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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the "Company") for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth Klipper, Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:



Dated: November 9, 2010

/s/ KENNETH KLIPPER Kenneth Klipper Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First
Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7396

CLARENCE GOODWIN PERKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEITH OLSON, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-97-1023-1) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Goodwin Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Clarence Goodwin Perkins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Perkins v. Olson , No. CA-97-1023-1 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 8, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 56534.

protest 175380-K (New York).

#### American Shipping Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

*447Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Paragraph 1807 provides for the free entry of original paintings, except those which are articles of utility or for industrial use. The collector's memorandum stated “Appraiser indicates they were originals but they were created for industrial use. They are not provided for in 1807, and are not works of art under 1547a.” An examination of the record failed to disclose any evidence that the articles were not imported for industrial use, and the affidavit of the importer indicated that they were purchased for use as decorations in theatrical productions. On the record presented, the protest was overruled.
#### Joseph S. Kawecki et al., Appellants, v Guy J. McAllister, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 36]

—In an action to recover dam*598ages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered July 25, 1994, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original order dated November 4, 1993, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

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

There is no dispute that the vehicle which struck the plaintiff Joseph S. Kawecki was driven by a co-employee, the defendant, and that the accident occurred on their employer’s premises. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law *(see,*Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). The plaintiffs contend that, although the defendant was a co-employee, he was acting outside the scope of his employment because he violated traffic safety rules promulgated for the protection of the public. We find this contention to be without merit *(see, e.g., Matter of Rosebrook v Glen & Mohawk Milk*As*socs.,*40 AD2d 928, *affd*33 NY2d 964; *see generally, Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing,*67 NY2d 246). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law *(see,*Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; *see, e.g., Kunze v Jones,*6 AD2d 888, *affd*8 NY2d 1152; *Roberts v Gagnon,*1 AD2d 297). O’Brien,. J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4154

_____________________________

JOSEPH NIEVES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

April 3, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven Seliger and Joel 

Arnold, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Guaranty Mortgage Company of Atlanta *et al. v.*National Life Insurance Company.

No. 11761.

May 18, 1937.

Akherpp to on rehrarinq, July 22-, 1937.

Hutcheson, Justice.

After a careful consideration of tlie assignments of error contained in tlie petition for certiorari, this court is of the opinion that, the decision of the Court of Appeals' is not erroneous for any reason assigned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., and Atkinson, J., who dissent, and Jenkins, J., disqualified.*

*645
      *J. K. Jordan,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Little, Powell, Reid & Goldstein,*contra.
No. 48601.

#### Protests 754130-G (A), etc., of Katz Berk Hat Body Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist, of harvest hats similar in all material respects to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). Upon the established facts the harvest hats in question imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the effective-date of the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at *22725 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those imported or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to said date were held dutiable at *12%*percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and the said trade agreement.
No. 54777.

#### Amcu Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 150963-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Norcross Safety ProductsL.L.C. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Robert A. Peterson, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated:  August 15, 2005 | By:    | /s/ ROBERT A. PETERSON                         |   |
|------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   | Robert A. Peterson                             |
|                         |   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Manager |
|                         |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)                 |

 

 

**A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will beretained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.**

 

----
#### Robt. J. Howe, Resp’t, *v.*Joseph J. Morehouse *et al.,*App’lts.

No papers.

Motion to dismiss denied; ten dollars costs.

See 27 N. Y. State Rep., 896.
Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 131 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 1 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 131 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 2 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 131 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 3 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 131 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 4 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 131 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 5 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 131 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 6 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 131 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 7 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T15:19:33-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

 

I,Charles C. Huffman, certify that:

 

1)              Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Washtenaw Group, Inc.;

 

2)              Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterlyreport;

 

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 officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) [Intentionally Omitted] for the registrant and we have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, 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)             [IntentionallyOmitted];

 

c)              evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d)             disclosedin this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5)              Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reproting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  August 12, 2005            |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |
| /s/ Charles C.  Huffman                |   |
| President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**The content you are looking for has moved to a different location. You will be redirected to the new page in a second. If you have bookmarked the page, please update it to the new address:https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/assthsg.html**
**Exhibit 99.3**

 

**PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Annual Report of Sprott Physical Silver Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Wilson, Principal Executive Officer of Sprott Asset Management LP, the Manager of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

Date: March 23, 2017

 

 
|   | /s/ John Wilson               |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | John Wilson                   |
|   | Principal Executive   Officer |

 

----
#### JOHN J. McMAHON, APPELLANT, v. FREDERICK RIKER, COUNTY COLLECTOR, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Submitted December 9, 1918

Decided February 6, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 92 *N. J. L.*1.

For the appellant, *J. Emil Walscheid.*

For the respondents, *John J. Dennin.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gummere in the Supreme Court.

For *affirmance*— The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— None.
No. 45063.

