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 of Intellon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian
T. McGee, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial 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:



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



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



|                   |  |                                                                 
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2008 |  | /s/ Brian T. McGee                                              
|                   |  | Brian T. McGee Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
Pierre Roy, Eng., M.Sc., P.Eng.


Soutex Inc,
 357 Jackson, Bureau 7
 Quebec, Quebec, G1N 4C4,Canada
       To the Board of Directors of Rubicon Minerals Corporation
     I, Pierre Roy, hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form-40 F for the year ended December 31, 2011 of the technical report entitled “F2 Gold System - Phoenix Gold Project Bateman Township Red Lake, Canada Technical Report” dated effective August 8th 2011 (the “Technical Report”) and to extracts from, or a summary of, the Technical Report in the written disclosure contained in the Company’s annual information form for the financial year ended December 31, 2011 (the “AIF”), dated March 27, 2011.
   Dated as of this 27th day of March 2012
      “Pierre Roy”
  Original signed by:
 Pierre Roy, Eng., M.Sc., P.Eng.
 Senior Metallurgist
 Soutex Inc.
#### R. W. Smith *v.*United States

No. 7861.

Entry No. 102-H.

(Decided August 14, 1950)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(William J. Vitale,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of decorated earthenware imported from England on or about August 16, 1947.

At the trial counsel for the importer stated:

> * * * we offer to stipulate with the Government that the merchandise the subject of this case consists of decorated earthenware exported from England on July 31, 1947.

(2) That said merchandise consisted of two decorations of earthenware which were invoiced as follows: Decoration E 13 at invoice unit prices, plus 47 per cent; Decoration L 33, at invoice unit prices, plus 80 per cent.

(3) That the merchandise was all appraised at invoiced unit values, plus 80 per cent, plus 25 per cent, less 2]4 per cent, whereas it was the intention of the appraising officers to apply said 80 per cent addition only to Decoration L 33, and not to Decoration E 13.

We make no claim in this case on L 33, on which the appraised value is, in our opinion, proper; that the price at which Decoration E 13 was freely offered for sale, both for export and for domestic consumption, in the usual wholesale quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, to all purchasers on the date of exportation of the merchandise herein, was the invoiced unit prices, plus *47J4*per cent, plus 25 per cent, less 2per cent.

We offer to so stipulate.

Mb. Vitale: That is packed, net?

Mb. Stein: Packed, net.

Mb. Vitale: After consulting with the appraiser at this port, your Honor, please, the Government is willing to so agree.

*383On the agreed facts I find that the foreign value of the decorated earthenware, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and the export value of said merchandise, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the same act, are the same; that the proper basis for determining the value of this merchandise is such foreign or export value: that such values are, for decoration E 13, the invoiced unit prices, plus 47K per centum, plus 25 per centum,less *2){*per centum, net packed, and for decoration L 33, the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
## SERVED AUG.UST 27, 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

In The Matter Of: DANIEL QUINONEZ Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. FAA-2012-0473 Case No. 2012 EA 610020

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING OnAugust 16, 2012, the Complainant, the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) and theRespondent, Daniel Quinonez filed a Joint Withdrawal ofAppeal and Complaint. The parties' Joirit Withdrawal stated that the FAA and the Respondent had reached a settlement on all issues inthis matter. There is a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference**c~rrently** set inthis matter. It

### Is Hereby Ordered: · 1) The September 7, 2012 Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set for 1

O:OOam EST, is cancelled. 2) Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. §13.215, the Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has Withdrawn its Complaint dated June 5, 2011. This proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Law Judge Attachment: Service List

### SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430,

. Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite 2W10001 

### ONE COPY Daniel Quinonez, Respondent c/o Frances Vargas- Respondent's daughter 1012 Eastern Avenue Fall River,MA 02723 TEL: 508-496-8710 R. Bennett_Sargent, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel NewEngland Region Federal Aviation Administration 12 England Executive Park, ANE-7 Burlington, MA 01803 TEL: · 781-238:-7058 FAX: 781-238-7055 The Honorable J.E. Sullivan,Administrative

### Lmv Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0473 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### "'-2-
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 the Annual Report of Memry Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 20, 2006 (the Report), I, Robert P. Belcher, 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:

(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/ Robert P. Belcher  
|Robert P. Belcher      
|Chief Executive Officer

Dated: September 20, 2006

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6671
RICK WAYNE BOBLETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-489-R) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rick Wayne Boblett, Appellant Pro Se. Robert B. Condon, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Boblett v. Virginia Dep't of Corrections , No. CA95-489-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 1995). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispensewith 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.

