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






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR




RULE
15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the quarterly report of Pangea Petroleum 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, Scott
Duncan, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.




Date:
      May 20, 2008
            By: /s/
      Scott
      DuncanScott
      DuncanChief
      Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Financial Officer
#### Freddie Lee PITTS and Wilbert Lee, Petitioners, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40618.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 21, 1971.

Irwin J. Block and Barry N. Semet, Miami, Maurice Rosen, North Miami Beach, and Phillip A. Hubbart, Miami, for petitioners.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is here on petition for writ of certiorari supported by certificate of the *54District Court of Appeal, First District, that its decision reported in State v. Pitts and Lee, 241 So.2d 399, is one which involves a question of great public interest. See Fla.Const., art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A.

We grant the petition for writ of cer-tiorari.

By “motion in confession of error,” the Attorney General has requested that the above cause be returned to the trial court for the purpose of a new trial. Under such circumstances, it is not necessary for this Court to pass upon the question certified to us.

The opinion of the District Court of Appeal is vacated without any determination on the questions of law discussed therein.

This cause is remanded to the District Court of Appeal for further remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence and the plea of guilty so that the Defendants may be re-arraigned and the case set for trial.

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

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Harry Stylli, Chief Executive Officer of Sequenom, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Quarterly Report)
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), of the Exchange Act, and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Quarterly Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has set their hands hereto as of the 13th day of August, 2007.



/s/ HARRY STYLLIHarry StylliChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32


           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                         RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report of Sierra Resource
Group,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Sandra J. Andre,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  and I, Paul W. Andre,  Treasurer  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company,  hereby  certifies for the purpose of complying  with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange  Act") and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; 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: July 8, 2005                       By: /s/ SANDRA J. ANDRE
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Sandra J. Andre
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer



Dated: July 8, 2005                       By: /s/ PAUL W. ANDRE
                                          ______________________________________
                                          Paul W. Andre
                                          Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer



A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SIERRA RESOURCE  GROUP,  INC., AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY SIERRA RESOURCE GROUP, INC., 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 - 00321 - CR , 04 - 17 - 00322 - CR, 04 - 17 - 00323 - CR & 04 - 17 - 00324 - CR

Logan FIELD, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No. A16292 A16293 , A16294 & A16295 Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant Logan Field filed separate notices of appeal for four related trial court causes from Kerr County in appeals numbered 04 - 17 - 00321 - CR, 04 - 17 - 00322 - CR, 04 - 17 - 00323 - CR, and 04 - 17 - 00324 - CR . Appellant moved this court to consolidate these appeals. Because each of the Kerry County appeal s pertains to the same event that occurred in Kerr County on February 12, 2016, and the same grounds for a motion to suppress , we granted Appe llant’s motion in part. We ordered Appellant and the State to file motions, briefs, and other pleadings as if the appeals were one and to include all four appeal numbers in the style of the case. We advised the parties that t his court would include each appeal number in any further orders, but we would maintain a separate appellate record for each appeal . On November 1, 2017, Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief in these cases, and a motion to consolidate the four Kerr County appeals with five appeals from Gillespie County numbered 04 - 17 - 00400 - CR, 04 - 17 - 00401 - CR, 04 - 17 - 00402 - CR, 04 - 17 - 00403 - CR, and 04 - 17 - 0004 - CR. Those appeals are all based on the same event that occurred in Gillespie County on July 14, 2015. A ppellant’s motion to consolidate the Kerr County and Gillespie County appeals for purposes of briefing and arguments is DENIED . However , this court will treat the Kerr and Gillespie County appeals as companion cases . The two sets of appeals will be consi dered and decided by the same panel at the same time.Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s

brief is due on November 15, 2017.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hav e 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
#### Viola KESSLER, Appeltant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-327.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 21, 1969.

Gordon W. Taylor, North Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The circumstantial evidence upon which the jury’s guilty verdict was based is insufficient to support the judgment of conviction of grand larceny. We therefore reverse that judgment and remand the cause with directions to discharge the appellant from custody. Cf. Rollins v- State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 861; Davis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 28.

Reversed and remanded with directions.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00115

- CR

JANET LISTER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 50688

- A

Before Morr iss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef , JJ.2 O R D E R

T he appellant’s brief in this matter was originally due March 31 , 2022. This Court extended that briefing deadline twice, on appellant’s motions, resulting in the most recent due

date of May 2 3 , 2022. We informed counsel when we granted the last extension request that

further extension requests would not be grante d absent extraordinary circumstances. Counsel

has nonetheless filed a third motion seeking an additional thirty

- day extension of the briefi ng
deadline. We have reviewed the case files and appellate record, as well as counsel’s most rec ent motion to extend time, and find no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant an additional thirty

