alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  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 Medizone International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve Hanni, 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 and belief:  (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.   /s/ Steve Hanni Steve Hanni, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)  Date: March 20, 2009  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 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.
#### Charles Billy PAULK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-955.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2022037EN.01003202.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/32

---

Order of the General Court of 18 November 2021 — RG v Council

(Case T-157/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Area of freedom, security and justice - Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the Euratom, on the one hand, and the United Kingdom, on the other - Council decision on the signing and on provisional application of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement - Mechanism of surrender pursuant to an arrest warrant - Person arrested and detained in Ireland after the end of the transition period for the purpose of the execution of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the United Kingdom during the transition period - Act not of individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 37/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RG (represented by: R. Purcell, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, J. Ciantar and A. Stefanuc, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Council Decision (EU) 2020/2252 of 29 December 2020 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and on provisional application of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, and of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (OJ 2020 L 444, p. 2).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Ireland and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Ireland and the European Commission.

| 3. | RG is ordered to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

RG is ordered to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

| 4. | RG, the Council, Ireland and the Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

RG, the Council, Ireland and the Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 14.6.2021.

---
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed April 18, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00028

- CV

____________ NICHOLAS WHITE, MARK MOERSEN, TAURUS MANU FACTURING CO., AND OPTIMAS MAN UFACTURING SOLUTIONS , INC. , Appellant s

V.

ZHOU PEI AND SHAUN W HITE , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2005

- 54097



### ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellants filed a notice of appeal from a judgment signed October 11, 2012. On January 17, 201 3, within the trial court’s plenary power, the court signed an order granting appellants’ motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment in part. On February 15, 2013, within the court’s plenary power extended by the order modifying the judgment, the tr ial court vacated the final judgment in pa r t with2

respect to the settlement credit issue, so that the court could consider a settlement
credit that was not included in the original judgment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(h). Accordingly, the judgment on appeal is no longer final.
On April 11, 2013, appellants filed a joint motion to stay the appeal pending the trial court’s resolution of the settlement credit issue. On April 12, 2013, appellants advised this court that the motion is unopposed. We GRANT the
motio n and issue the following order:

W e ORDER the appeal ABATED for a period of thirty days so that the trial court may resolve the settlement credit issue and sign a new judgment or order disposing of all remaining claims

. Tex. R. App. P. 27.2 (permitting mod ification of an appealed order that is not final)

. A supplemental clerk = s record containing the
trial court ’s new judgment or order shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or
before May 20 , 201 3

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court = s active docket when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either pa rty, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUMBERTO I. MIRANDA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, Warden; 

et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-55299 

D.C. No. 

3:19-cv-01605-LAB-RBM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 6, 2024**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

 California state prisoner Humberto Miranda appeals pro se the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for the reason of defendants’ 

qualified immunity. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them 

only as necessary to explain our decision. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 6 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

I.

Miranda alleged that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment when 

pieces of a water-damaged ceiling in the prisoner visiting room fell upon him, 

injuring his shoulder. The district court did not err in concluding that the 

defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Miranda’s conditions of 

confinement claim because the constitutional right allegedly violated is not clearly 

established. No binding case law informs the defendants that their conduct in this 

case would violate the Eighth Amendment. Osolinksi v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 937-

38 (9th Cir. 1996) (concluding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity 

when they failed to repair an oven door that fell off its hinges in the prison visiting 

area); see Ballentine v. Tucker, 28 F.4th 54, 61 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that we 

may analyze the two prongs of qualified immunity in any order). 

II.

 Miranda requests a remand to the district court because he did not receive a 

mailed copy of the magistrate’s report and recommendation until after judgment 

was entered. Miranda, however, timely appealed to this court and fully briefed his

objections. Accordingly, we deny Miranda’s request for a remand. 

AFFIRMED.
David R. Spivey Request for Part 333 Exemption

Exhibit 3

– Q500 Typhoon Camera Specifications
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1176 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1176

  To clarify the tariff classification of certain plastic flat goods.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 29 (legislative day, June 22), 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify the tariff classification of certain plastic flat goods.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PLASTIC FLAT GOODS.

    Chapter 42 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new 
subheading with the article description having the same degree of 
indentation as the article description in subheading 4202.31.60.
    

       ``  4202.32.05   With outer surface area of not                   Free (IL, CA)         35%            ''
                         less than 20 percent leather...  8%                                                   .

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL NEW NOTE.

    The Additional United States notes for chapter 42 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States are amended by adding at the end 
the following new note:
``3. For purposes of subheading 4202.32.10, the term `reinforced or 
laminated plastics' means (a) rigid, infusible, insoluble plastics 
formed by the application of heat and high pressure on two or more 
super-imposed layers of fibrous sheet material which has been 
impregnated or coated with plastics, or (b) rigid plastics comprised of 
imbedded fibrous reinforcing material (such as paper, fabric, asbestos, 
and fibrous glass) impregnated, coated or combined with plastics 
usually by the application of heat or heat and low pressure.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 27, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00208

- CV

MICHELLE PERELL , Appellant

V. DIANA PERELL AND MAX PERELL , Appellees
On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 22

- 02270

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Molberg Appellant appea ls from the March 8, 2022 order of the A ssociate J udge for

the 254th Judicial District Court denying her application for a protective order.
Unless an associate judge ’s order is agreed, a default, or final order where t he parties
waive the right to a de novo hearing before the referring court in writing before the
start of the hearing condu cted by the associate judge , the date the order is signed by
the referring court is the controlling date for purposes of appeal to this Court. See

T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § § 201.016(a), (b), 201.007(a)(16), 201.013(b). Because the
appealed order is not agree d, a default, or one where the parties waived their right to
a de novo hearing, and nothing in the record reflected the referring court has signed– 2

–

the order, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. We directed appellant to

file , by June 20, a lett er brief addressing the Court’s concern with an opportunity for
appellees to file a response. To date, appellant has not filed a response.
Because the referring court has not signed the order of the associate judge
, this appeal is premature and we lack jurisdiction. For this reason, we dismiss the
appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

220208f.p05 /Ken Molberg/ / KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MICHELLE PERELL, Appellant

No. 05

- 22

- 00208

- CV V.

DIANA PERELL AND MAX PERELL, Appellees On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 22

- 02270. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Reichek and Garcia participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 27 th day of July
, 2022

.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4




                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                                HABERSHAM BANCORP
                        1996 INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made as of January 29, 2000, by Habersham Bancorp, a
Georgia corporation (the "Company").

         WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Habersham Bancorp 1996 Incentive
Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number
 of shares reserved for issuance under the Plan.

         NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Company does hereby amend the
Plan, effective as of the date first set forth above, by deleting the existing
Section 2.2 and replacing it with the following new Section 2.2:

                  "2.2 Stock Subject to the Plan. Subject to adjustment in
         accordance with Section 4.1, 600,000 shares of Stock (the "Maximum Plan
         Shares") are hereby reserved exclusively for issuance pursuant to
         Options. At no time shall the Company have outstanding Options subject
         to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and shares of
         stock issued in respect of Options in excess of the Maximum Plan
         Shares."

         Except as specifically amended hereby, the remaining provisions of the
 Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to the adoption of this
 First Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be
 duly executed under seal on its behalf, effective as of the date first above
 written.


ATTEST:                              HABERSHAM BANCORP

By:  /s/  Edward D. Ariail           By:  /s/   David D. Stovall
   ------------------------------       ---------------------------------------
   Title: Vice President and            Title: President and Chief
          Corporate Secretary                  Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 127 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 127

  To amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to make certain 
  graduate programs in clinical psychology eligible to participate in 
   various health professions loan programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 21 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to make certain 
  graduate programs in clinical psychology eligible to participate in 
   various health professions loan programs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HEALTH PROFESSIONS LOAN PROGRAMS.

    (a) Loan Agreements.--Section 721 of the Public Health Service Act 
(as amended by the Health Professions Education Extension Amendments of 
1992) amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or any public or 
        nonprofit schools that offer graduate programs in clinical 
        psychology'' after ``veterinary medicine'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(4), by striking out ``or doctor of 
        veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``doctor of veterinary medicine or an equivalent 
        degree, or a graduate degree in clinical psychology''; and
            (3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, or schools that 
        offer graduate programs in clinical psychology'' after 
        ``veterinary medicine''.
    (b) Loan Provisions.--Section 722 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 294n) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking out ``or doctor of 
        veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``doctor of veterinary medicine or an equivalent 
        degree, or a graduate degree in clinical psychology''; and
            (2) in subsection (l)--
                    (A) by striking out ``or podiatry'' and inserting 
                in lieu thereof ``podiatry, or clinical psychology'' in 
                the matter preceding paragraph (1); and
                    (B) by striking out ``or podiatric medicine'' in 
                paragraph (4), and inserting in lieu thereof 
                ``podiatric medicine, or clinical psychology''.

                                 <all>
```
#### George M. RANKIN, Appellant, v. Edith RANKIN, Appellee.

No. 70-588.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 14, 1971.

R. J. Marshall, Palmetto, for appellant.

William H. Garland, of Garland & Garland, Bradenton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The record does not support the determination that the wife had a special equity in property improved or acquired by the husband during marriage. Accordingly, we must reverse and remand. See Tanner v. Tanner, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 702 and cases therein cited.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Order entered December 1, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00422
- CV ALAN D. GERTNER, IRA , Appellant

V. HQZ PARTNERS, L.P., ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 03044
- H



### O RDER Before the Court is appellees’ November 25, 2015 second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellees’ brief was timely filed on November 30, 2015. Accordingly, w e DENY the motion as moot.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                  ------------
         Section 1350 Certifications of Principal Executive Officer and
                           Principal Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of 1st Independence
Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2006 (the  "Report") of the Company  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  and  the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: October 31, 2006     /s/ N. William White
                                --------------------------------
                                Name:     N. William White
                                Title:    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)


                            /s/ R. Michael Wilbourn
                                --------------------------------
                                Name:     R. Michael Wilbourn
                                Title:    Executive Vice President
                                          and Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)
252 La. 109

#### Christell WATTS, Individually and as natural tutrix of the minor, Betty Jean Watts v. The TOWN OF HOMER et al.

No. 49175.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1968.

In re: Christell Watts, individually and as natural tutrix of the minor, Betty Jean Watts, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 207 So.2d 844.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
H. Res. 700 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

August 1, 2014. 

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House 

is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 

legislative day of September 5, 2014, providing for consideration or disposition of measures relating to the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the U.S. southern border, border security, and related immigration law. 

SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of September 5, 2014, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 

under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to measures addressing 

the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the U.S. southern border, 

border security, and related immigration law. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 121 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 121

 To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Enterprise.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 21 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Enterprise.

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

SECTION 1. DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation for the vessel Enterprise, United States official number 
692956.

                                 <all>
```