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

EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 
  Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
  Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Susanne Robertson, Chief Financial Officer of Reg Technologies
  Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
  U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Annual Report on Form 20-F of Reg Technologies Inc.
  for the year ended April 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
  78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
  in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
  of Reg Technologies Inc.

|Richmond, British Columbia, Canada |  |                                   
|---------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|                                   |  |                                   
|September 23, 2003                 |  | by:    /s/
      Susanne Robertson
|                                   |  |                                   
|                                   |  | Susanne Robertson                 
|                                   |  | Chief Financial Officer           

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

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

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
              This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted
              from InterJet Net Corporation March 31, 1998 financial  statements
              and is qualified  in its  entirety by reference to such  financial
              statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                       0000925739
<NAME>                                      InterJet Net Corpoation

       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1998

<CASH>                                                        63,303
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 39,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   44,834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              954,482
<PP&E>                                                        1,056,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                                80,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                2,709,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         606,039
<BONDS>                                                       69,075
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      12,854
<OTHER-SE>                                                    4,614,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  147,057
<SALES>                                                       147,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              0
<CGS>                                                         66,405
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 2,127,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            10,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (2,395,484)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (2,395,484)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (2,395,484)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.21)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit
13.2



Certification
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to

Title
18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I,
Paul Chute, Chief Financial Officer of Reg Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | The
    Annual Report on Form 20-F of Reg Technologies Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2018 (the “Report”) fully complies
    with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|2. | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of Reg Technologies Inc.                                                                                   



|Date: November
                                         1, 2018 | /s/
    “Paul Chute”         
|--------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|                                                                | Paul
    Chute               
|                                                                | (Chief
    Financial Officer)



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Reg Technologies Inc. and will be retained
by Reg Technologies Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
html{overflow-y:scroll!important}
### Sample graphic and write -up Lydia Wegman to:dmancini, Heidi King 01/05/2010 03:41 PM Cc: Ron Evans, Kathy Kaufman, David Misenheimer, zinger.don, Mary Henigin, Tricia Crabtree 

### Dom, Attached is one of the graphics and the write-up that would go into the supplemental RIA. We think this is what you wanted but before creating the other three graphics we wanted to be sure that this is what you had in mind. Please give me a call or send me an e-mail letting me know if this meets your needs. ----- Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/05/2010 03:36 PM -----

From: Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US To: Lydia Wegman Cc: David Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/05/2010 03:33 PM Subject: sample graphics and writeup 

### Lydia Here is the sample graphic and writeup for you to transmit to Dom. The prose is conceptual only, it does not yet have the proper format for the standard etc.

Ron
#### People v Michael Usher, Defendant.

Motion to extend time to take appeal granted upon condition that a notice of appeal is filed and served on or before May 27, 1991. Memorandum: This court has repeatedly admonished defense counsel in criminal cases of their mandatory duty to comply *1076with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 (a) by immediately after the pronouncement of sentence, advising defendant in writing of his right to appeal, the time limitations involved, the manner of instituting the appeal and of obtaining a transcript of testimony, the right of a person who is unable to pay for the cost of an appeal to apply for leave to appeal as a poor person. Counsel must also ascertain whether defendant wishes to appeal and, if so, to serve and file the notice of appeal. Failure to comply with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 (a) constitutes "improper conduct” of counsel *(see,*CPL 460.30; *People v Simmons,*171 AD2d 1084).

In spite of our repeated admonitions, many defense counsel continue to fail to provide defendants with the required written notice. We again urge all defense counsel in criminal cases to read and to comply with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 (a), and we urge all Assigned Counsel Administrators in the Department to bring this rule to the attention of Assigned Counsel. Forms containing the notice required by this rule should be available from Assigned Counsel Administrators and from criminal court clerks. Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 22 - 00278 - CR No. 07 - 22 - 0027 9 - CR STEVEN VAUGHN GEOPFERT , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 181st District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No s . 080625 - B - CR & 081258 - B - CR , Honorable Dan L. Schaap , Presiding 

### November 2 , 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. A ppellant , Steven Vaughn Geopfert, proceeding pro se, appeals his convictions for manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance 1 and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 2 We dismiss the untimely appeal s for want of jurisdiction and because A ppellant has no right of appeal.

1 See T EX . H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 481.112(d). 2 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22. 02 (a)(2).2

The timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to hearing an appeal. Castillo v. State , 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). I n a criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed or suspended or within ninety days if the defendant tim ely files a motion for new trial. T EX . R. A PP . P . 26.2(a). If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, an appellate court has no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Castillo , 369 S.W.3d at 198. The trial court sentenced A ppellant on April 21, 2022
. Because no motion for new trial was filed , a notice of appeal was due within thirty d ays after sentencing , by May 23, 2022
. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 4.1(a), 26.2(a). Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 6 , 2022. Thus, A ppellant’s untimely notice of appeal prevents this C ourt from acquiring jurisdiction over the appeal s . Further , under Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) , we are required to dismiss an appeal “ if a certification that shows the defendant ha s the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. ” Here, t he trial court ’ s certification s of A ppellant ’ s right of appeal indicate that th ese a re plea - bargain case s with no right of appeal and that A ppellant has waived the right of appeal
. The c ertification s comport with the record before the Court, including the plea papers and waivers signed by Appellant. By letter of October 11, 2022 , we notified A ppellant of the consequences of his late notice of appeal and the trial court ’ s certification s and directed him to show how the Court has jurisdiction over the appeals. Appellant has filed a response but has not shown grounds for continuing the appeals.3

Accordingly , we dismiss th e appeal s for want of jurisdiction and based on the trial court ’ s cer tification s . Per Curiam Do not publish.
**Exhibit
23.1**
  
   **CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-48364, 333-38420, 333-31696, 333-93117, 333-92327, 333-11294,
333-88421, 333-39553, 333-106742, 333-118776 and 333-121123) of our report dated
March 4, 2005 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Applied
Digital Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and the
related financial statement schedule included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.
  
