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





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with the annual report of
Earth Search Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10KSB for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tami J. Story, 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 my
knowledge:





(1) This 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 this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.








Date:
      April 23 , 2008
            /s/
      Tami J. StoryTami J.
    StoryChief Financial
      Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7331

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RALPH D. DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00254-TSE-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward J. McAndrew, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charles Philip Rosenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Andrew McCormack, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Ralph D. Davis appeals the district court’s order

denying his motions seeking to obtain copies of Title III orders *

relevant to his criminal conviction, and for appointment of

counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Davis , No. 1:07-cr-00254-TSE-1

(E.D. Va. June 29, 2009). 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

* See 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2522 (2006).
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

No. 04-08-00610-CR 

Patricia LEOS a/k/a Patricia Leos Martinez, 

Appellant 

v. 

The STATE of Texas, 

Appellee 

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2002-CR-8105 

Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding 

PER CURIAM 

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice 

 Rebecca Simmons, Justice 

 Steven C. Hilbig, Justice 

Delivered and Filed: September 17, 2008 

DISMISSED 

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal by withdrawing her notice of 

appeal. The motion is granted and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM 

DO NOT PUBLISH
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0762

_____________________________

TIFFANY LATASHIA ASH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Martin A. Fitzpatrick, Judge.

June 13, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Preston GANT, Appellant, v. Sarah ROBINSON, Executrix of the Estate of Matt Robinson, Deceased, Appellee.

No. *O-500.*

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 14, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
March 10, 2015 MEMO to FILE Telephone conversation with Jack Hughes of Norfolk Southern Railroad. Mr. Hughes asked about the status ofthe upcoming final rule on creosote treated railroad ties and the upcoming proposal from Treated Wood Council on othertypes oftreated wood. Itold him both rules are scheduled to be issued thisyear. He also stated that his company would like to see manufacturers make ties from copper naphenate. George Faison
#### The PURE OIL COMPANY v. Henry Carl SKINNER et al.

No. 54087.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 21, 1973.

In re: John S. Simonton, et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Lincoln, 284 So.2d 608.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DIEDRICH
COFFEE, INC. UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWENTY-SIX WEEKS ENDED AND
AS OF JULY 30, 1997 CONTAINED IN COMPANY'S 2ND QUARTER AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-30-1997
<CASH>                                         571,752
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  178,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,572,795
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,865,417
<PP&E>                                      12,936,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,613,175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,943,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,966,467
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,917
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,943,662
<SALES>                                     11,678,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,678,242
<CGS>                                        5,902,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,902,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,827,507
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,078,381)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,081,271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,081,271)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022128EN.01001001.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2021 — Syngenta Agro GmbH v Agro Trade Handelsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-830/21)

(2022/C 128/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syngenta Agro GmbH

Defendant: Agro Trade Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 547/2011, (1) read in combination with paragraph 1(b) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a parallel import of a plant protection product, the name and address of the holder of the authorisation in the Member State of origin from which the plant protection product was imported must be stated on the packaging when it is distributed in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 547/2011, (1) read in combination with paragraph 1(b) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a parallel import of a plant protection product, the name and address of the holder of the authorisation in the Member State of origin from which the plant protection product was imported must be stated on the packaging when it is distributed in another Member State?

| 2. | Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 547/2011, read in combination with paragraph 1(f) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a parallel import of a plant protection product, the batch number initially allocated by the manufacturer must be indicated on the packaging, or is it compatible with that provision for the parallel importer to remove the original batch number and to affix its own identification number to the packaging, provided it keeps records showing the correlation between the batch numbers used by it and the batch numbers used by the holder of the authorisation of the plant protection product imported in parallel? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 547/2011, read in combination with paragraph 1(f) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a parallel import of a plant protection product, the batch number initially allocated by the manufacturer must be indicated on the packaging, or is it compatible with that provision for the parallel importer to remove the original batch number and to affix its own identification number to the packaging, provided it keeps records showing the correlation between the batch numbers used by it and the batch numbers used by the holder of the authorisation of the plant protection product imported in parallel?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2011 of 8 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards labelling requirements for plant protection products (OJ 2011 L 155, p. 176).

