alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southern Growth Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Rozelle, President 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, to the best of my knowledge that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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: My 13, 2011





/s/ Joseph RozelleJoseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)











The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00019

- CV

C. G. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY NO. 50416 , THE HONORABLE EVAN C. STUBBS , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant C. G. filed her notice of appeal on January 5, 2022 . The appellate

record was complete on January 31, 2022 , making appellant’s brief due on February 22, 2022

.

On February 22, 2022 , counsel for appellant submitte d a motion for extension of time to file

appellant’s brief.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals

from suits for termination of parental r ights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days

for court’s fina l disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting

extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order Gary E. Prust to file appellant’s

brief no later than March 4, 2022 . If the brief is not filed by that d ate, counsel may be required

to show cause why he should not be held in c ontempt of court.2 It is ordered on February 24, 2022.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker and Triana
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3679 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3679

To authorize appropriations to expand implementation of the Junior Duck 
  Stamp Conservation Program conducted by the United States Fish and 
                           Wildlife Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 1993

   Mr. Ortiz (for himself, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Dellums, Mr. 
Lipinski, Mr. Laughlin, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Frost, Mr. Bonior, and 
 Mr. Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize appropriations to expand implementation of the Junior Duck 
  Stamp Conservation Program conducted by the United States Fish and 
                           Wildlife Service.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR EXPANSION OF JUNIOR DUCK 
              STAMP CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service $750,000 for each of fiscal 
years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, to expand implementation of the 
program known as the ``Junior Duck Stamp Conservation Program'' to all 
of the 50 States.

