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

CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Pursuant of 18
U.S.C. 63 1350, the Chief Financial Officer of Conmed Healthcare Management,
Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that this Form 10-KSB and the financial
statements thereto fully comply with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information
contained in the Form 10-KSB and the financial statements thereto fairly
present, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|                 |                                         
|---------------- | ----------------------------------------
|March 28,
  2007 |                                         
|                 |                                         
|                 | By /s/
  Thomas W. Fry                  
|                 | Thomas W.
  Fry, Chief Financial Officer

41

---
###### **Exhibit99.1**

 

## **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBINES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Phoenix Gold International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended September 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Keith A. Peterson,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

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

 

(2)               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Keith A. Peterson   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Keith A. Peterson       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | December 23, 2002       |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22918]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3669-000]


Connecticut Light & Power Company; Notice of Filing

August 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 29, 1997, Connecticut Light & Power 
Company tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced 
docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 285.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before September 3, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22918 Filed 8-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350**

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer of Golden Spirit Enterprises Ltd.  (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-QSB of the Company  for  the  quarter end June 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934   and  that  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 14, 2007 

/s/Robert Klein 

Robert Klein

President/Director
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS109896 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
#### ADDISON et al. v. Elena Duke BENEDICT et al.

No. 38974.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 225 So.2d 335.
254 La. 809

#### O. L. SIMS COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERS, INC., et al.

No. 50046.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: O. L. Sims Company of Louisiana, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 224 So.2d 44.

Writ refused. On facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0942-19

MISTY RAE BAILEY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE ELEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

ECTOR COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which SLAUGHTER, J., joined.

DISSENTING OPINION

For the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Dulin v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, 

Nos. PD-0856-19 & PD-1857-19, 2021 WL 1202400 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2021), I 

respectfully dissent to the Court’s disposition of the State’s petition for discretionary 

review.

FILED: May 12, 2021

DO NOT PUBLISH
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

LAURA ROSALES , Petitioner

,

v.

RIC L. BRADSHAW, as Sheriff of Palm Beach County

, Respondent

.

No. 4D 19

- 1082

[ August 28, 2019 ]

Petition for writ of prohibition to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Scott R. Kerner , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2015

- CA

- 013281

- XXXXMB

- AJ

.

Isidro M. Garcia of Garcia Law Firm, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert L. Norton and Suhaill M. Morales of Allen Norton & B l ue, P.A., Cora l Gables, for respondent

.

G ROSS , J.

Petitioner’s attorney represents multiple clients with pending lawsuits against respondent. In one of those cases, the trial judge recused himself based on his “family relationship” with the respondent. Relying on t his recusal, petitioner’s attorney moved to recuse the trial court in this case. The court denied the motion.

Where a judge has recused himself because of a personal relationship with a party or attorney, that relationship is sufficient to require recus al a short time later when brought to the judge’s attention by motion. See Walls v. State , 910 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “‘Any time a judge feels it is necessary to recuse himself from an attorney’s case on account of an overriding friendship with the attorney then he should do so in all, not just some of that attorney’s cases.’” Mulligan v. Mulligan , 877 So. 2d 791 , 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ( quoting Leigh v. Smith , 503 So. 2d 989, 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) ) . The same principle applies where a judge recuses himself because of his relationship to a defendant. See Catasus v. Tabone , 1 9 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that where the judge- 2

- recused himself in a related proceeding because of a voluntarily revealed personal relationship with the parties, the judge should have granted a motion for disqualification in the separate case involving the same parties).

We reject respondent’s argument that recusal was not required because of minor technical deficiencies in the oath and certification accompanying the motion. See Livingston v. State , 858 So. 2d 353, 354

- 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

We grant the petition for wr it of prohibition and remand to the circuit court for assignment of the case to another judge.

W ARNER and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 1, 2016

p0329 

# Order

Clerk April 1, 2016

152562

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 152562

COA: 316467

Wayne CC: 08

- 009312

- FC

DAVID ROARK,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing the following issues: (1) whether the defendant was accurat ely advised of the

direct consequences of his guilty plea, including lifetime electronic monitoring; (2)

whether the defendant has demonstrated actual prejudice pursuant to

MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b); and in particular, (3) whether the defendant must demonstrate t hat

he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known about the lifetime electronic

monitoring requirement. See, e.g., United States v Timmreck , 441 US 780, 783

- 784; 99 S

Ct 2085; 60 L Ed 2d 634 (1979) (holding that a conviction based on a guilty plea is n ot

subject to collateral attack when all that can be shown is a formal violation of Rule 11);

Williams v Smith , 591 F 2d 169 (CA 2, 1979) (recognizing that the test applied by the

Second Circuit for determining the constitutional validity of a state court guilty plea that

was based on inaccurate sentencing information is whether the defendant was aware of

actual sentencing possibilities, and, if not, whether accurate information would have

made any difference in his decision to enter a plea). The parties s hould not submit mere

restatements of their application papers.
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 Alternate Energy Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Blaine Froats, Principal 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:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirement 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.


