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





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





The undersigned executive officer of Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania (the “Registrant”) hereby certifies that theRegistrant’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




Date:  May 11, 2011

/s/ Peter J. MeierPeter J. MeierExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and has been provided to Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and  Chief Accounting Officer of Eyes On The Go, Inc.        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002**

**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 Report on Form 10-Q of Eyes On The Go, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Christopher Carey, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of Eyes On The Go, 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 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2013

/s/ CHRISTOPHER CAREYChristopher Carey        Chief Executive Officer        Chief Accounting Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 23-0598 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

STEVEN CHARLES VANDEHEY, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

GRANT 

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until January 2, 2023, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant's opening brief. 

11/24/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0598
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0660

IN THE MATTER OF: 

R.V.,

A Youth.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 5, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 26 2024

06/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0660
NUMBER 13-08-00669-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

JOSE LUIS AVILA, Appellant,

v.

DIANA LOPEZ AVILA, Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 197th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Jose Luis Avila, appealed a judgment rendered against him in favor of

appellee, Diana Lopez Avila. On November 20, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified

appellant that the notice of appeal did not comply with Tex. R. App. P. 25.1 and 9.5, and
2

directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the trial court and appellate

court within thirty days. To date the appellant has not responded to this Court’s notice.

On December 8, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk’s

record in the above cause was originally due on December 8, 2008, and that the deputy

district clerk, Christina Tusa, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make

arrangements for payment of the clerk’s record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant

of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b). Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected

within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for

want of prosecution. 

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notices. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). 

 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 29th day of January, 2009.
ATTACHMENT C-2 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Attachment B 

HEARING CERTIFICATION 

This is to certify that in accordance with the provisions of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

Part 51 .102, the following actions occurred: 

1 . On July 17, 2001 the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) caused to be 

published in the Connecticut Law Journal (copy attached) a notice of intent to adopt, 

revise and repeal State air quality regulations, revise the State Implementation Plan for 

Air Quality and revise the State Title V operating permit program; 

2. In accordance with such notice, materials related to the public hearing were available for 

inspection and review in each Air Quality Control Region in the State of Connecticut; 

3 . In accordance with such notice, the Department held a public hearing on September 5, 

2001 at the offices of the Department at 79 Elm Street, Hartford CT; 

4. Copies of the proposed regulations were mailed on July 11, 2001 to the Directors of the 

air pollution control agencies in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island ; 

5 . Copies of the proposed regulations were mailed on July 11, 2001 to Susan Studlien, 

Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPA New England. 

6. The public notice was published as follows : 

Newspaper AOCR Date 

Connecticut Post 43 7/17/O1 

New London Day 41 7/17/01 

The Register Citizen 44 7/17/O1 

Hartford Courant 42 7/17/01 

1 

Supervising Environmental Analyst 

Bureau of Air Management 

June 4, 2002 Paul E. Farrell 

( Printed on Recycled Paper ) 

79 Elm Street " Hartford, CT 06106 - 5127 

bttp://dep .state .ct.us 

An Equal Opportunity Employer
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of De Yang International Ltd.  (formerly
Pinewood Acquisition Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2011 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
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 represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ Yanshi (Steven) Chen
		                  President



                             /s/ Zhengzhi Ye
                                  Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 9, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOUND ON PAGES
36 AND 37 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 28,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                           2,645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,909
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,367)
<INVENTORY>                                     48,953
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,503
<PP&E>                                         374,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                (91,402)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 493,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,957
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           178
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   493,296
<SALES>                                        648,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               648,961
<CGS>                                          538,502
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  596,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (14)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,433
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,974
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,810
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,164
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.31<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29<F1>
<FN>
<F1>WE HAVE CALCULATED AND RESTATED EARNINGS PER SHARE AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FAS 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE." WE HAVE ENTERED BASIC AND DILUTED AMOUNTS IN
PLACE OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY. NO OTHER CHANGES HAVE BEEN
MADE TO THE PREVIOUSLY FILED AMOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned, being a director or
officer of MPS Group, Inc., a Florida corporation (the Company), hereby constitutes and appoints Timothy D. Payne, Robert P. Crouch and Gregory D. Holland, and each of them, his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with
full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead in any and all capacities, to sign one or more Annual Reports for the Companys fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, on Form 10-K under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or such other form as any such attorney-in-fact may deem necessary or desirable, and any amendments thereto, each in such form as they or any one of them may approve, and to file the same with all
exhibits thereto and other documents or instruments in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act
and thing requisite and necessary to be done so that such Annual Report shall comply with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the applicable Rules and Regulations adopted or issued pursuant thereto, as fully and to all intents and
purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them or their substitute or resubstitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned have caused this Power of Attorney to be executed as of the date indicated below.



