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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of BJ Services Company (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey E. Smith, Chief Financial 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, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                                           
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Jeffrey E. Smith                                      
|    |  | Jeffrey E. Smith                                          
|    |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | November 29, 2007
258 La. 356

#### Homer BLAND v. CITY OF HOUMA.

No. 51347.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: Homer Bland applying for writs of certiorari.

Writ granted. The exception and motion are overruled and the appeal is reinstated on the Docket of the 17th Judicial District Court. The rights of all parties are reserved.
<PAGE>


                                  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 Covista Communications, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank J. Pazera, Chief
Financial Officer of Covista Communications, Inc. certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that;

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

     2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material aspects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         Covista Communications, Inc.


Date: June 14, 2005                         By:  /s/ Frank J. Pazera
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Frank J. Pazera
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
#### NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL TRADE UNIONS, Appellant, v. JACKSON’S-BYRONS, INC. et al., Appellees. Louis LASKY, Appellant, v. JACKSON’S-BYRONS, INC. et al., Appellees.

Nos. 70-345, 70-347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 28, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
#### Edward William BRAXTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-99.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 30, 1969.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Gregory B. Hoppenstand, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

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

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

*693PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in the criminal court of record, seeks review of his conviction for armed robbery. The only issue preserved is the sufficiency of the evidence on identification of the culprit.

A review of the record reveals substantial, competent evidence which, if believed by the trier of fact, establishes beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the culprit and, therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence here under review should be affirmed upon the authority of Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 264; Yant v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 297; Parker v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 476.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23(a)
                                                                   -------------

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'



      The Board of Directors
      Insilco Technologies, Inc.:


      We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
      Nos. 333-36523 and 333-51145 on Form S-4, and registration No. 333-71947
      on Form S-3 of Insilco Technologies, Inc. (formerly Insilco Corporation)
      of our report dated February 2, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance
      sheets of Insilco Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
      2000, and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
      stockholder's deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the
      three-year period ended December 31, 2000, and the related schedule, which
      report appears in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of
      Insilco Technologies, Inc.

      /s/ KPMG LLP
      --------------------------

      Columbus, Ohio
      March 27, 2001
Exhibit 11

LUNAR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Computation of Per-Share Earnings


                                June 30, 1997   June 30, 1996   June 30, 1995
                                -------------   -------------   -------------
Net income                      $14,285,825     $9,236,444      $6,701,262

Weighted average
 shares outstanding               8,614,567      8,194,821       7,904,565

Effect of stock
 options calculated
 according to the
 treasury stock method              491,481        713,002         919,700
                                -------------    -------------  -------------
Weighted average
 number of common and
 common equivalent
 shares outstanding               9,106,048      8,907,823       8,824,265
                                =============    =============   =============
Net income per
 common and common-
 equivalent share                  $1.57           $1.04             $0.76
                                   ======          ======            ======
Exhibit 23.2





NSAI           Netherland, Sewell


& Associates, Inc.








Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers and Geologists











We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-163184) on Form S-3 of Royale Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) of the reference to Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. and the inclusion of our report dated March 4, 2010 in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, of the Company and its subsidiaries, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





We also consent to the reference to our firm under the captions "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement.








NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.





By:           /s/ Danny D. Simmons


Danny D. Simmons, P.E.


President and Chief Operating Officer








Houston, Texas


March 17, 2010
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-2959

_____________________________

GAYLON RAY LEMINGS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Suwannee County.

E. Bailey Browning, III, Judge.

July 16, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Megan Lynne Long, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina Day Piotrowski, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Charles Arthur GELIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-695.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 16, 1971.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the judgment and sentence entered against him. The appellant was informed against and upon trial found guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony therein, to-wit: grand larceny and with the crime of grand larceny itself. He was sentenced to serve a fifteen-year sentence for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and a five-year sentence for committing grand larceny tó run concurrently with the former, both at hard labor in the state penitentiary.

Through the use of a pretrial motion to suppress and by objection during trial, both *510of which were denied, appellant’s counsel alleged that certain items of physical evidence had been illegally obtained through the use of a search warrant. Notwithstanding appellant’s contention, some of the items found in the search were admitted into evidence.

