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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CurrencySharesSMEuro Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joe Arruda, Chief Financial Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, 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, 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 Trust.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: September 9, 2009      
|                             
|/s/ Joe Arruda               
|Joe Arruda*                  
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Joe Arruda is
signing in his capacity as the principal financial officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Beth Ochoa, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Telynx, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual
Report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report
          is being prepared;

          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
          controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
          filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          (c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

               a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
                    internal controls which could adversely affect the
                    registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
                    report financial data and have identified for the
                    registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
                    controls; and

               b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
                    or other employees who have a significant role in the
                    registrant's internal controls; and

Date:  August 31, 2006

/s/ Beth N. Ochoa
-----------------------------------

Beth Ochoa, Chief Financial Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JIMMY SPIKES, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2024-0435

[June 13, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Robert B. Meadows, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 312016CF001144A.

Jimmy Spikes, Jr., Mayo, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (2.5 MB)

Tags:Distribution, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, Retirement, DLA

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (2.07 MB)

Tags:Microgrid, energy resiliency, ENERGY, AFRL

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<PAGE>   1


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Spatial Technology Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-59569, 333-56079, and 333-14429) on Form S-8 of Spatial Technology Inc. of
our report dated January 22, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of Spatial Technology Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and 1998,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
(deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998, annual report
on Form 10-KSB of Spatial Technology Inc.


                                                       KPMG LLP

Boulder, Colorado
February 19, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3961]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

PLACE: Commission Meeting Room on the First Floor of the EEOC Office 
Building, 131 ``M'' Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507.

STATUS: Part of the meeting will be open to the public and part of the 
meeting will be closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Open Session

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
    2. EEOC Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016.

Closed Session

    Agency Adjudication and Determination on Federal Agency 
Discrimination Complaint Appeals

    Note:  In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the open session of 
the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's 
deliberations and voting. The remainder of the meeting will be 
closed. Any matter not discussed or concluded may be carried over to 
a later meeting.
    For the open session, seating is limited and it is suggested 
that visitors arrive 30 minutes before the meeting in order to be 
processed through security and escorted to the meeting room. (In 
addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the 
Federal Register, the Commission also provides information about 
Commission meetings on its Web site, eeoc.gov., and provides a 
recorded announcement a week in advance on future Commission 
sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at 
any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign 
language interpretation and Communication Access Realtime Translation 
(CART) services at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. 
Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the 
voice and TTY numbers listed above.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting 
Executive Officer on (202) 663-4077.

    This Notice Issued February 15, 2012.
Bernadette B. Wilson,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2012-3961 Filed 2-15-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
#### FEAR RANCHES, INC., Appellant, v. H. C. BERRY, d/b/a Berry Ranch Co., et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1297.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 25, 1974.

Milton A. Oman, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellant.

Frank H. Allen, Jr., Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellees, H. C. Berry, d/b/a Berry Ranch Co., and Berry Land and Cattle Co., Inc.

Charles C. Spann, Grantham, Spann & Sanchez, Albuquerque, N. M., and Kreh-biel & Alsup,- Clayton, N. M., for appel-lee, Kelly Perschbacker.

Before JONES,* SETH and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.

*

Of the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

SETH, Circuit Judge.

An opinion on the first appeal of this case was filed as Fear Ranches, Inc. v. H. C. Berry, et al., 10 Cir., 470 F.2d 905. On the first appeal, all issues were disposed of except as to a point concerning the custom and usage prevailing in New Mexico. On this point the trial judge received evidence but made no finding. The case was remanded for additional findings. These have now been made and the case is before us as No. 73-1297.

The trial court on remand, in Supplemental Findings of Fact, found that:

> “There is a usage of trade in the cattle industry in New Mexico that a knowledgeable buyer, relying entirely on his own judgment, in buying cattle from a knowledgeable seller, who makes no representations as to the condition of the cattle, takes the animals as he selects them and there are no implied warranties of the fitness of the cattle.”

This Finding No. 7 excludes any implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The finding of the buyer’s reliance on his own judgment is supported by the record. This self-reliance included the matter of whether or not the cattle were free from disease. This was the only issue remaining after the original opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7598** 

WILLIE GILMORE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON, III , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken
. Richard M
. Gergel , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 04540

- RMG )

Submitted : April 19, 2016 Decided: May 18, 2016

Before DIAZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Remanded by un published per curiam opinion
.
Willie Gilmore , Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General , Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant Attorney General , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Willie Gilmore seeks to ap peal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012). Parties to a civil action are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an
app eal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, the district
court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves for an extension of the appeal period within 30 days afte r the expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); see Washington v. Bumgarner , 882 F.2d 899, 900

- 01 (4th Cir. 1989). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of
appea l in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bow l e s

v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ). The district court’s final judgment was entered on the docket on August 13, 201 5
. Gilmore’s notice of appeal , dated September 17, 2015, was filed on Oct. 9 , 201 5 , after the expiration of the 30

- day appeal period but within the excusable neglect period. With his notice of appeal, Gilmore filed a motion containing language that we liberally construe as a request for an extension of time to appeal. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Gilmore has demonstrated excusable3 neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 30

- day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to t his court for further consideration.
REMAND ED
#### Robert V. Ando, Plaintiff, *v.*Essie M. Woodberry et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Bronx County,

December 18, 1958.

*Samuel J. Mo show its.*for plaintiff.

*Reilly S Reilly {Peter E. He Blasio*of counsel), for defendants.

