alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.20

                            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 Niku Corporation (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joshua
Pickus, 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 the best of 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 results of operations of the
Company.





/s/ Joshua Pickus
-------------------------------
Joshua Pickus
Chief Financial Officer
September 12, 2002

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 9, 2016

NO. 03-15-00713-CV

Brian DeRoeck, Melinda Young, and Kathryn Boykin, as co-trustees of the 

Walter A. DeRoeck QTIP Trust, Assignee of Texas Capital Bank National Association, 

Appellants

v.

DHM Ventures, LLC; James W. Moritz; and Nathan W. Halsey, Appellees

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on August 24, 2015. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellants shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### Ex parte Patricia Ann CREWS.

77-480.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 19, 1978.

EMBRY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 217 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to preserve the essential air service 

program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2005 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. COLLINS, MR. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. JEFFORDS, 

Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. LEVIN, and 

Mr. SPECTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to preserve the 

essential air service program. 

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 ‘‘Essential Air Service 

5 Preservation Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EAS LOCAL PARTICIPATION PROGRAM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 417 of 

8 title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking sec-
2 

•S 217 IS 

1 tion 41747, and such title shall be applied as if such sec2 tion 41747 had not been enacted. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The chapter analysis 

4 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by striking 

5 the item relating to section 41747. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24899]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Scientific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), DOD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. (92-463) announcement is made of the following open 
meeting:
    Name of Committee: Scientific Advisory Board (SAB).
    Dates of Meeting: 13-14 November 1997.
    Place: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Building 54, 14th St & 
Alaska Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20306-6000.
    Time: 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (13 November 1997); 8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. 
(14 November 1997).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ridgely Rabold, Center for 
Advanced Pathology (CAP), AFIP, Building 54, Washington, DC 20306-6000, 
phone (202) 782-2553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    General function of the board: The Scientific Advisory Board 
provides scientific and professional advice and guidance on programs, 
policies, and procedures of the AFIP.
    Agenda: The Board will hear status reports from the AFIP Deputy 
Directors, Center for Advanced Pathology Director, the National Museum 
of Health and Medicine, and each of the pathology departments. Board 
Members will visit several of the pathology departments.
    Open board discussions: Reports will be given on all visited 
departments. The reports will consist of findings, recommended areas of 
further research, and suggested solutions. New trends and/or 
technologies will be discussed and goals established. The meeting is 
open to the public.
Mary V. Yonts,
Alternate Army Federal Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-24899 Filed 9-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
##### 



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 CABG Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Manuel A Villafaña, Chief Executive 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: (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: May 9, 2005 /s/ Manuel A. VillafanaManuel A. VillafañaChief Executive Officer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00107-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Trial Court No. 323-107000-18

Before Kerr, Pittman, and Birdwell, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE R.B., Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: April 4, 2019
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
USDATA Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-65505 and 333-82927) of USDATA Corporation of our report dated
February 3, 2003, except for note 6, which is as of March 17, 2003, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of USDATA Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and comprehensive loss, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2002,
and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of USDATA Corporation.




Dallas, Texas
April 14, 2003
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SACHE SHKRELI a/k/a SACA SHKRELI and MARCO SHKRELI,

Appellant s

,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3529

[ October 19, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Peter D. Blanc , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2013

- CA

002592MB

.

Daniel A. Bushell of Bushell Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Nicole R. Ramirez of eXL Legal , PLLC, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affi rmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Re: Please see question below --- this is Ms. Sheckton, l.e., the court reporter from yesterday at meeting Johnh Smith to: Gail Sheckton OS/26/201003:15 PM Co: Daemian Schreiber, Selwyn Cox, Lynn Vendinello

Ms, Sheckton,

Here are mycomments onyourtext:


## MR. SMITH: To answer that question, I would look on page 17658, the center column, Section 10, and that is the reconsideration of the use of 50 part per million level for excluded PCB products and in particular what PCBs **COAcOCt 

## in caulk. I think that section has been read by some to think that it is possible that EPA may issue a use authorization for caulk. I would say that I could read it that way, too. We're looking for folks to comment on whether or not to have an authorization for caulk, and if there were an authorization what should the concentration be for the authorization and any other conditions for an authorization.