 
 
 Eisner
LLP
 
 New York,
New York
 March 5,
2005
June 15, 2015 

Mr. Russ Tanner 

34472 Calle Portola 

Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 

Dear Mr. Tanner: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 8, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1521), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 699 

To reallocate Federal judgeships for the courts of appeals, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 10, 2013 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. 

CORNYN, Mr. LEE, Mr. CRUZ, and Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reallocate Federal judgeships for the courts of appeals, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Court Efficiency Act 

5 of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REALLOCATION OF FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by 

8 and with the advice and consent of the Senate— 

9 (1) 1 additional circuit judge for the second cir10 cuit court of appeals; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 699 IS

1 (2) 1 additional circuit judge for the eleventh 

2 circuit court of appeals. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 44(a) of 

4 title 28, United States Code, is amended in the table— 

5 (1) in the item relating to the District of Co6 lumbia circuit court of appeals, by striking ‘‘11’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘8’’; 

8 (2) in the item relating to the second circuit 

9 court of appeals, by striking ‘‘13’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘14’’; and 

11 (3) in the item relating to the eleventh circuit 

12 court of appeals, by striking ‘‘12’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘13’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00430

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.R.G.

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PA

- 00683

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Associate Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court order terminating

appellant’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal are taxed against appellant.

SIGNED November 13, 2019.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to

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

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020 (the "Report") of Garrison Capital Inc. (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Tansey, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Joseph Tansey       |
|-------------------------|
| Joseph Tansey           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 10, 2020         |
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Swisher Hygiene Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, William T. Nanovsky, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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:




(1)           the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.






February 19, 2013
/s/ William T. NanovskyWilliam T. NanovskySenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### L.G. LITTLER, Petitioner, v. WOODWARD COUNTY, Own Risk, and the Workers’ Compensation Court, Respondents.

No. 75,905.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.

April 23, 1991.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1991.

Certiorari Denied Sept. 11, 1991.

*1210Duke Halley, Woodward, for petitioner.

Greg James, Oklahoma City, for respondents.

HUNTER, Chief Judge:

Petitioner seeks review of an order of a three judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court vacating an order of the trial judge on a finding that the order of the Trial Court was “contrary to law”.

The trial judge determined that Petitioner had suffered total permanent economic disability as a result of injuries incurred in the course and scope of his employment with Respondent. On appeal, the three judge panel found that parts of the order were contrary to law and modified the award to 60 per cent permanent partial disability to the right leg and affirmed as modified. The three judge panel did not find the trial judge’s order against the clear weight of the evidence.

The three judge panel may reverse or modify the decision [of the Trial Court] only if it determines that such decision was against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law. 85 O.S.1986 Supp. § 3.6(A). “The ... three-judge panel ... is not free to reverse at will a trial judge’s finding. No fact issue is presently subject to intra-court re-examination unless the panel has first determined that a judge’s finding upon it ‘... was against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law.’ ” *Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital,*684 P.2d 548, 551, (Okl.1984); see also, *Lee v. D.P. Bonham Transfer,*695 P.2d 887, 889 (Okl.App.1984). The question of whether a claimant is totally and permanently economically disabled is a question of fact, the trial judge’s determination on which is binding on the appellate courts if supported by any competent evidence.

We find the trial judge’s award *was unaffected by error of law,*and there is evidence in the record which would support a finding that Petitioner is totally and permanently economically disabled. Thus, it appears that the three judge panel’s decision could only be based on the “clear weight of the evidence” standard. In that regard, the three judge panel order is, in fact, “devoid of the critical, statutorily-mandated panel determination that the trial judge’s finding was ‘against the clear weight of the evidence.’ ” *Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital,*684 P.2d 548, 552.

Accordingly, the decision of the three judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court is VACATED, and this cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GARRETT, P.J., and HANSEN, J„ concur.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 843 

To limit the amount of ammunition purchased or possessed by certain Federal 

agencies for a 6-month period. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2013 

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To limit the amount of ammunition purchased or possessed 

by certain Federal agencies for a 6-month period. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ammunition Manage5 ment for More Obtainability Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PURCHASING AMMUNITION. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

8 (1) the term ‘‘agency’’ has the meaning given 

9 that term in section 551 of title 5, United States 

10 Code; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 843 IS

1 (2) the term ‘‘ammunition’’ has the meaning 

2 given that term in section 921 of title 18, United 

3 States Code; and 

4 (3) the term ‘‘covered agency’’— 

5 (A) means an agency; and 

6 (B) does not include the Department of 

7 Defense. 

8 (b) PROHIBITION.—During the 6-month period be9 ginning on the date of enactment of this Act, a covered 

10 agency may not purchase during any month or possess, 

11 at any one time, more rounds of ammunition than the 

12 monthly average of the number of rounds of ammunition 

13 purchased by the covered agency during the period begin14 ning on January 1, 2001 and ending on December 31, 

15 2009. 

16 (c) GAO REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the 

17 date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 

18 of the United States shall submit to Congress a report 

19 regarding the purchasing of ammunition by agencies, 

20 which shall include an assessment of the effect of the pur21 chasing of ammunition by agencies on the supply of am22 munition available to the public. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS