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 ofGryphon Gold Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period endedDecember 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael K. Longinotti, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

 

Date: February 14, 2007 
 By:      /s/ Michael K. Longinotti            Michael K. Longinotti          Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-257

Crystal Weiner 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 10) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and she

is hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: November 28, 2011 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00257-JLG-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/28/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

November 1, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00569

- CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appe llant

v.

Charles CERVANTES

, Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 03566 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellee ’ s motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to November 20, 2016.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 1st day of November, 20 16

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9054 

To prevent the use of unconstitutional gun confiscation laws against veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 18, 2024 

Mr. CRANE (for himself and Mr. ROSENDALE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To prevent the use of unconstitutional gun confiscation laws 

against veterans. 

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 ‘‘Safeguarding Veterans 

5 2nd Amendment Rights Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF USE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN 

7 CONFISCATION LAWS AGAINST VETERANS. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—No officer or employee of the De9 partment of Veterans Affairs shall, in the course of their 

10 duties as an officer or employee of such Department, ini11 tiate, participate in, or advocate for the removal of a fireVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:33 Jul 18, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H9054.IH H9054

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9054 IH

1 arm in any proceedings relating to a State gun confisca2 tion law. 

3 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 (1) The term ‘‘gun confiscation law’’ means a 

5 State law that provides the authority for the removal 

6 of a firearm through a risk-based, temporary, and 

7 preemptive protective order. 

8 (2) The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning given 

9 such term in section 101 of title 38, United States 

10 Code. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2007217EN.01000301.xml

| 15.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/3

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.4734 — INEOS/Kerling)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 217/05)

On 7 September 2007, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4734 — INEOS/Kerling, to the following address:

| Commission of the European Communities |
| --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70 |
| B-1000 Brussels |

Commission of the European Communities

Competition DG

Merger Registry

Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70

B-1000 Brussels

---
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-3843MN

_____________ Peter V. Smilde, * * Appellant, *

* v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District Margaret M. Richardson, * of Minnesota. Commissioner, U.S. Internal Revenue * Service; U.S. Department of the * [UNPUBLISHED] Treasury; United States of America, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: April 7, 1998

Filed: April 9, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Peter V. Smilde appeals the district court's dismissal of Smilde's action for refund of a tax assessment for lack of subject matter j urisdiction. Having reviewed the record andthe part ies' briefs, we conclude the district court's dismissal was proper. W e affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**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 of BioVeris Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George V. Migausky, 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 Company.

 

| Dated: February 6, 2007 | /s/ George V. Migausky                     |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                    | George V. Migausky                         |
|                    | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA


FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), 4(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.








Dated: March 29, 2017





Entergy Arkansas, Inc., as servicer





By:  /s/ Alyson M. Mount





Name:  Alyson M. Mount


Title:   Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
## ~tate 

# of**~outb** 

# <t1atolina <l&ffice of tbe**~obernor** MARK SANFORD POST OFFICE Box 12267 GOVERNOR COLUMBIA 29211

December 9,2010

Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming Regional Administrator United States Environmental Prbtection,Agency, Region 4 Sam NunnFederal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 Re: South CarolinaBoundaryRecommendations for LeadDesignations
DearMs. Fleming,
I am writing this letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update South Carolina's original recommendation on air quality designations for the revisedNational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead. On October 15, 2008, the EPA substantially revised theNAAQS for lead (73 FederalRegister 66964, November 12, 2008). In conjunction with strengthening the lead NAAQS, the EPA established new criteria for siting ambient lead monitors, finding the pre-existing ambient lead monitoring network inadequate for determining attainment status. Monitors meeting the new network sitingrequirements were to begin operation in January 2010. As a result, in its letter dated June 14, 2010, the EPA stated that it intends to complete the lead designations in two rounds. The EPA identified South Carolina as a state included in this second round ofdesignations andpermitted the state to submit an updated recommendation by December 15,2010. After a review ofthe most recent quality-assured air quality data, I am again pleased to report that South Carolina fully complies with the primary and secondaryNAAQS for lead. As a result, I am again recommending that the entire State ofSouth Carolinabe designated as "attainment" for the lead NAAQS based upon validated air qualitymonitoring data.Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming Page Two December 9, 2010

Should you have any questions regarding ourrecommendation, please contact MyraReece, Chief, Bureau ofAir Quality, South Carolina Department ofHealth and Environmental Control, at (803) 898-4123 orby email atreecemc@dhec.sc.gov. Sincerely,

Mark Sanford MS/cp

cc: Mr. Earl Hunter, COmIhissioner, SCDHEC Mr. Robert W. King, Jr., SCDHEC Ms. Myra C. Reece, SCDHEC
#### Fredrick Lingsweiler, App’lt, *v.*Charles Lingsweiler, Resp’t.

*(New York Superior Court, General Term,*

*Filed January 6, 1890.)*

Supplementary Proceedings—Third party order.

The mere fact that the execution was returned after the granting of an order to examinen third party, is not a ground for superseding such order. To justify superseding the order, it must he shown that the execution has heen satisfied, or that something had occurred which changed the rights of the parties, or called for a different disposition of the matter finally.