DISMISSED
No. 96-267.

#### Brooks *v.*George County, Mississippi, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the First Division,

June 16, 1949

No. 53286.

#### Samuel S. Perry *v.*United States,

protest 42915-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
8/99 MCH-145

ycle

m mandatory

e U.S.

ommission

helmets

tary safety

999, all

ed in or

s must

l Standard.

ely to offer

safety

e date. After

ed only look

s the helmet

dard. This

the helmet

 head

whats new

bicyclehelmets?

about

NEW SAFETYSTANDARDSFOR BETTERPROTECTION

CPSC hotline: (800) 638.2772 & (800) 638.8270 (TTY)
Will Bicycle Helmets Protect Me When

Playing Other Sports?Bicycle helmets offer head protection for sportslike in-line skating and roller skating. In addition,wrist guards, knee pads and elbow pads arerecommended for these sports.Those who skateboard or do more aggressive (trickor freestyle) skating may want to look for helmetssold specifically for their activities that meet safetystandards for these sports. These helmets covermore of the head, especially in the back. Wristguards, knee pads and elbow pads will offeradditional body protection.

NSWERS FOR

UT BICYCLE

ETY

rtant?

ead injury by up to

e falls and

ans that wearing a

e Helmet?

umber about 900,

oms treat more

njuries. More

al emergency

es than with any

ve the head. If you

king your life.

ctions have laws

ou have a law in

umer Product

e Helmet

elmets

at the chin straps

e head and in

SCs Bicycle

Young

igher

 bicyclists. Under

s for children

he head than

ing additional

All young children should wear abicycle helmet, whether they areriding bicycles or tricycles, or arepassengers on a parent's bicycle.Never carry a child under age 1 onyour bicycle.

Should I Replace My CurrentBicycle Helmet and Buy a NewOne That Meets the CPSC Bicycle Helmet SafetyStandard?If you have a bicycle helmet that meets one or more ofthe voluntary bicycle helmet standards like ASTM,Snell or ANSI, you do not need to buy a new helmet.These bicycle helmets provide sufficient protection forthe head.When you need to replace a helmet because it isoutgrown or damaged in a crash, buy a new helmetthat meets the CPSC safety standard.How Can I Tell if My Bicycle Helmet FitsProperly?The helmet should fit comfortably and securely. Itshould be worn so that it is level on the head (nottilted back on the crown or pulled low over the forehead). You should not be able to move the helmet inany direction, back-to-front or side-to-side. The chinstrap should be securely fastened. If needed, thehelmet's sizing pads can help improve the fit.What Can I Do if I Have TroubleFitting the Bicycle Helmet?Make sure you have the proper size helmet for yourhead. Try the sizing pads included in the helmet box.If you still have trouble, ask a knowledgeable salesperson to help you. Properly fitting a bicycle helmettakes time, but it is worth the effort. If your helmetdoes not fit properly, it will not protect your head ifyou have a fall or collision.
No. 6200.

#### William *J. Oberle, Inc. (Southern Scrap Material Co., Ltd.)*v. *United States.*

Entered at New Orleans, La. Reap. Dec. 6163. Motion by plaintiff.
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40662 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOE ANN MOUTON,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:94-CR-35-2

- - - - - - - - - -

May 29, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

This is a direct appeal from Joe Ann Mouton's conviction for

misprision of a felony. Mouton contends that the district court

erred by denying her motion to suppress the cocaine law enforcement

officers discovered after a purportedly improper search. We have

reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and AFFIRM the

district court's decision denying Mouton's motion to suppress the

cocaine for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district

court. United States v. Mouton, No. 6:94-CR-35-2 (E.D. Tex. Feb.

6, 1995).
AFFIRMED.
No. 49513.

#### Protests 101139-K, etc., of Elway Food Products Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                             TO THE
                  CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                               OF
                         GAVELLA CORP.