*775James E. Muloahy, J.

This is a motion for an order setting aside the verdict rendered by the jury on behalf of the defendant and granting a new trial upon the ground that the refusal of the court to admit evidence of a conviction upon a plea of guilty by the defendant in the Magistrates’ Court to a traffic violation arising out of the same facts upon which this suit is founded, was contrary to law.

The court has read with interest the opinion in *Walther*v. *News Syndicate Co.*(276 App. Div. 169, 174) in which the admissibility of such proffered evidence is discussed at length, and in which the following language is used: “ We believe that the law of this State protecting a witness against disclosure of conviction for a traffic infraction to affect his credibility (Civ. Prac. Act, § 355) is the expression of a public policy having some bearing on the question before us. It is true that this statute relates only to the matter of impeachment of a witness, and not to the probative force of a prior judgment of conviction for a traffic violation. Nevertheless, the rule of public policy thus declared seems to go beyond the mere question of privilege or credibility of a witness. As was noted in *Matter of Hart*v. *Mealey*(287 N. Y. 39, 43, *supra),*‘ the Legislature recognized *the wea-hness of evidence of a traffic infraction as proof of facts which may have been involved*’ (emphasis supplied).”

There seems to be some question as to whether evidence of conviction oh a plea of guilty for violation of traffic laws or rules of the road is admissible against the defendant in a civil action as an admission against interest.

It would seem that the better rule would be to exclude this evidence as being prejudicial to the defendant and to allow the jury to determine the main issue of negligence *de novo*based solely upon the factual evidence produced at the trial. As we all know, a plea of guilty to a charge of “ traffic violation ” as distinguished from a misdemeanor may well be made by a defendant for reasons other than his actual guilt. It very often happens that a person charged with such a violation may not wish to spend the time required to enter a plea of not guilty and return on one or more adjourned dates for a trial, or it may be that he feels that by pleading guilty he will receive a low fine or perhaps even a suspended sentence. In this particular case, inasmuch as a motorcycle policeman was injured in the occurrence, that may have had some influence on his decision.

For these reasons the court felt that in the exercise of sound discretion the evidence of conviction should be excluded as being prejudicial and of little or no probative value on the issues involved.

The motion is, therefore, denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 58 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 58

  Authorizing the reporting of committee funding resolutions for the 
            period March 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2013

   Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. Roberts) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the reporting of committee funding resolutions for the 
            period March 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013.

    Resolved, That notwithstanding paragraph 9 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate--
            (1) not later than February 26, 2013, each committee shall 
        report 1 resolution authorizing the committee to make 
        expenditures out of the contingent fund of the Senate to defray 
        its expenses, including the compensation of members of its 
        staff, for the period March 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013; 
        and
            (2) the Committee on Rules and Administration may report 1 
        authorization resolution containing more than 1 committee 
        authorization resolution for the period March 1, 2013 through 
        September 30, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
# Record of **Discussion FDMS Docket**  **No. FAA -**  **20 1**  **3 -**  **0 426**  **Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response Transport Canada Yosha Mendis

(613) 952 - 4388 04/23/13 No Objections Bom bardier Aerospace Catherine Auger

(514) 855 - 5001 X 61571 04/23/13 No Objections

N/A N/A N/ A N/ A
#### Killis Cheko CARTER, Appellant, v. CITY OF TULSA, Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. M-85-304.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 9, 1987.

Thomas Dee Frasier, Frasier & Frasier, Tulsa, for appellant.

Neal E. McNeill, City Atty., Larry V. Simmons, Asst. City Atty., Tulsa, for appel-lee.

OPINION

BRETT, Presiding Judge:

The appellant, Killis Cheko Carter, was tried for the crime of Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol in violation of Title 37, Section 275 A 2 of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The jury returned a guilty verdict signed by five of its six members. Appellant was sentenced to a fine of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) plus court costs and ten (10) days in jail.

Considering the results reached, the Court will only address appellant’s first contention of error.

The assignment of error comes from the non-unanimous six member jury.

Article II, § 19 of the Oklahoma Constitution is pertinent to the issue at hand in which it states in part:

> In civil cases, and in criminal cases less than felonies, three-fourths (3⁄4) of the whole number of jurors concurring shall have power to render a verdict. In all other cases the entire number of jurors must concur to render a verdict.

In *Burch v. Louisiana,*441 U.S. 130, 99 S.Ct. 1623, 60 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979), the Court held that conviction by less than all of a *328six-member jury deprives the accused of his constitutional right to trial by jury. It has previously been held by this Court that the decision in *Burch*invalidated the portion of Art. II, § 19 of the Oklahoma Constitution which authorized non-unanimous six-person jury verdicts in cases less than felonies. *Williams v. City of Tulsa,*740 P.2d 737 (Okl.Cr.1987).

The maximum possible punishment under the Tulsa City Ordinance is ninety (90) days in jail and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). It is our belief that when there is a possibility of confinement the accused is entitled to a unanimous jury. In 1980, this Court held in *Murrah v. City of Oklahoma City,*620 P.2d 1335, at 1338 (Okl.Cr.1980) that “Confinement is not a small matter to the one restrained, and the fact of confinement is an adequate and desirable basis for distinguishing between petty and non-petty offenses.”

In light of the foregoing, it is this Court’s opinion that the appellant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict and that the *Burch*rule must apply in cases where there is the possibility of confinement. The judgment and sentence is therefore REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

PARKS, J., concurs.

BUSSEY, J., dissents.