Appellant questions the legal sufficiency of the affidavit as to probable cause upon which the search warrant was issued. F.S. § 933.18, F.S.A., is applicable in our determination of the validity of the warrant since it was appellant’s dwelling which was authorized to be and in fact searched. That portion of the affidavit which warrants scrutiny reads:

> “That the aforesaid probable cause of affiant is based on the following facts:

> Charles Arthur Gelis has been arrested for B&E and Grand Larceny of said personal property based on known incriminating facts and and [sic] evidence in possession of affiant, wearing appar-rel [sic] and other evidence used in connection with commission of said crime has not been recovered and is believed to be at above premises.”

We agree with appellant that the affidavit does not fulfill the requirement of the statute that it “set forth the facts on which such reason or belief is based.” Parnell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 910, rev’d on other grounds, Fla.1969, 221 So.2d 129, opinion vacated, Fla.App.1969, 233 So.2d 437. Therefore, items of evidence seized thereunder should have been suppressed and held inadmissible at trial.

For the reasons stated the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for new trial.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
#### Julius Teddy DELANIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 13, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1978.

*690Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

RYDER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery and culpable negligence. He contends that his conviction should be reversed because the State introduced no substantive evidence of his guilt. We agree and reverse.

On July 23, 1977, Lakeland Police Officers Morgan, Tallman and Boatner were dispatched to appellant’s residence. On arriving they found Barbara Hall, appellant’s girlfriend, sitting on the front porch bleeding from her left arm and from under her left eye. Ms. Hall told Officer Morgan that she had been struck by a grass sling blade swung by appellant when she raised her left arm in defense. When confronted by police at a neighbor’s house, appellant admitted struggling over the blade and produced it for the officers. Appellant was then taken into custody.

At pre-trial deposition, Ms. Hall’s description of the incident was different. On that occasion she testified that she had initiated the struggle over the blade because appellant had walked into their room with the blade and she feared that he was experiencing an epileptic seizure and she generally exonerated appellant.

Upon trial and at the urging of the prosecutor, the court called Ms. Hall as a court witness. This allowed the prosecutor to introduce evidence of the first version of the incident told by Ms. Hall to the Lake-land police for the purpose of impeaching her trial testimony, which also again exonerated appellant. Other than Ms. Hall’s initial statement, no substantive evidence was introduced indicating appellant’s guilt.

A trial judge can, in his discretion, call a person as a court witness where the witness’ expected trial testimony is inconsistent with a prior statement. *McCloud*v. *State,*335 So.2d 257 (Fla.1976). The prior statement can then be used to diminish the credibility of the witness and otherwise impeach his testimony; but it may not be used as substantive evidence. *Perry v. State,*356 So.2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

Nothing was introduced by the State which directly showed appellant to be guilty of the charges. This insufficiency of evidence in appellant’s first trial precludes a new trial. He should therefore be discharged. *Burks v. United States,*437 U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); *Greene*v. *Massey,*437 U.S.-, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to discharge appellant.

GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                     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 Falcon Products, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 2, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael J. Dreller, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities 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: September 16, 2003

                                                  /s/ Michael J. Dreller
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Michael J. Dreller
                                                  Vice President, Finance and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-502]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 860]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Federal-Mogul World Trade, 
Inc., (Vehicle Parts Warehouse/Distribution Facility), Ft. Lauderdale, 
FL

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from Broward County, Florida, grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 25, for authority to establish special-purpose 
subzone status at the vehicle parts warehouse/distribution facility of 
Federal-Mogul World Trade, Inc., in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida was filed 
by the Board on January 19, 1996, and notice inviting public comment 
was given in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 5-96, 61 FR 3000, 1/30/
96); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a 
subzone (Subzone 25A) at the Federal-Mogul World Trade, Inc., facility, 
in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, at the location described in the 
application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of December 1996.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-502 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33323]


Chicago Rail Link, L.L.C.; Lease and Operation Exemption; Union 
Pacific Railroad Company

    Chicago Rail Link, L.L.C. (CRL), a Class III rail carrier, has 
filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease and operate 
approximately 8.5 miles of rail lines owned by the Union Pacific 
Railroad Company (UP). CRL will be leasing and operating track numbers 
1 through 9, 110, 500, 501, 702, 710, and 711 in UP's Irondale Yard, 
Chicago, IL, east of Torrence Avenue between 117th Street and 122nd 
Street.
    The transaction was expected to be consummated on or shortly after 
December 26, 1996.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke does not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33323, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423. In addition, a copy of each 
pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Esq., Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F 
Street, N.W., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.

