alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Cutter & Buck Inc. ("the Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2004 ("the Report"), I, Frances M. Conley, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| |  | /s/FRANCES M. CONLEYFrances M. Conley Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60

---



QuickLinks
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 of Renaissance BioEnergy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Samuel Gulko, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





Dated this 14th day of October, 2010.





SAMUEL GULKOSamuel GulkoChief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

t0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148280

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148280

COA: 318242 

Cass CC: 10-010189-FH

KATHRYN ELIZABETH HAVENAAR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6136

DEREK DION CURTIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JEFFERY L. NEWTON,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:12-cv-00827-CMH-TRJ)

Submitted: June 23, 2014 Decided: August 21, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Dion Curtis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derek Curtis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Curtis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny him leave to proceed 
3

in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

• ) 

AERO WAYS, INC., ) 

COMPLAINANT, ) 

) 

V. ) Docket No. 16-09-12 

) 

DELAWARE RIVER & BAY AUTHORITY, ) 

RESPONDENT. ) 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

- a 

— I 

:..'-> 

The XD FAA received your fax and letter dated February 16, 2008, on behalf of the Aero Ways In&.gp 

where by and through counsel, Aero Ways, Inc. submitted its unopposed Motion for Extension ^ 

Time to Respond to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. 3 S 

Respondent's documentation submitted with its Motion to Dismiss is substantial and 

Complainant's motion was timely. Although Part 16 intends to expedite the handling and 

disposition of airport-related complaints, Section 16.11(a) provides that an extension of time may 

be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fait and complete hearing of the matters before the 

agency. 

As the request for extension of time is with the consent of the parties and necessary, an extension 

of time to file Complainant's Response to the Motion to Dismiss and its Reply to Respondent's 

Answer is appropriate. Complainant's Response to the Motion to Dismiss and its Reply are now 

due on or before March 31, 2010. Accordingly, the Respondent's Rebuttal is now due on or before 

April 12, 2010. 

ERz^bCTt J. Weir 

Attorney 

Airports and Environmental Law Branch 

^"^MAJ^^IMO. 

i.iliji.-. .\ : 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 15, 2010,1 caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class, postage pre-paid) or personally delivered, a true copy of the 

foregoing NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME addressed to: 

Mr. Joseph Michael Lamonaca 

New Castle County Airport 

P.O. Box 10583 

Wilmington, DE 19850-0583 

(610)558-3376 

(302)221-2347 FAX 

avlaw@prodigy.net 

peggy. craven@prodigy.net 

Mr. R. Judson Scaggs, Jr. 

Ms. Leslie A. Polozoti 

Morris, Nichols, Arsht, &, Tunnell, LLP 

1201 Market Street, 18* Floor 

P.O. Box 1347 

Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 : .. 

(302)658-9200 ' •' 

lpolizoti@mnat.com 

EliiaVeth)J,Weir 

Airports Law Branch, Office of the Chief Counsel 

:ii>^:
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 of Waterstone Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard C. Larson, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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; and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/ Richard C. Larson


Richard C. Larson


Chief Financial Officer


August 6, 2009




A signed original of this written statement required by 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 Waterstone Financial, Inc. and will be retained by Waterstone
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I, William W. Smith, Jr., certify that:

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Smith Micro Software, Inc.; and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: July 21, 2017 |   | /s/ William W. Smith, Jr.             |
|---------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                |   | William W. Smith, Jr.                 |
|                |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                |   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00049

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C. C. F., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1 of Montgomery County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 08

- 06

- 05443

- CV

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consid ered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below fo r observance.

February 6, 2014
Confidential Business Informatio n received from Whirlpool Corporation on November 12 , 2014.

For more information

, please contact Margaret Sheppard by phone at 202

- 343

- 9163 or by email at sheppard.margaret @epa.gov.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5407]


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

STATE DEPARTMENT

[Public Notice: 7604]


Foreign Affairs Policy Board Meeting Notice; Closed Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2), the Department of State 
announces a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Policy Board to take place 
on March 19, 2012, at the Department of State, Washington, DC.
    The Foreign Affairs Policy Board reviews and assesses: (1) Global 
threats and opportunities; (2) trends that implicate core national 
security interests; (3) tools and capacities of the civilian foreign 
affairs agencies; and (4) priorities and strategic frameworks for U.S. 
foreign policy. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has 
been determined that this meeting will be closed to the public as the 
Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in 
accordance with Executive Order 13526.
    For more information, contact Samantha Raddatz at (202) 647-2372. 
This announcement might appear in the Federal Register less than 15 
days prior to the advisory committee meeting. The Department of State 
finds: (1) That there is an exceptional circumstance to hold this 
meeting with less than a 15-day notice, in that a senior government 
official must address this committee meeting, and (2) further 
postponing this meeting to accommodate this official's schedule would 
result in an unacceptable delay in the work of this advisory committee.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Dan Kurtz-Phelan,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-5407 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
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

I, Joseph T. Crowley, the Chief Financial Officer of Chester Valley Bancorp Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certify that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that as of
the date of this statement, the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all in material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company

The purpose of this statement is to solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


Date: September 10, 2004                    /s/ Joseph T. Crowley
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Joseph T. Crowley
                                            Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Gaskins, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered March 16, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s judgment of conviction was premised upon circumstantial evidence that he possessed 100 vials of crack-cocaine. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we must determine whether the evidence of the defendant’s guilt flows naturally from the facts proved, is consistent with them, and whether the facts proved exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence *(see, People v Benzinger,*36 NY2d 29, 32; *People v Tedesco,*143 AD2d 155).