By: /s/ Blaine Froats

-----------------------
PFO
November 14, 2005
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-14814

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cr-00146-GAP-GJK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ZECHARY TORRANCE EDWARDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

 (August 23, 2012)

Before PRYOR, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

Robert Godfrey, on behalf of Craig L. Crawford, Federal Public Defender

and appointed counsel for Zechary Edwards, has moved to withdraw from further

representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

Case: 11-14814 Date Filed: 08/23/2012 Page: 1 of 2 
386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of

the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the

appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no

arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and

Edwards’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-14814 Date Filed: 08/23/2012 Page: 2 of 2
#### COMMUNITY CREDIT CENTER CORP. v. Luis ORTIZ and Carl J. Selenberg, d/b/a the Law Firm of Ortiz and Selenberg.

No. 60813.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1977.

In re: Community Credit Center Corp. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 349 So.2d 364.

Denied.
#### GLENN DUKE MOBILE HOME SALES, INC. and B. E. Fisher v. C. I. T. FINANCIAL SERVICES.

No. 49568.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 3, 1977.

Anthony L. Phillips, Jackson, for appellant.

King & Spencer, Robert W. King, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Leon F. Hendrick, Judge.

Before ROBERTSON, SUGG and BROOM, JJ., and NEAL B. BIGGERS, Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.
# L_2023077EN.01000101.xml

| 16.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 77/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 77/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/582

of 9 March 2023

entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (‘Суджук Търновски / Sudzhuk Tarnovski’ / ‘Търновски Суджук / Tarnovski Sudzhuk’ (TSG))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Bulgaria’s application to register the name ‘Суджук Търновски / Sudzhuk Tarnovski’ / ‘Търновски Суджук / Tarnovski Sudzhuk’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Bulgaria’s application to register the name ‘Суджук Търновски / Sudzhuk Tarnovski’ / ‘Търновски Суджук / Tarnovski Sudzhuk’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no reasoned statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Суджук Търновски / Sudzhuk Tarnovski’ / ‘Търновски Суджук / Tarnovski Sudzhuk’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no reasoned statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Суджук Търновски / Sudzhuk Tarnovski’ / ‘Търновски Суджук / Tarnovski Sudzhuk’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Суджук Търновски / Sudzhuk Tarnovski’ / ‘Търновски Суджук / Tarnovski Sudzhuk’ (TSG) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 March 2023.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 458, 1.12.2022, p. 27.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 11-2281

STACEY HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

CITY OF BOSTON; EDWARD DAVIS, Boston Police Commissioner;

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Denise J. Casper, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch, Chief Judge,

Lipez and Thompson, Circuit Judges.

Alan Gura, with whom Gura & Possessky, PLLC, and Chester

Darling were on brief, for appellant.

Lisa Skehill Maki, Assistant Corporation Counsel, with

whom William F. Sinnott, Corporation Counsel, was on brief, for

appellees City of Boston and Edward Davis.

Kenneth W. Salinger, Assistant Attorney General, with whom

Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, was on brief, for

appellee Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Charles M. Dyke and Trucker Huss APC on brief for Legal

Community Against Violence, amicus curiae.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rodney F. WILSON.

No. 60807.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 1978.

Thomas J. Ford, Jr., Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., William L. Brockman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard JOHNSON.

No. 60650.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 1978.

Patrick D. McArdle, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., William L. Brockman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 12.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

     I, Lewis J. Lee, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Progen Industries
Limited;

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

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

     4.   The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company 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
          company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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 company's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
          covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control
          over financial reporting; and

     5.   The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
          our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
          reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the
          company's board of directors:

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


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

Date:  December 11, 2003
       -----------------

                                            /s/ Lewis J. Lee
                                         ----------------------
                                         Managing Director


<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7158

VERNELL A. JEFFRIES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

DONTAY HARRIS; HARRY SHAUCK,

Plaintiffs,

versus

PRIVATE OWNERS; SUPERINTENDENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-02-1263-7)

Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: March 23, 2004

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished pre curiam opinion.

Vernell A. Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Vernell A. Jeffries appeals from the district court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

complaint for want of prosecution. The district court dismissed

Jeffries’ complaint because he failed to notify the district court

that his address changed, and, because of that failure,

correspondence from the court addressed to Jeffries was returned as

undeliverable. The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is

not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal

without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [in the

complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Id.

at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 844

F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a

dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, we must

determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely

amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In

this case, Jeffries may move in the district court to reopen his

case and to file a signed complaint giving his present address.

See Fed R. Civ. P. 11(a). Therefore, the dismissal order is not

appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. David M. BUCHANAN v. Charles FOTI, Sheriff.

No. 60939.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 3, 1977.

In re: David M. Buchanan applying for remedial writs.

Writ granted. Prerevocation hearing ordered forthwith. L.C.Cr.P. art. 899(E). It is further ordered that applicant be admitted to bail until the prerevocation hearing; thereafter he may be allowed bail within *516the court’s sound discretion. L.C.Cr.P. art. 899(C).

SANDERS, C. J., and MARCUS, J., dissent from the order insofar as it grants the relator bail.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion that applicant is in detention until the prerevocation hearing at which time a decision is to be made whether his detention shall continue. If the prerevocation hearing results in a ruling that his detention should continue, he is not entitled to bail. Otherwise he is released from detention without bail until final revocation hearing determines whether his probation shall be revoked or that he be continued on probation.