                                 <all>
```
----

Notice of invitation to tender for the reduction in the import duty on maize imported from non-member countries

(2004/C 325/03)

I.   SUBJECT

II.   TIME LIMITS

III.   TENDERS

IV.   SECURITY FOR TENDER

The tendering security shall be made payable to the competent authority.

V.   AWARD OF THE CONTRACT

The award of the contract shall establish:

----

(1)OJ L 396, 31.12.2004.

(2)OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          53,060
<SECURITIES>                                    24,436
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                       342
<INVENTORY>                                      1,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,341
<PP&E>                                         131,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 223,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,833
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           209
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   223,553
<SALES>                                         87,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,325
<CGS>                                           60,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,471
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,669
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,460
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,209
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          899
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,310
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2953

___________ Rafeal Arlandos Jackson, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Unknown Smith, COI; Desiree * Skiles-Crocker; * * Appellees, * * Ralph Nichols; Lonnie Salts, * Lieutenant; Sharon Perkins, Captain; * Greg Dunn, Sergeant; Beverly * Howell, Sergeant; * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Defendants, * Eastern District of Missouri. * William Major, Sergeant; Albert * Schultz, Sergeant; Larry Youngman, * [UNPUBLISHED] C.O. (I); *

Appellees, * * Dennis Crocker, C.O. (I); * Francis Sancegraw, C.O. (I); * Unknown King, C.O. (I); * * Defendants, * * David Nichols, * *The Honorable David D. Noce, Un ited States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri, to who m the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2- Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 11, 1997 Filed: June 16, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN,WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After the district court granted summ ary judgment to defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1 § 1983 ac tion brought by Rafeal Arlandos Jackson, who was proceeding in form a pauperis, defendants submitted a bill of costs. The district court overruled Jackson's ensuing objection to the bill, concluding that he could make partial payments until the cost s were satisfied. This appeal followed, in which Jackson challenges the distric t court's ruling on costs, arguing that he is indigent and unable to pay, and that he was entitled to a determination of his ability to pay. We reject Jackson's arguments an d affirm.
Init ially, we note that the district court clearly indicated it had considere d Jackson's financial status, a s submitted to the court through Jackson's affidavit and his prison- account

statement. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse it s disc retion in assessing costs against Jackson. See Slagenweit v. Slagenweit , 63 F.3d 71 9, 721 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (standard of review). A prevailing party may re cover costs as a matter of course, if not precluded by federal law, whether th e unsuccessful party is fee-payi ng or indigent. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f); Fed. R. Civ. P.-3-

54(d) ; McGill v. Faulkner , 18 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir.), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 88 9 (1994); Weaver v. Tooms , 948 F.2d 1004, 1008 (6th Cir. 1991); cf. Galvan v. Cameron Mu tual Ins. Co. , 831 F.2d 804, 805-06 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (appellate courts may assess costs against in forma pauperi s litigants). Jackson provided no breakdown of expenses or other information showing that portions of the deposits in his priso n account are not available for partial payments of costs. See McGill , 18 F.3d at 459. We decline to address Jackson's assertions and arguments raised for the fir st time on appeal. See Renfro v. Swift Eckrich, Inc. , 53 F.3d 1460, 1464 (8th Cir. 1995) ; Kohley v. United States , 784 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHT H CIRCUIT.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3961

To amend the Act known as the ‘‘Miller Act’’ to raise the value of contracts

for which performance bonds and payment bonds are required under

that Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 3, 1994

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Act known as the ‘‘Miller Act’’ to raise the

value of contracts for which performance bonds and payment bonds are required under that Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED VALUE OF CONTRACTS FOR WHICH

4 BONDS REQUIRED UNDER MILLER ACT.

5 The Act of August 24, 1935 (40 U.S.C. 270a et seq.),

6 popularly known as the ‘‘Miller Act’’, is amended in the

7 first section by striking out ‘‘$25,000’’ in subsection (a)

8 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘$100,000’’.

Æ
|      
EXHIBIT 12
 
RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE GRANTOR TRUST (SOYLAND)      1993-B1
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed      Charges
  
For the Years Ended December 31, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000      and 1999  
 
   
2003   
2002   
2001   
2000   
1999                                           
Net income 
$
-  
$
-  
$
-  
$
-  
$
- 
   Add: Fixed charges  
4,306,823   
4,306,823   
4,306,823   
4,306,823   
4,306,823                      
Income available for fixed charges 
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823                      
Fixed charges:                    
    Interest on all debt 
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823                      
Total fixed charges 
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823  
$
4,306,823                      
Ratio of income to fixed charges  
1.00   
1.00   
1.00   
1.00   
1.00  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>



                                                       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 Annual Report of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Scott R. Silverman, Chief Executive 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 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/ Scott R. Silverman
----------------------
Scott R. Silverman
Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Applied
Digital Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1896** 

WILLIAM F. MARTIN, JR. , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. KEVIN SCOTT BRACKETT, Solicitor of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Union and York County to be sued in his Individual and Official Capacity , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 0:12

- cv - 00054

- RBH )

Submitted : October 11, 2012 Decided: October 15, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. William F. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William F. Martin, Jr., appeals the district court ’ s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice Martin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversib le error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Martin v. Brackett , No. 0:12

- cv 00054

- RBH (D.S.C. June 28, 2012) ; see Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409, 4 22, 427, 430

- 31 (1976); Carter v. Burch , 34 F.3d 257, 26 2

- 63 (4th Cir. 199 4 ) . 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

* While dismissals without prejudice generally are interlocutory and not appealable, a dismissal without prejudice may be final if no amendment to the complaint can cure the defect in the plaintiff’s case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 39 2 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993)
. On the available record, we conclude that the defect identified by the district court cannot be cured by an amendment to the complaint and that the order therefore is appealable.
# C_2013367EN.01000101.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/1

---

2013/C 367/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 359, 7.12.2013

OJ C 359, 7.12.2013

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 352, 30.11.2013

OJ C 344, 23.11.2013

OJ C 336, 16.11.2013

OJ C 325, 9.11.2013

OJ C 313, 26.10.2013

OJ C 304, 19.10.2013

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3794

To defer temporarily the deadline for compliance with conservation plans

for certain highly erodible cropland due to damage to such land caused

by damaging weather or related condition.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1994

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. DOOLEY, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. GUNDERSON, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. BARRETT of

Nebraska, Mr. EWING, Mr. CAMP, and Mr. OXLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To defer temporarily the deadline for compliance with conservation plans for certain highly erodible cropland due

to damage to such land caused by damaging weather

or related condition.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3794 IH

1 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF THE DEADLINE

2 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CONSERVATION

3 PLANS FOR CERTAIN HIGHLY ERODIBLE

4 CROPLAND.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1212(a)(2) of the Food

6 Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3812(a)(2)) is amended

7 by—

8 (1) inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(2)’’; and

9 (2) adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(B) If a person demonstrates to the Secretary

11 that damaging weather or related condition has

12 caused damage to highly erodible land subject to a

13 conservation plan of the type described in subpara14 graph (A), and that such damage will prevent the

15 person from complying with the plan by January 1,

16 1995, the person shall have until January 1, 1996,

17 to comply with the plan without being subject to

18 program ineligibility.

19 ‘‘(C) A person who has received crop loss assist20 ance under chapter 3 of subtitle B of title XXII of

21 the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act

22 of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note), as extended by appro23 priations Acts, in 3 or more of the 1990 through

24 1994 calendar years shall have until January 1,

25 1996, to comply with any conservation plan of the

26 type described in subparagraph (A) to which the
3

HR 3794 IH

1 land is subject without being subject to program in2 eligibility.’’.

3 (b) DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR TEMPORARY

4 VARIANCES FROM CONSERVATION PLANS FOR HIGHLY

5 ERODIBLE CROPLAND.—Section 1214(f)(4) of such Act

6 (6 U.S.C. 3814(f)(4)) is amended—

7 (1) by striking the period at the end of sub8 paragraph (C) and inserting ‘‘, and’’; and

9 (2) by adding flush at the end the following:

10 ‘‘documents the reasons for making the deter11 mination or granting the variance.’’.

12 (c) DEFINITION.—Section 1201 of the Food Security

13 Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801) is amended by adding at

14 the end the following new paragraph:

15 ‘‘(17) The term ‘damaging weather or related

16 condition’ includes but is not limited to drought,

17 hail, excessive moisture, freeze, tornado, hurricane,

18 earthquake, or excessive wind, or any combination

19 thereof.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2 – CFO Certification











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberated Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Elyse Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.








/s/ Elyse Thompson
 Name: Elyse Thompson
 Title: Chief Financial Officer and





August 16, 2013





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Liberated Energy, Inc., and will be retained by Liberated Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.