The testimony of Housing Police Officer Chinissi established that as he entered a store he observed the defendant "flinc[h] back” and that he then saw an object drop to the ground. Officer Chinissi approached the defendant and picked up the object which was determined to be a plastic bag containing 100 vials of crack-cocaine. Chinissi further testified that the defendant was the only person present in the common area of the store. Additionally, the testimony of Police Chemist Michael Guzzardi established that the aggregate weight of the crack-cocaine contained in the 100 vials was "one-eighth of an ounce, plus 50 grains”. These facts lead naturally and reasonably to the conclusion of guilt and are inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence *(see, People v Benzinger, supra,*at 33). Moreover, there was legally sufficient evidence of the element of intent to sell a controlled substance based upon the defendant’s possession of 100 vials of crack-cocaine *(see, People v Vailes,*150 AD2d 406).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim with regard to the allegedly improper remark of the prosecutor during summation since he failed to raise any objection at trial *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, we find that the innocuous demonstration by the prosecution in demon*728strating how the defendant might have dropped the bag of drugs to the ground did not unfairly prejudice the defendant *(see, People v Fisher,*148 AD2d 628).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit *(see, People v Pena,*50 NY2d 400, 411-412, *cert denied*449 US 1087; *People v Norfleet,*146 AD2d 812). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Balletta, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Iridium
LLC's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>0000948421
<NAME>IRIDIUM LLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,040
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,476
<PP&E>                                       3,271,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                 120,138
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,645,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          467,395
<BONDS>                                      1,327,590
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     39,907
<COMMON>                                     2,024,220
<OTHER-SE>                                   (429,490)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,645,687
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               296,598
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (293,553)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (293,553)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (293,553)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.25)
        

</TABLE>
## Devany , Denni s (OST) From : Shroc k Brother s [Shrockbrothers@penn.com ] Sent : Monday , Apri M 9 , 201 0 7:1 3 P M To : EA S (OST ) Subject : Colga n ai rservic e a t Altoon a PAAirport I recentl ywa s strande d i n Dulle s airpor t becaus e m ycommute rfligh tt o Altoon a airpor twa s close d an d the n canceled . Thi s informatio n wa s give n t o m e b yUnite d Airlin e employees , whe n I wa s waitin g fo rm ylos tluggage . No wI a m tol d by Unite d Custome rservic e tha t th e plan e lef t th e gat e earl yan d wit h 3 4 passengers . I fth e plan e ha d tha tman y passengers , th e passengers wer e Pen n Stat e student s returnin g hom e fro m sprin g break . I wa s tol d tha tth e plan e departe d a t 5:24 , thre e minute s early . But , I recal l tha ti twa s 5 P M whe n I wa s tol d tha tth e fligh twa s no twaitin g a tth e gat e an d ha d likel ybee n cancele d becaus e onl ythre e passengers wer e schedule d fo rth e flight . I fa commute rfligh t leave s twenty-seve n minute s earl yo ri fi t i s cancele d an d th e passengers ar e give n voucher s fo ra hote l roo m an d a meal , ca n thi s b e th e preferre d carrie rt o contrac t t o carrycommuter s t o an d fro m Altoon a airport . France s Shrock , strande d o n Marc h 1 4 2010 .
# L_2006134EN.01003301.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 134/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 134/33

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 15 May 2006

appointing a German member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2006/359/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 259 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2002/758/EC, Euratom of 17 September 2002 appointing the members of the Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2002 to 20 September 2006 (1),

Having regard to the nomination submitted by the German Government,

Having obtained the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas a German member’s seat on the above Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Bernhard WELSCHKE,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Dr Ludolf von WARTENBERG is hereby appointed a member of the European Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Bernhard WELSCHKE for the remainder of his term of office, namely until 20 September 2006.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 15 May 2006.

For the Council

The President

U. PLASSNIK

---

(1)  
  OJ L 253, 21.9.2002, p. 9.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

      ( print page 13172)    
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Aduddell Industries, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Capital Markets Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Challenger Powerboats, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2007.

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of CLX Medical, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2008.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on March 1, 2012 and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 14, 2012.

By the Commission.

Jill M. Peterson,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-5368 Filed 3-1-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P