- day extension of the filing deadline. Consequently, counsel’s third motion to extend the
time to file the appellate brief in th is matter is denied. We hereby order counsel to file the appellate brief in th is matter on or before June 22 , 2022. This gives counsel the full thirty days she sought in her motion to complete the brief, which we are certain will be adequate. The failure to file a brief on o r before June 22 will result in abatement of this appeal to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: May 24 , 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF FINANCIAL CONDITION, OPERATIONS, AND CHANGES IN TRUST CAPITAL AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       8,302,592
<SECURITIES>                                45,912,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            58,916,566
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,916,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,776,248
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  56,140,318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,916,566
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,184,855
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,071,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,348,834
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,837,346
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,837,346
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    99.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    99.45
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

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 China Holdings Group, Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dempsey K. Mork, Chief Executive and 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 result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  August 10, 2011
By  /s/ Dempsey K. Mork
-----------------------------
     Dempsey K. Mork
     Chief Executive and Financial Officer
    (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
256 La. 65

#### Josepn H. JORDAN v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50508.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1970.

In re: Joseph H. Jordan applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangi-pahoa. 231 So.2d 678.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
*District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by

designation.

 

** 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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-31162

 

GARY D. SALTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

No. 99-30609

GARY D. SALTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee

versus

SECRETARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; ET AL,

Defendants

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana 

(96-CV-820)

 

March 2, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and ATLAS,*

District Judge. 

PER CURIAM:**

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
#### Willie Roy SANDIFER v. Patricia Delores WOMACK et al.

No. 45576.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 12, 1970.

George B. Grubbs, Mendenhall, for appellant.

George G. Williamson, Mendenhall, for appellees.

SMITH, Justice.

The proceedings, out of which this appeal arises, were brought against appellant, Willie Roy Sandifer, by appellees, Patricia Delores Womack and Laura Ella Womack, infants, acting by next friend, under the provisions of the Mississippi Uniform Act on Paternity, Chapter 312, Mississippi General Laws of 1962 [Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 383-01 (Supp. 1968)] et seq. By their suit, appellees sought to establish that appellant was their father, although not married to their mother, and to require him to provide, for their support.

Among other defenses, appellant sought to interpose the limitation provided by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 383-02 (Supp.1968), since both appellees, at the time of the commencement of the suit, were more than one year of age. The pertinent part of the statute provides:

> However, proceedings hereunder shall not be instituted *by the mother*after the child has reached the age of one year, unless the defendant be absent from the state so that personal service of process cannot be had upon him, or, unless the defendant has acknowledged in writing that he is the father of the child, (emphasis added).

The trial court rejected this defense and the sole question raised on appeal is whether this action was error.

As noted, the proceedings were not brought “by the mother” but by the infants themselves. Therefore, on this point, the case is controlled by Dunn v. Grisham, 250 Miss. 74, 157 So.2d 766 (1963).

*213In that case, the stated limitation was held to be restricted expressly to suits brought by the mother. The trial court acted correctly in rejecting appellant’s defense that the proceedings were barred because the children were more than one year of age when it was begun.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and RODGERS, BRADY and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
#### Jerry Daniel SPIGLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 9, 1969.

Jerry Daniel Spigle, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*282Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
1

Hutson, Nick

From: CurryBrown, Amanda

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:54 PM

To: Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov; Hutson, Nick; Fruh, Steve; Culligan, Kevin; Weatherhead, 

Darryl

Subject: Updated Version of 111(b) RIA and Response to Interagency Comments

Attachments: EO 12866_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 RIA Final_07272015.docx; EO 12866_111(b) NewMods 2060-AQ91 RIA Final_07272015_CLEAN.docx; 

SummaryofinteragencycommentsunderEO 12866_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 RIA Final_7

_21_2015.docx

Hi Nathan, 

Please see attached for a revised version of the 111b RIA and response to the most recent set of OMB comments. I’ve 

included a clean version, as well as a RLSO that shows changes since the last submission on 7/14. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Thanks! 

Amanda 

Amanda Curry Brown 

Health and Environmental Impacts Division 

U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

919.541.3808 

CurryBrown.Amanda@epa.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1655 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1655

        To suspend temporarily the duty on quinclorac technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 12, 2005

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on quinclorac technical.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. QUINCLORAC TECHNICAL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.06.03       Quinclorac         Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         technical (CAS                                                     31/2008
                         No. 84087-01-4)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2933.49.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Gilbert C. HINE, as Administrator of the Estate of Percy L. Rye, a/k/a P. L. Rye, Deceased, Appellant, v. HARDIN-LOWREY REALTY CO., formerly Walter S. Hardin Realty Co., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-486.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 29, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Crim. No. 4:14-CR-0254

:

v. : (Judge Brann)

:

CHRISTOPHER G. LEE, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

June 2, 2015

AND NOW, in accordance with the Memorandum of this same date, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence is 

DENIED (ECF No. 53).

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cr-00254-MWB Document 70 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 1