GAVELLA   CORP.,  organized  and  existing  under   the   General
Corporation Laws of the State of Delaware (the Corporation), does
hereby certify:

     FIRST:  That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, at a
meeting called for such purpose, duly adopted resolutions setting
forth  the proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation
of the Corporation and calling for the submission of the proposed
amendment  to a vote of the stockholders of the Corporation,  for
their  approval and adoption.  The resolution setting  forth  the
proposed amendment is as follows:

          RESOLVED, that the Corporation amend its certificate of
incorporation so that:

          ARTICLE  4  of  the certificate of incorporation  shall
read as follows:

          4.   The  total number of shares of common stock  which
the  corporation shall have authority to issue is  Eight  Million
(8,000,000), and the par value of each of such shares  is  $.001,
amounting in the aggregate to Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00).

     SECOND:   That the holders of a majority of the  outstanding
shares  of  common stock of the Corporation did duly  adopt  said
amendment  proposed  by  the Board of Directors,  at  the  annual
meeting of shareholders held on June 23, 2003.

     THIRD:   These  amendments were duly adopted  in  accordance
with  the  provisions  of  Section 242 of  the  Delaware  General
Corporation Laws.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused its corporate
seal to be affixed hereto and this Certificate to be executed  by
its  President and attested by its Secretary, this  20th  day  of
August, 2003.


GAVELLA CORP.

By:  Harry  J. Santoro, President

Attest:   Stephen M. Robinson,  Secretary
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
PBOC Holdings, Inc.:

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
No. 333-93107 on Form S-8 of PBOC Holdings, Inc. of our report dated January 31,
2000, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial condition of PBOC
Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the
related consolidated statements of earnings, other comprehensive earnings
(loss), changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the
December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of PBOC Holdings, Inc.

                                                             /s/ KPMG LLP
                                                             KPMG LLP


Los Angeles, California
March 22, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Field Services, LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rose M.
Robeson, Vice President and Chief Financial 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:

            (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/ Rose M. Robeson
------------------------------------
Rose M. Robeson
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40345

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANIEL JAMES COMPTON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-1118-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel James Compton was convicted following a jury trial of one count 

of transportation of an undocumented alien. He was sentenced to a prison term 

of 37 months. He appeals his conviction. 

Compton argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to 

support his transportation conviction. Insufficiency of the evidence claims are 

reviewed de novo, and this court gives substantial deference to the jury verdict.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 19, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40345 Document: 00515350908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2020
No. 19-40345

2

United States v. Chon, 713 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2013). Viewing the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the Government, this court asks only whether a 

rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Id. 

Compton argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he had 

knowledge of the undocumented alien’s presence in his vehicle’s trunk, or he 

recklessly disregarded her presence. However, circumstantial evidence, 

viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, supports a rational 

inference that Compton knew that he was transporting an undocumented 

alien. See United States v. Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Compton had sole control over the vehicle in which the alien was found, he 

displayed evasive and nervous behavior at the checkpoint, he volunteered

suspicious information without being asked, and he gave implausible 

explanations. See United States v. Richardson, 848 F.2d 509, 512-14 (5th Cir. 

1988); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Farias, 294 F.3d 657, 660 (5th Cir. 

2002). Additionally, the alien paid thousands of dollars to be smuggled into 

the United States, a portion of which was due upon successful arrival, and it 

is not unreasonable to infer that her transport would not be entrusted to an 

unknowing party. See Del Aguila-Reyes, 722 F.2d 155, 157 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Thus, from this evidence, a rational jury could have found the knowledge 

element of the transportation offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See 

Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d at 765. The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-40345 Document: 00515350908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2020
# C_2015073EN.01000602.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

(Case C-573/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Air services - Second sentence of Article 23(1) - Price transparency - Computerised booking system - Air fares - Indication at all times of the final price)

(2015/C 073/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated whenever the prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated whenever the prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time.

| 2) | The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated not only for the air service specifically selected by the customer, but also for each air service in respect of which the fare is shown. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated not only for the air service specifically selected by the customer, but also for each air service in respect of which the fare is shown.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

---
No. 96-5244.

#### Diggs *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.