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

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Latitude Communications,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Luis Buhler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 thisReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                        | **Latitude Communications, Inc.** |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                        |                              |
|                        |                              |
|                        | **By:**                           | **/s/   LUIS BUHLER** |   |
|                        |                              | Luis Buhler |
|                        |                              | Chief  Financial Officer |
|                        |                              |   |
|                        |                              |   |
| Date:  August 13, 2003 |                              |   |

 

1

----
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Health Care Fund, a series of DWS Securities Trust, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| July 30, 2008 | /s/Michael G. Clark                                    |
|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|          | Michael G. Clark                                       |
|          | President                                              |
|          | DWS Health Care Fund, a series of DWS Securities Trust |

 

 

 

 

**Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Paul Schubert, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Health Care Fund, a series of DWS Securities Trust, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or § 15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| July 30, 2008 | /s/Paul Schubert                                       |
|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|          | Paul Schubert                                          |
|          | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                  |
|          | DWS Health Care Fund, a series of DWS Securities Trust |
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11408

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00460-WSD,

Bkcy No. 11-bkc-70660-CRM

In re: YVONNE ROBERTS WAITS,

Debtor.

BANK OF AMERICA BANK, NA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

YVONNE ROBERTS WAITS,

Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(August 21, 2014)

Case: 14-11408 Date Filed: 08/21/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Bank of America appeals the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy 

court’s order allowing the debtor, Yvonne Waits, to extinguish Bank of America’s 

second-priority mortgage lien on Waits’ home given that the first-priority lien 

exceeded the home’s fair market value. This appeal thus presents the question 

whether section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 506(d), allows a 

Chapter 7 debtor to “strip off” a junior mortgage lien when the senior lien exceeds 

the home’s value. As Bank of America concedes, however, we are bound to affirm 

the district court by our decisions in In re McNeal, 735 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2012)

and Folendore v. United States Small Bus. Admin., 862 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1989). 

See Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.8 (11th Cir. 2001) (“Under the 

well-established prior panel precedent rule of this Circuit, the holding of the first 

panel to address an issue is the law of this Circuit, thereby binding all subsequent 

panels unless and until the first panel’s holding is overruled by the Court sitting en 

banc or by the Supreme Court.”).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-11408 Date Filed: 08/21/2014 Page: 2 of 2
FHWA-SA-21-039

Backplates with 

Retroreflective Borders

Backplates added to a traffic signal head improve the visibility of the 

illuminated face of the signal by introducing a controlled-contrast 

background. The improved visibility of a signal head with a backplate 

is made even more conspicuous by framing it with a 1- to 3-inch yellow 

retroreflective border. Signal heads that have backplates equipped with 

retroreflective borders are more visible and conspicuous in both daytime 

and nighttime conditions.

This treatment is recognized as a 

human factors enhancement of 

traffic signal visibility, conspicuity, 

and orientation for both older 

and color vision deficient drivers. 

This countermeasure is also 

advantageous during periods of 

power outages when the signals 

would otherwise be dark, providing a 

visible cue for motorists to stop at the 

intersection ahead.

Considerations

Transportation agencies should 

consider backplates with 

retroreflective borders as part 

of their efforts to systematically 

improve safety performance at 

signalized intersections. Adding a 

retroreflective border to an existing 

signal backplate is a very low-cost 

safety treatment. This can be done 

by either adding retroreflective 

tape to an existing backplate or 

purchasing a new backplate with 

a retroreflective border already 

incorporated. The most efficient 

means of implementing this proven 

safety countermeasure is to adopt 

it as a standard treatment for 

signalized intersections across a 

jurisdiction or State.

Implementation challenges 

include minimizing installation time, 

accessing existing signal heads, and 

structural limitations due to added 

wind load in instances where an 

entire backplate is added. Agencies 

should consider the design of the 

existing signal support structure to 

determine if the design is sufficient to 

support the added wind load.

15%

reduction in total crashes.1

Safety Benefits:

Retroreflective Border

Signal Backplate

Signal backplate framed with a 

retroreflective border. Source: FHWA

Retroreflective borders are highly 

visible during the night. Source: South 

Carolina DOT

1 (CMF ID: 1410) Sayed, T., Leur, P., and Pump, J., “Safety Impact of Increased Traffic Signal 

Backboards Conspicuity.” 2005 TRB 84th Annual Meeting: Compendium of 

Papers CD-ROM, Vol. TRB#05-16, Washington, D.C., (2005).

OFFICE OF SAFETY

Proven Safety 

Countermeasures

For more information on this 

and other FHWA Proven Safety 

Countermeasures, please visit 

https://highways.dot.gov/

safety/proven-safety-counter 

measures and https://rosap.

ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42807.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3596 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3596

 To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to amend references of gilsonite to 
                              asphaltite.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 17, 2024

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to amend references of gilsonite to 
                              asphaltite.

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

SECTION 1. MINERAL AMENDMENT TO THE MINERAL LEASING ACT.

    The first section of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181) and 
sections 21, 27, 34, 39, and 43 of that Act (30 U.S.C. 241, 184, 182, 
209, 226-3) are amended by striking ``gilsonite'' each place it appears 
and inserting ``asphaltite''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERTO PEREZ

- GARCIA, JR.

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 24

- 00215

- C R

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC #20230D03331)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant ’ s voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal

and concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20 24

.