FYI, where I have the ** 

## is the word I don't know what you're saying... 1 

## wrote (phonetically) concoct or caulk.. Thank you for your help, N. Gail Sheckton, CCR
Also, do you know what the (phonetic) Rickra division is? the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery [[[In addition to managing PCB disposal the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery implements the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which we pronounce as you phonetically typed, "rickra. "]]]

Please letme knowif you have anyadditionalquestions.

John H. Smith, Ph.D. Chemist Fibers and Organics Branch Phone 202-566-0512 fax202-566-0473 Mail Code

- 7404T MailingAddress: USEPA (7404T) 1200Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 DeliveryAddress: EPA West Room 4355-HH 1301 Constitution A venue, NW Washington DC, 20004"Gail Sheckton"

From: To: Date: Subjoct: "Gail Sheckton" <ngail@bellsouth.net> Johnh Smith/DC/USEPAlUS@EPA 05/26/2010 10:23 AM Please see question below --- this is Ms. Sheckton, i.e., the court reporter from yesterday at meeting



## Dear Mr. Smith, if you could please give me a call, I have a question about a word you said....here are the sentences, please correct or call me at 404-422-1999...just want to be sure I have it correct, as I am not familiar with this..Thanks, N. Gail Sheckton

MR. SMITH: To answer that question, I would look on page 17658, the center column, Section 10, and that is the reconsideration of the use of 50 part per billion level for excluded PCB products and in particular what PCBs **concoct. I think that section has been read by some to think that it is possible that EPA may issue a use authorization for **. I would say that I could read it that way, too. We're looking for folks to comment on whether or not to have an authorization for **, and if there were an authorization what should the concentration be for the authorization and any other conditions for an authorization.
FYI, where I have the ** is the word I don't know what you're saying... 1 

## wrote (phonetically) concoct or caulk.. Thank you for your help, N. Gail Sheckton, CCR
Also, do you know what the (phonetic) Rickra division is?
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 World Health Energy Holdings, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operation of the Company.



|Date: April 16, 2013 | By: | /s/ Dovid Lieberman      | 
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------------ | 
|                     |     | Dovid Lieberman,         | 
|                     |     | President, CEO, Director | 





A signed original 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.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 14, 2017

No. 04-17-00621-CV

HOLT TEXAS, LTD. d/b/a Holt Cat and d/b/a Holt Rental Services,

Appellant

v.

M&M CRUSHED STONE PRODUCTS, INC., et al.,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CI-07186

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee, M&M Crushed Stone Products, Inc’s, First Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The appellee’s brief is due on December 4, 2017.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of November, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Russell SMITH, Stanley Smith and Donna Smith, Appellees.

No. 2469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

June 18, 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1969.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

*353Andrew Welch and Edward R. Kirkland, Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The state takes this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order quashing a search warrant. The issue involved the sufficiency of an affidavit to present to an independent neutral magistrate probable cause to issue the search warrant. We find the presentment by the state failed to pass muster under the dictates of Aguilar v. Texas, 1964, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; and now the most recent Spinelli v. United States, 1969, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.

REED, J., dissents, without opinion.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION





In connection with the periodic report of SKYSTAR BIO-PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bing Mei, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.





Date: August 22, 2011
/s/Bing MeiBing MeiChief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting andFinancial Officer)
### 1 Attachment

Hi Brad:

Here is the completed 8700

‐ 1 for our Master’s degree program.

Please let me know if you need additional explanation or information.

Tim

Tim Brady, Ph.D.

Dean, College of Aviation

Daytona Beach campus

From: Bradley.Palmer@faa.gov [ mailto:Bradley.Palmer@faa.gov ]

Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:31 PM

To: Brady, Tim

Cc: Jeffrey.Smith@faa.gov
Subject: ERAU Petition for Exemption: Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0821
Importance: High

Dr. Brady:

The FAA is actively processing Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University's (ERAU) petition for exemption which posted in the Federal Register on September 13, 2013. In that request, ERAU requested relief from § 61 .160(c)(1) to allow gr aduates of ERAU’s Master of Science in Aeronautics (MSA) Professional Pilot spec ialization degree program, to be eligible for the restricted priv ileges
airline transport pilot (A TP) certificate in accordance with § 61.160(c).