Appeal by judgment creditor from an order vacating an order for the examination of a third person in proceedings supplementary to execution.

*Peter*Cook, for app’lt; *James A.*Dowgan, for resp’t.

Sedgwick, Oh. J.

The judgment creditor obtained an order" under § 2441, Code Civ. Pro., for the examination of a person a ed to have in her possession property belonging to the execution debtor. The affidavits showed what at the time was the fact, that the execution had not been returned. Before the return day of the order, the execution debtor, not the third person, moved that the order be vacated. The motion was granted. The ground of this disposition only appears in the recital of the order then made as follows: “ and it now appearing that at the time of the service of copies of said affidavit and order, said execution had been returned, etc.”

In my opinion to justify superseding the original order it was necessary to prove that after it was allowed something had occurred which changed the rights of the parties in requiring an order different from that allowed or which would have called for another kind of disposition of the matter finally. The mere fact of the return of the execution would not have called for another kind of order or for another kind of exercise of the power of the court Sections 2447-8-9. If the exécution had been returned satisfied, then the court would have been without power to direct the person ex*355amined to pay or to deliver. The respondent was bound to show this. There was no presumption of satisfaction. It was consonant with the recital that the execution had been returned partly unsatisfied.

As it does not appear by the record that the judgment debtor had been called into the proceeding by a notice required by the court, §§ 2441-2447, and was a party to it, there may be a doubt whether he had a right to make the motion below. This was not considered by the argument of the appeal and is not passed upon.

The order should be reversed, and the motion denied, with ten ■dollars costs.

Ingraham, J., concurs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:11-CR-248

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS

DAVID W. NICHOLS, 

Defendant.

ORDER

On November 10, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea to Count One

of the Information charging him with knowingly possessing visual depictions of child pornography

in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) (Doc. 13). Defendant, represented

by counsel, waived his right to appear on the matter before a District Judge. The Magistrate Judge

conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s

plea was knowing, voluntary, free from coercion, and had a basis in fact. Further, the Magistrate

Judge observed that at the time Defendant entered his guilty plea, he was in full possession of his

faculties, was not suffering from any apparent physical or mental illness, and was not under the

influence of narcotics or alcohol. 

Defendant was specifically informed of his right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

Case: 2:11-cr-00248-GCS-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
not file any objections. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Information. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of

knowingly possessing visual depictions of child pornography in interstate commerce. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:11-cr-00248-GCS-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### GEORGE B. BREWER, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. ALONZO PORCH, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 98 *N. J. Super.*583.

*Messrs. Schreiber &*Lancaster, *Mr. David L. Horuvitz*and *Mr. Gerald W. Conway*for the petitioners.

■■ *Mr. Herbert H. Butler*and *Mr. Louis B. Le Due*for the respondent.

April 30, 1968.

Granted.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in theevent that publications are no longer available from the original publishingagency site. (Historical purposes)

**Title:** Planning update. Sweetwater MarshNational Wildlife Refuge, South San Diego Bay unit, San Diego NWR

 
PlanningUpdate 1, PlanningUpdate 2, PlanningUpdate 3

 
SuDoc Number: I 49.44/3:SA 5
Item Number: 0612-C (online)
CGP system Number: 000552084
Before the First Division,

August 15, 1941

No. 46260.

#### Protest 989215-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the siren whistles in question are composed in chief value of metal and are similar to the merchandise the subject of Abstract 40480. In accordance therewith the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Passage
Ventures, Ltd. Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Axel G. Roehlig, President,
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Principal
Accounting Officer, of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to s. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

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

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


Date: November 12, 2004



By:  /s/ Axel G. Roehlig
Axel G. Roehlig
President, Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
and a member of the Board of Directors
#### Robert Rogers, Ind. and as Adm’r, Resp’t, v. The New York Lies Ins. & Trust Co., Impl’d, etc., App’lt.

*A. H. F. Seeger,*for resp’t; *JR. B. Robinson,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Affirming 15 N. Y. State Rep., 1010.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:11-cr-186(2)

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS

DAYEN MELENDREZ-MURGUIA,

Defendant.

ORDER

On March 6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant Dayen Melendrez-Murguia’s

guilty plea to Count One of the Indictment charging her with Conspiracy to Distribute more than 100

grams of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(B)(i) and 846. 

Defendant, represented by counsel, waived her right to appear on the matter before a District

Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from coercion, and had a basis

in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of her right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00186-GCS-EPD Doc #: 47 Filed: 04/02/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS 

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of

Conspiracy to Distribute more than 100 grams of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B)(i) and 846.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:11-cr-00186-GCS-EPD Doc #: 47 Filed: 04/02/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 47991.

#### Protests 540057-G, etc., of A. D. Cohen Co. (New York).

*389Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the hats in question are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the protests were sustained.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the annual report of Ambow Education Holding Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jin Huang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)        The Report fully complied 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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: April 14, 2011                 
|                                     
|/s/ Jin Huang                        
|Jin Huang                            
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|Ambow Education Holding Ltd.