JEFF ALLEY

, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                     List of PDV America, Inc. Subsidiaries

Subsidiary                                                          Jurisdiction

CITGO Petroleum Corporation.............................................Delaware
   Cit-Con Oil Corporation..............................................Delaware
   CITGO Canada Petroleum Corporation...................................Delaware
   CITGO Funding Corporation............................................Delaware
   CITGO Funding Corporation II.........................................Delaware
   CITGO Industrial Products Trading Corporation........................Delaware
   CITGO International Supply Company...................................Delaware
   Champlin Corporation.................................................Delaware
   CITGO Puerto Rico Petroleum Corporation..............................Delaware
   CITGO Venezuela Supply Company.......................................Delaware
   Cities Service Company...............................................Delaware
   Petro-Chemical Transport, Inc...........................................Texas
   CITGO Refining Investment Company....................................Oklahoma
   Trimark Insurance Company Ltd.........................................Bermuda
   CITGO Investment Company.............................................Delaware

      Cumene Associates, Inc............................................Delaware
         Texas Phenol Plant Limited Partnership............................Texas

   CITGO Pipeline Investment Company....................................Delaware
      CITGO Pipeline Company............................................Delaware
      CITGO Products Pipeline Company...................................Delaware
      Lafitte Gas Pipeline Company......................................Delaware
      CITGO East Coast Oil Corporation..................................Delaware

   CITGO Asphalt Refining Company.....................................New Jersey
   TCP Petcoke Corporation..............................................Delaware
   TCP Venezuela, Inc...................................................Delaware
   CITGO Refining and Chemicals Company L.P.............................Delaware

PDV USA, Inc............................................................Delaware
VPHI Midwest, Inc.......................................................Delaware

   PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C..........................................Delaware


                                      (iv)
Exhibit
31.2





CERTIFICATION
OF ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002




I,
David Koos, Chief Financial Officer of Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc.
(“Registrant”) certify that:




1. I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Registrant.




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;




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 Registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. 
The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant 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 Registrant, 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 Registrant’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 Registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.  I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of
Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):




(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 Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




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




Date:   January
      30, 2009
            By:
            /s/ David
      R. KoosDavid
      R. KoosActing Chief Financial
      Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1725

THELMA TYSON, an individual,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

TIJUAN TYSON, a minor, by next friend and

legal guardian, Thelma Tyson,

Plaintiff,

versus

KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a county

and state agency; SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT; WILLIAM RUSSELL; JANE HARBERT; KATE

MIDDLETON, a/k/a Middleton, in their individual capacity and in their official capacity as

employees of the Kanawha County Board of

Education,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Dennis Raymond Knapp,

Senior District Judge. (CA-96-904-2)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 28, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thelma Tyson, Appellant Pro Se. Charles R. Bailey, Belinda B.

Jackson, SHUMAN, ANNAND & POE, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing this

action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20

U.S.C. § 1415(e) (1994), and their pendant claims of civil rights

violations. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Tyson v. Kanawha Cnty Bd. Educ.,

No. CA-96-904-2 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 29, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,917
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,961
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,394
<PP&E>                                         230,672
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 651,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,661
<BONDS>                                        327,792
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           31,231
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           245
<OTHER-SE>                                     166,053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   651,468
<SALES>                                         25,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,957
<CGS>                                           21,633
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  153,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,575
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (46,476)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,021
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (45,455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,675)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (49,130)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.07)


</TABLE>
| Name                                             | State of      Incorporation/Formation |
|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Alpha      Monticello, Inc.                      | Delaware                              |
| Alpha      Casino Management Inc.                | Delaware                              |
| Monticello      Casino Management, LLC           | New      York                         |
| Mohawk      Management, LLC                      | New      York                         |
| Monticello      Raceway Development Company, LLC | New      York                         |
| Monticello      Raceway Management, Inc.         | New      York                         |
| Empire      Kiamesha LLC                         | Delaware                              |
| Route      17B Properties, LLC                   | New      York                         |
| Kaufman      Road Properties, LLC                | New      York                         |
254 La. 930

#### Theodore L. TANNEHILL, Jr. v. Estelle Scott SOUTHERLAND et al.

No. 50174.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 15, 1969.

In re: Theodore L. Tannehill, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides.

Writ refused. The judgment is not final. But plaintiff’s right to urge the matters raised in his application are reserved to him in the event of an adverse judgment following a trial on the question of the validity of his marriage to the defendant.
255 La. 1106

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Steve BONFANTI, Jr.

No. 50576.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1970.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The application is denied. There appears no error in the ruling complained of.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 31, 2011

SUBJECT: Summary of August 23 Meeting with Stakeholders

FROM: Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG

TO: Air and Radiation Docket

INTRODUCTION

On August 23, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a 

conference call with various stakeholders. The purpose of this call was to provide an overview 

of the proposed oil and natural gas sector rules. The list of stakeholders participating in the call 

and a transcript of the discussion are included as separate attachments under this docket entry.

LOCATION AND DATE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, NC

PARTICIPANTS

The following representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

participated in the call in addition to the stakeholders shown on the Conference Participant 

Report:

Peter Tsirigotis, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/IO

Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG

David Cozzie, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG

Alison Davis, EPA/OAQPS/PACS

Scott Fraser, EPA/OA/OPA