|                 |  |       |  | 
|---------------- |  | ----- |  | 
|                 |  |      
|                 |  | Date: |  | 
|Derek E. Dewan   |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |      
|                 |  | Date: |  | 
|Michael D. Abney |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |      
|                 |  | Date: |  | 
|T. Wayne Davis   |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |      
|                 |  | Date: |  | 
|Peter J. Tanous  |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |      
|                 |  | Date: |  | 
|John R. Kennedy  |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |      
|                 |  | Date: |  | 
|William M. Isaac |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |      
|                 |  | Date: |  | 
|Arthur B. Laffer |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |      
|                 |  | Date: |  | 
|Darla D. Moore   |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |      
|                 |  | Date: |  | 
|Timothy D. Payne |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |      
|                 |  | Date: |  | 
|Robert P. Crouch |  |       |  |
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned officer of LED Lighting Company (the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:  The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2016 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  Date: November 18, 2016  /s/ Kevin Kearney Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
### Petition under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization Act of 2012 (FRMA) for

**waiver of Airworthiness Certificate** Petitioner plans on operating a n Unmanned Aircraft, more specifically a DJI Phantom 3 Professional, for the following purposes: 1. To take videos or photographs of homes, commercial buildings, land or lots for sale to be used in market ing said properties
. 2. For inspect ion of buildings, normally roof and gutters, for owners. 3. To take videos or photographs of watercraft for owners or for newsworthy purpo ses. 4. To inspect bridges, roads and railroads for maintenance purposes or such purposes requested by owners which may be government entities
. 5. Aircraft may be used at times by the owner for recreational purposes for which the air certificate is not required. Operation of the unmanned aircraft wil l : 1. Be by petitioner, a person over 17 years in age who is trained in the operation of the identified aircraft
. Petitioner has a Homeland Security Redress Control Number and a TSA Case Number 2. Be a t altitudes not to exceed 5 00 feet above the ground
. 3. R emain in visual line of sight of the operator
. 4. Be flown close enough to the operator for the operator to be able to see the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. 5. Be flown only when the visibility is 3 or more miles from the operator. 6. Give d ue consideration for the safety of persons and property in the area of operation and the aircraft will not be flown over persons not involved in the operation. 7. Not be flown dan gerously or recklessly. 8. Be flown only between sunrise to sunset 9. Y ield right

- of

-way to other aircraft whether manned or unmanned. 10. Not be operated a t a speed over 35 mph, the maximum speed of the aircraft.
. 11. Be o perated only outside a 5 miles radius of any ai rport. 12. O nly be undertaken after a preflight inspection as set forth in Manufacturer’ s **Safety Guidelines and Disclaimer**  attached. The DJI Phantom 3 Professional weighs less than 3 pounds, and has a top speed of 35 mph. It calculates speed, altitude and GPS information which is displayed on the operator’s consol. It also has a “go home” capability which will return it to the GPS lo cation the flight started from on command or when battery voltage decreases beyond a certain value.Manufacturer certifies that the aircraft and its controls comply with part 15 of FCC Rules in

**Safety Guidelines and Disclaimer** attached. Petitioner seeks an exemption of the Airworthiness Certificate under the authority granted to the Secretary by Section 333
.
Types of orders and where to submit

Understanding the type of orders you are under and where to submit your travel claim 

can make a difference in how soon you will be paid for your travel. 

A travel claim submitted to the wrong location can delay your claim while the claim is 

forwarded to the correct office for payment. Depending on the number of claims, this 

could delay your claim several days to a couple weeks.

The guide below can help you understand where to submit your claim.

ADT (Active Duty Training) Orders:

• If the number of days is 140 or greater, it is paid by DFAS Rome PCS Travel Pay

• If the number of days is 139 or less, it is paid by DFAS Rome Reserve Travel Pay

(If PCS is in body of the orders, PCS will Pay the claim). 