#### Protests 703580-G, etc., of Maurice Levy et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the atomizers are similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140. In accordance therewith the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was sustained.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-60131

_____________________

AMPLICON INC., doing business as Amplicon 

Financial,

Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

v.

MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION, a Mississippi 

Corporation; L.E. RHIAN, JR.;

Defendants - Appellees-Cross-Appellants,

DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg

(2:94-CV-376-PS)

_________________________________________________________________

August 06, 1998

Before KING, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court correctly concluded that this case was

controlled by Cal. Civ. Code § 3311 and, following a full bench

trial, made all findings of fact necessary for the application of

§ 3311. Those findings of fact, particularly the critical
2

finding that Murray’s tender of the check for the disputed amount

was made in good faith, are not clearly erroneous. Since

Amplicon did prevail on its claim for the last lease payment, the

district court did not err in its disposition of the claims for

legal fees.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### James Denick, *Appellant, v.*William B. Hubbard, Respondent.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
#### TAKAHASHI *v.*STATE OF MARYLAND

[No. 51,

September Term, 1969.]

*Decided December 3, 1969.*

The cause was submitted on brief to Hammond, C. J., and Barnes, McWilliams, Finan and Singley, JJ.

Submitted by *Kenneth K. Takahashi*in proper person.

Submitted by *Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, John J. Garrity, Assistant Attorney General, William A. Linthicum, Jr., State’s Attorney for Montgomery County,*and *William M. Cave, Assistant State’s Attorney for Montgomery County,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is from an order of Judge Shure in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County finding the appellant, a member of the Montgomery County Bar, $25.00 (suspended) for failing to appear on the day scheduled *694to defend his previously assigned client on charges of assault and battery.

The attorney general moved to dismiss the appeal for failure by the appellant to comply with the direction of Maryland Rule 828 to print in a record extract the material necessary for this Court to have to pass upon the action of the lower court.

Judge Shure found the appellant to have been in direct contempt. In such case Rule P 3 b requires the judge to sign a written order to that effect, which recites the facts known to the court of its own knowledge and the basis for the court’s findings as to any facts not so known. *Kandel v. State,*252 Md. 668. Rule P 3 c provides that the record in cases of direct contempt shall consist of:

> “ (1) such order of contempt,

> (2) any affidavit filed by the defendant,

> (3) any affidavit filed by the State’s attorney in support of the order of contempt, if the court directed him to investigate or prosecute the contempt, and

> (4) any testimony offered.”

Judge Shure afforded the appellant the right to show why he should not be punished for contempt and presided, without objection by the appellant, at a hearing held for that purpose, at which testimony was received from the judge’s bailiff and a deputy sheriff who had knowledge of the facts and circumstances underlying the appellant’s failure to appear at the trial of his accused client, as well as from the appellant himself.

The appellant did not print the order of contempt or any of the testimony. The appeal is subject to dismissal under Rules 835 b 5 and 836 d and will be dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed, costs to be paid by appellant.*
---



Grant Thornton LLP 
  Chartered Accountants 
  Management ConsultantsCanadian Member of 
  Grant Thornton International



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
  FIRM

We have issued our report dated October 8, 2004, accompanying
  the consolidated financial statements and schedules included in the Annual Report
  of Destiny Media Technologies Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August
  31, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report
  in the Registration Statement of Destiny Media Technologies Inc. on Form S-8
  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2004.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Vancouver, BC 
  December 7, 2004



P.O. Box 11177, Royal Centre 
  Suite 2800 – 1055 West Georgia Street 
  Vancouver, British Columbia 
  V6E 4N3 
  Tel: (604) 687-2711 
  Fax: (604) 685-6569

---
#### EDWARD L. McCARTY, APPELLANT, v. BOULEVARD COMMISSION OF HUDSON COUNTY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Argued March 8, 1918

Decided May 3, 1918.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 91 *N. J. L.*137.

For the appellant, *Collins & Corbin.*

For the respondents, *John J. Fallon.*

*520Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Black in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6872

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. COURTNEY OMAR BOYD, a/k/a Omar , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. ( 4:06

- cr - 00005

- MSD

- FBS

- 3 )

Submitted : August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Courtney Omar Boyd , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Courtney Omar Boyd appeals the distri ct court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Boyd , No. 4:06

- cr - 00005

- MSD

- FBS

- 3 (E.D. Va. June 7, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court a nd argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
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 this Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) to the quarterly report of G2 Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2009 (the Report), I, Gust Kepler, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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



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



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Gust Kepler            
|Gust Kepler                
|Principal Financial Officer
|August 7, 2009             

A signed original of this certification 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. 54757.

#### Fisba Fabrics, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 156610-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 56526.

protests 173188-K, etc. (New York).

#### I. Magnin & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 58134.

Suit 4781.

#### United States *v.*E. Dillingham, Inc.

C. D. 1518 affirmed March 23, 1954. C. A. D. 555.