accounting and
      Financial Officer)
No. 56493.

protest 921170-G (C) (New York).

#### W. T. Grant Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of gloves made in chief value of woven cotton fabric the same-in all material respects as those the subject of *May Co. et al.*v. *United States (25*C. C. P. A. 227, T. D. 49336), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 09379**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 09379\09379_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09379\09379_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 09379\09379_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 09379\09379_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09379\09379_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09379\09379_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09379\Supporting Documentation\09379_Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09379\Supporting Documentation\09379_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09379\09379_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 09379\09379_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8501 

To prohibit the issuance of licenses for the exportation of certain defense 

articles to the United Arab Emirates, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2024 

Ms. JACOBS (for herself, Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. LEE of 

California, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mrs. CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, Ms. 

KAMLAGER-DOVE, and Mr. KILDEE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the issuance of licenses for the exportation of 

certain defense articles to the United Arab Emirates, 

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. PROHIBITION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date of enact5 ment of this Act, the President may not sell or authorize 

6 a license for the export of covered defense articles under 

7 the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) 

8 to the United Arab Emirates or any agency or instrumen9 tality of the United Arab Emirates, until the President 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8501 IH

1 certifies to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House 

2 of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Rela3 tions of the Senate that the United Arab Emirates is no 

4 longer providing materiel support to the Rapid Support 

5 Forces in Sudan. 

6 (b) COVERED DEFENSE ARTICLES DEFINED.—In 

7 this section, the term ‘‘covered defense articles’’ means ar8 ticles listed under Category I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, 

9 XIV, XVI, XVII, or XVIII of the United States Munitions 

10 List in part 121 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Steven H. Kane; certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-10-KSB/A of Protalex, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa 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 report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-l5(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Dated: August 20, 2004 By:  Steven H. Kane    Steven H. Kane    Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION



I, Lorne Lilley, Secretary, Treasurer and Principal accounting officer of Sunergy, Inc., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sunergy, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



(a)

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



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures; and presented in this report our 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 first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our 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 function):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which 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 controls..



Date:  May 14, 2008

By:



Lorne Lilley, Secretary, Treasurer

and principal accounting officer
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1420 

KA 11-02608 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHAWN D. WEEZORAK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM,

PLLC (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (GEOFFREY KAEUPER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Daniel J. Doyle, J.), rendered October 21, 2011. The judgment

convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of overdriving, torturing

and injuring animals in violation of Agriculture and Markets Law §

353. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a nonjury verdict of overdriving, torturing and injuring animals

(Agriculture and Markets Law § 353). The charges arose from an

incident in which defendant punched his dog and held its head

underwater in a bathtub, after the dog excreted in defendant’s home. 

Contrary to defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in light of

the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial, we conclude that “an

acquittal would have been unreasonable . . . , and thus the verdict is

not against the weight of the evidence” (People v Kreutter, 121 AD3d

1534, 1535-1536, lv denied 25 NY3d 990). We conclude that defendant

abandoned his further contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing

to suppress the dog’s exhumed remains because the warrantless search

was illegal. Although defendant initially moved to suppress the

evidence on that ground, he expressly limited the scope of the

suppression hearing in his written closing statement following the

hearing to the custodial interrogation issue, and he also failed to

seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion in which he argued

that the search and seizure was illegal (see People v Britton, 113

AD3d 1101, 1102, lv denied 22 NY3d 1154; see generally People v Adams,

90 AD3d 1508, 1509, lv denied 18 NY3d 954). 

Entered: December 31, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
PRINCE—ARMY MISC 20100939

**UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS**

Before

CONN, HOFFMAN, and GIFFORD

Appellate Military Judges

**UNITED STATES, Appellant**

**v.**

**Specialist MICHAEL A. PRINCE**

**United States Army, Appellee**

ARMY MISC 20100939

1st Cavalry Division

James L. Varley, Military Judge 

Colonel Mark Sydenham, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellee:  Colonel Mark Tellitocci, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Imogene M. Jamison, JA; Major Laura R. Kesler, JA; Captain Matthew T. Grady, JA (on brief).

For Appellant:  Colonel Michael E. Mulligan, JA; Major Adam S. Kazin, JA; Captain Joshua W. Johnson, JA (on brief); Colonel Michael E. Mulligan, JA; Major Amber J. Williams, JA; Major Adam S. Kazin, JA; Captain Joshua W. Johnson, JA (on motion for reconsideration).

26 January 2011

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND ACTION ON APPEAL

BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO 

ARTICLE 62, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

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

Per Curiam:  

On reconsideration, applying the standard of review articulated in *United States v. Thompson*, 63 M.J. 228, 230 (C.A.A.F. 2006), we do not find that the military judge was wrong as a matter of law.  Accordingly, the appeal by the United States under Article 62, UCMJ, of the military judge’s ruling is denied.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court

PAGE  

2
No. 52382.

protests 96569-K, etc (San Francisco).

#### W. A. Ballinger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Henry R. Pierson, *Receiver, etc., Respondent, v.*John D. Safford, *Appellant.*

— Motion denied, without costs.
No. 57375.

protest 191133-K (Philadelphia).

#### Allen Forwarding Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
No. 46223.

#### Protests 789383-G, etc., of Armour & Co. et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract'15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Lionel Viner *v.*United States

No. 7321.

Invoice dated Sheffield, England, March 18, 1946.

Certified March 21, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 17, 1946.

Entry No. 752482.

(Decided June 27, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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



I, Susan Wong, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.



Date: November 4, 2005



By:

/s/ Susan WongSusan WongActing Chief Financial Officer




This certification accompanies
the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Brian F. Grimes, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Brian F. Grimes                  
|                     |  |     |  | Brian F. Grimes, Executive Vice      
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 40243.

#### Protests 716113-G, etc., of Kwong Yuen & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel it was found that the wooden stands are not entireties and the claim at 335⁄8 percent under paragraph 412 was sustained. *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409) followed.