IADT (Initial Active Duty Training) Orders:

• If IADT is at the same location for 20 weeks or more, it is paid by DFAS Rome PCS

Travel Pay.

• If not 20 weeks or more, It is paid by Rome Reserve. 

ADOS-RC (Active Duty for Operational Support Reserve Component):

• If ADOS-RC is for 181 days or greater, it is paid by DFAS Rome PCS Travel Pay.

• If ADOS-RC order is for 180 Days or less, it is paid by DFAS Rome Reserve Travel

Pay (If PCS is in body of the orders, PCS will Pay the claim). 

ADOS (Active Duty for Operational Support):

• If orders are 181 days or greater, it is paid at DFAS ROME PCS Travel Pay

• If orders are 180 days or less, it is paid by DFAS Rome Reserve Travel Pay (If PCS

is in body of the Orders, PCS will Pay). 

CO-ADOS (Contingency Active Duty for Operational Support):

• Orders 180 days or less are paid by DFAS Rome Contingency Travel Pay unless 

PCS is mentioned in the Body of the order, then it would be paid by Rome PCS
• *If orders have US Code 12301(d) and 181 days or greater at one location- and 

ordered to a non-Hostile Fire/Imminent danger pay duty location, PCS would 

pay. (No TDY entitlements are authorized - even if no mention of PCS in order) 

• **If has US Code 12301(d) and more than 181 days or greater at one location 

and ordered to Hostile fire/imminent Danger location, contingency would still 

pay. 

AT (Annual Training) Orders:

• If the AT orders are for 19 weeks or less, it is paid by DFAS Rome Reserve Travel 

Pay. 

Email submission addresses:

DFAS Rome PCS Travel Pay – DFAS-MILPCS@mail.mil

DFAS Rome Reserve TDY Travel Pay – DFAS-ReserveTravel@mail.mil

DFAS Rome Contingency Travel Pay - DFAS-ContingencyTravel@mail.mil
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAHER CONRAD SUAREZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SCOTT KERNAN; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16902 

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02048-KJM-EFB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 11, 2017**

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Maher Conrad Suarez appeals pro se from the 

district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional 

violations relating to his gang validation and placement in the administrative 

segregation unit and secured housing unit (“SHU”) for an indefinite term. We 

 

* 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

JUL 19 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16902 

review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Lyon v. 

Chase Bank USA, N.A., 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Suarez’s action as barred by the 

doctrine of claim preclusion because Suarez has previously litigated the same 

claims in California state court against the same parties or their privies. See 

Furnace v. Giurbino, 838 F.3d 1019, 1023-26 (9th Cir. 2016) (California habeas 

petition had claim preclusive effect on civil rights litigation because both actions 

challenged plaintiff’s gang validation and SHU placement); Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t 

of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 2014) (reasoned denials of California 

habeas petitions have claim preclusive effect on civil litigation); Adam Bros. 

Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, 604 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(setting forth elements of claim preclusion under California law and explaining that 

California’s doctrine of claim preclusion is based on a primary rights theory). 

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Kevin Justice, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County *852(Broomer, J.), rendered August 4, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and intimidating a witness in the third degree under Indictment No. 9400/1987, upon a jury verdict, and a judgment of the same court (Goldman, J.), rendered August 19, 1988, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 5534/86, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to allow two defense witnesses to testify regarding money which the defendant owed to the complaining witness.

"The evidence to show the hostile feelings of a witness when it is alleged to exist should be direct and positive, and not very remote and uncertain, for the reason that the trial of the main issues in the case cannot be properly suspended to make out the case of hostile feeling by mere circumstantial evidence from which such hostility or malice may or may not be inferred” *(Schultz v Third Ave. R. R. Co.,*89 NY 242, 250; *People v Ayers,*161 AD2d 770, 771).

Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its broad discretion in precluding the testimony of the two defense witnesses. It is clear from the testimony of the first witness outside of the jury’s presence and from counsel’s offer of proof as to the second witness’s testimony that they could not provide direct and positive evidence of the complaining witness’s hostility toward the defendant. Therefore, the proffered testimony was properly excluded.

Nor did the court err in restricting examination of the defendant with regard to the complaining witness’s alleged drug selling. The court permitted extensive questioning of the defendant on this subject. Therefore, the court’s decision to limit further questioning was not an improvident exercise of discretion *(see, People v Folk,*145 AD2d 505).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.