In order to continue processing this request, the FAA requires additional information from ERAU regarding the coursework a graduate may enroll in that satisfies the criteria listed in the regulation and Advisory Circular (AC) 61-139: Institution of Higher Education’s Application for Authority to Certify its Graduates for an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate with Reduced Aeronaut ical Experience . The additional information can be conveyed on FAA form 8700-1: Institution of Higher Education’s Application for

A uthority to Certify its Graduates for an Airline Transpor t Pilot Certificate with Redu ced Aeronautical Experience in order to assist

in the submission.

Thank you for your time in this matter.

Thank you,

Brad Palmer Aviation Safety Inspector

Airmen Certification and Tr aining Branch, AFS-810 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

(202) 385-9614 

### RE: ERAU Petition for Exemption: Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0821 Brady, Tim

to: Bradley Palmer

02/28/2014 02:16 PM

Hide Details From: "Brady, Tim" <bradyt@erau.edu> To: Bradley Palmer/AWA/FAA@FAA,

8700-1 Masters. p d f 

### 3/3/2014 5:26:18 AM

Pa g e 1 of 1
#### Harold Ray ROGERS v. Ernest E. MITCHELL and Geraldine Mitchell.

Civ. 1243.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 2, 1977.

*613Walker Norris and T. A. Leonard, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.

James M. Holmes, Birmingham, for ap-pellees.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a detinue action.

This action was brought by appellee against appellant for possession of certain personal property. It was consolidated with other actions involving a real estate lease between the parties. No proof of alternate value of the property was made and neither the jury verdict nor the judgment for the plaintiff made an alternate value assessment. Appellant’s motion for J.N.O.V. was overruled.

The issue is whether a judgment for the plaintiff in a detinue action may stand if the judgment fails to assess alternate value and the property is in the possession of the defendant.

Tit. 7, § 921 of the Code of Alabama (1940) (Recomp.1958) requires the jury to assess the value of the property when they find for the plaintiff, and when they find for the defendant and the property is in the possession of the plaintiff. Judgment must be for the property, or its alternate value, with damages for detention to the time of trial. Although it is generally reversible error for a judgment to fail to assess alternate value, it may stand if there is no prejudice. *Sauls v.*Hand, 242 Ala. 643, 7 So.2d 762 (1942). An absence of prejudice has been found where the property is in the possession of the successful party *(Beavers v. Harris,*265 Ala. 548, 93 So.2d 161 (1956)), in the possession of' the court *(Sauls v. Hand, supra; Dobson v. Neighbors,*228 Ala. 407, 153 So. 861 (1934)), and where there was no judgment for the property involved *(International Harvester Co. v. Pittman,*226 Ala. 355, 147 So. 144 (1933); *Miller v. Jones Adm’r,*29 Ala. 174 (1856)).

The case of *Scott v. Howard,*215 Ala. 590, 112 So. 194 (1927) and its progeny such as *First National Bank of Opelika v. LaFayette Farm Machinery Co.,*269 Ala. 231, 112 So.2d 478 (1959), and *Robert P. Stapp Mach. Co. v. Russell,*277 Ala. 84, 167 So.2d 167 (1964) control our decision in this case. Failure of the verdict and judgment in detinue to assess alternate value of the property sued for is prejudicial to the defendant in possession and requires reversal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

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

                     

The undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Oconee Financial Corporation (the“Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                               |

 

| Dated: August 16, 2004      |   /s/ B. Amrey Harden                                      B. Amrey Harden Chief Executive Officer                             |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  

               |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| Dated: August 16, 2004 |   /s/ Jerry K. Wages                                           Jerry K. Wages Chief Financial Officer |
#### The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY, Florida, a public corporation, Appellant, v. BUDGET COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, Florida, et al., Appellees.

No. 40165.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 9, 1971.

F. Anderson Vaught, Jr., of Mairs, Graham, Markel & Vaught, Winter Park, for appellant.

Albert P. Schwartz, Orlando, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Orange County, wherein Chapter 63-878, Laws of Florida, was held constitutional. On appeal here appellants have contended that Chapter 63-878 is an invalid special act.

However, our attention has been called to House Bill No. 932, enacted on May 12, 1971, as Chapter 71-29, Laws of Florida, which repeals Chapter 63-878, Laws of Florida. Accordingly, the controversy over the validity of Chapter 63-878 has been rendered moot and the appeal must be and is hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.