    Decided: January 2, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-482 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Mariposa County 1978 SIP Compilation

– Permit related rules

A review of the June 30, 1972 California SIP submittal for Mariposa County shows that Rules

12

- 17, pertaining to the permit program
, were include d in this submittal. The June 30, 1972 submittal was approved by EPA in their entirety. (40 CFR 52.220 (c)(6))

In August 1978, EPA published a compilation of the California SIP for each District. Rules 1 2

- 17 , relating to the permit p rogram are contained in this compilation. The current electronic version of California’s approved SIP, as shown on EPA’s website shows that Rules 14

– Posting

of Permit and 15

– Altering of Permit remain in the SIP, while Rules 16

– Revocation of Permit

and 17

– Penalty were formally removed from the SIP through a n EPA rulemaking action. While

Rule 12 and 13 are not listed in EPA’s current on

- line SIP for Mariposa, EPA has no evidence

that these rules were ever removed from or replaced in the SIP. In add ition, EPA is not aware of any reason that required SIP elements for a minor source permit program would have been

removed fro m the SIP without replacement. T herefore EPA finds that Rules 12 and 13, as provided below, remain part of the Mariposa County por tion of the California SIP

.

Below is a copy of the SIP approved rules

.

12. Permits Required. No person shall build, alt e r, or replace any equipment, the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, without first having been issued a special use permit by the Mariposa County Planning

- Commission. The Planning Commission shall not approve an application for a special use pe rm it until it has been proven, by the applicant, that the Air Quality Standards set forth by the California Air Resources Bo ard, or the U.S. Air Quality Board (whichever is more strict) and the Mariposa County Air Pollution Control Board, can, and will be complied with at all times while the equipment is in operation. Whenever specialized testing equipment, laboratory services, recording equipment, or other equipment, services, or devices are required,

or deemed to be beneficial to the c ounty , such equipment, services or devices shall be provided, or financed, by the person applying for and receiving the s pecial use permit. ·

1 3. Appeals. In the event a special use permit application is denied by the Planning Commission, the applicant

m ay, within ten days apply in writing for an appeal hearing by the Air Pollution Control Hearing Board of the Mariposa Air Pollution Control Distr ict.
#### ASSOCIATES CAPITAL SERVICES CORP., Appellant, v. SYLVAN SHORES, INC., Appellee.

No. 78-428.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 20, 1978.

John M. Hodges of Bernstein, Sherr, Hodges, Lancer & Vandroff, Sarasota, for appellant.

R. P. Dunty, Jr., and Michael A. Rider, Lake Placid, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on the authority of *Cheezem Development Corporation v. Maddox Roof Service, Inc.,*No. 78-61, 362 So.2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA filed August 18, 1978).

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.1

 

Employee Stock Option Grants

 

On February 8, 2014, as approved by the Compensation Committee of  the Pernix Group, Inc. Board of Directors, employee stock option grants were awarded  in the amount and upon the terms and conditions set forth below.

 

General Terms of Grant:

 

·      Form of grant: Stock option awards for executive officers and key executives. 

 

·                  Term and vesting of stock options: The stock option grants vest equally over a 3 year period and are coterminous with the expiration date of the plan or 10 years from the date of the grant, whichever occurs sooner. 

 

·      Grant date: February 8, 2014. 

 

·      Exercise Price for Stock Options: To be determined based on fair market value. 

 

·      Number of stock options:

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Stock Options
    	
 
    
	
Nidal Z. Zayed, President and CEO
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
90,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Warren Bryant, Senior Vice President —   Construction
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
25,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Mike Frye, Vice President — Power
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
25,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Gregg D. Pollack, Vice President - Administration   and Chief Financial Officer
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
20,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Carol J. Groeber - Corporate Controller and   Principal Accounting Officer
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
20,000