---
Exhibit 12.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of BT Group plc;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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 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 companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Ian LivingstonName:
    Ian LivingstonTitle:
    Chief Executive
EPA SLN No. TX-070008 






















*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
*Personal privacy information*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION VII
 

901 NORTH 5TH STREET 

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 

September 23, 2011 

Melvia Gossett 

P O Box 11909 

Omaha, Nebraska 68111 

RE: SAID: 25767 

3110 Charles Street 

Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment 

Dear Owner/Resident: 

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of 

this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior 

surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist 

that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels. 

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 3110 Charles Street. The EPA has developed paint 

stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a 

structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if 

all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil 

under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint 

observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was 

measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument. 

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead 

concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were 

to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. 

For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the 

ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch 

of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP 

provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses 

these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint 

stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, 

particularly where children under the age of seven reside. 

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your 

house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization. 
 

 

 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at 

(402) 731-3045. 

Sincerely, 

Pauletta R. France-Isetts 

Project Coordinator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Enclosures 

Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045. 

Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment 1MMMMMill111 25767 

LEGEND: H - N - P - 01 - 25767 Samples Analyzed 

LEVID Nwnber 

Sample Number Lead Loading Structure/Feature Substrate Color Deteriorated 

Wndow, siding porch, etc.) (Wood, concrete, etc.) Area
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Brian Chukwuemeka Ezeh, Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00141

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 371st District Court of Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 1517335D ). Memorandum Opinion deliver ed by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Brian Chukwuemeka Ezeh, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

REN DERED MARCH 13, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

M.D. MODZELEWSKI, R.Q. WARD, J.R. MCFARLANE

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SEAN M. GREEN

SERGEANT (E-5), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201300363

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 22 May 2013.

Military Judge: LtCol Chris Thielemann, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 1st Marine 

Division (REIN), Camp Pendleton, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Maj D.P. Harvey, 

USMC.

For Appellant: CAPT Diane Karr, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

30 January 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
No. 72-6320.

#### Turner *v.*Kentucky.

Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Mark T. Detillion

Mark T. Detillion
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)June 4, 2009
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1194

To establish the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Education Center.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. DURENBERGER (for himself and Mr. WELLSTONE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To establish the Upper Mississippi River Environmental

Education Center.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

4 It is the purpose of this Act to establish the Upper

5 Mississippi River Environmental Education Center that

6 shall serve as both an education center for elementary chil7 dren and adults as well as an interpretation area depicting

8 the environmental issues related to the Upper Mississippi

9 River Valley.
2

S 1194 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

2 The Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife

3 Service is authorized, in accordance with the provisions

4 of this Act, to provide financial assistance to pay the costs

5 of construction and equipment for an Upper Mississippi

6 River Environmental Education Center (hereafter in this

7 Act referred to as the ‘‘Center’’).

8 SEC. 3. LOCATION OF CENTER.

9 The Center shall be located in Winona, Minnesota.

10 SEC. 4. APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE.

11 No financial assistance may be made under this Act

12 unless the application is made to the Director of the

13 United States Fish and Wildlife Service at such time, in

14 such manner, and containing or accompanied by such in15 formation as the Director may reasonably require.

16 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appro18 priated $7,500,000 to carry out the provisions of this Act.

19 (b) AVAILABILITY.—Funds appropriated pursuant to

20 the authority of subsection (a) shall remain available until

21 expended.

Æ
#### Jesus FERNANDEZ and Gustavo Valenzuela, Appellants, v. E. Wilson PURDY, as Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 70-487, 70-504.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 23, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Preferred Voice, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary
      G.
      Merritt, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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:




(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/
                    Mary G. MerrittMary
                  G. MerrittPrincipal
                    Executive Officer
                  Principal
                    Financial Officer
                  November
                    14, 2007