alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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, Richard P. Dutkiewicz, as Chief Financial Officer of Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. (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 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 29, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                              
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|February 25, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/    RICHARD P. DUTKIEWICZ                 
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Richard P. Dutkiewicz Chief Financial Officer

This certification is furnished
with this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MISHA SANDERS, DOC# K53694, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3321 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 4, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Misha Sanders, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.01


                           CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)


         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officers of The Hartcourt Companies, Inc., a Utah corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "10-KSB Report") that:

         (1) the 10-KSB 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 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                          THE HARTCOURT COMPANIES, INC.


Date:  March 30, 2004                    By: /s/ David Chen
                                             --------------------------------
                                             David Chen
                                             Chairman and
                                             Chief Executive Officer

Date:  March 30, 2004                    By: /s/ Carrie Hartwick
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Carrie Hartwick
                                             President and
                                             Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Warren L. Madison, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.) rendered July 24, 1989, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s generalized assertion, made prior to sentencing, that he had re-evaluated his legal options and wished *564to litigate the propriety of the seizure of the contraband on which his judgment of conviction is premised, did not entitle him to withdraw his guilty plea *(cf., People v Dixon,*29 NY2d 55; *People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338, *cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York,*393 US 1067). The record here establishes that the defendant’s guilty plea "was voluntarily made with advice of counsel following an appraisal of all the relevant factors” *(People v Dixon, supra,*at 57; *see also, People v Washington,*156 AD2d 496) and the denial of the defendant’s presentence motion to vacate his guilty plea was a proper exercise of discretion *(see,*CPL 220.60 [3]).

The defendant’s claims that his plea was without sufficient factual basis and that the County Court should have sentenced him in accordance with an obvious misstatement by the court, made at the plea allocution, regarding the sentencing commitment, are raised for the first time on appeal and are thus not preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Hladky,*158 AD2d 616; *People v Esposito,*157 AD2d 850; *People v Robinson,*156 AD2d 598; *People v Williams,*156 AD2d 497). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has been renewed for a 2-year period through February 19, 2014.

                    For information, contact May Chu, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Clinical Laboratory Improvement                           ( print page 14806)                        Advisory Committee, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E-94, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/498-6400 or fax 404/498-6410.                

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Dated: March 6, 2012.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2012-6080 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3012404-OCT-201108:08 AM
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
 
General Scanning GmbH              Jurisdiction of Incorporation:
                                                          Germany
 
General Scanning Asia Pacific Limited
                                   Jurisdiction of Incorporation:
                                                          Hong Kong
 
General Scanning Japan K.K.        Jurisdiction of Incorporation:
                                                          Japan
 
GSI Export Corporation             Jurisdiction of Incorporation:
                                                          U.S. Virgin Islands
 
General Scanning France SARL       Jurisdiction of Incorporation:
                                                          France
 
General Scanning Limited           Jurisdiction of Incorporation:
                                                          United Kingdom
 
General Scanning Securities Corporation
                                   Jurisdiction of Incorporation:
                                                          Massachusetts,
                                                          United States
 
View Engineering, Inc.             Jurisdiction of Incorporation:
                                                          California, United
                                                          States
# L_2006249EN.01000301.xml

| 13.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 249/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 249/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1340/2006

of 12 September 2006

determining the extent to which applications lodged in August 2006 for import licences for certain pigmeat sector products pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1233/2006 can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1233/2006 of 16 August 2006 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota of pigmeat allocated to the United States of America (1), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged for the period 1 July to 30 September 2006 are less than the quantities available and can therefore be fulfilled entirely,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Applications for import licences for the period 1 July to 30 September 2006 submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1233/2006 shall be met as referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.

2.   Application for import licences for the period 1 October to 31 December 2006 may be lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1233/2006 for the total quantity as referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 September 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 September 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 225, 17.8.2006, p. 14.

1

---

ANNEX

| Order No | Percentage of acceptance of import licences submitted for the period of 1 July to 30 September 2006 | Total quantity available for the period of 1 October to 31 December 2006
  (t) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 09.4170 | 100 | 2 321,000 |
| ‘—’ | : | No application for a licence has been sent to the Commission. |

Order No

Percentage of acceptance of import licences submitted for the period of 1 July to 30 September 2006

Total quantity available for the period of 1 October to 31 December 2006

(t)

09.4170

100

2 321,000

‘—’

:

No application for a licence has been sent to the Commission.

---
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009
of Majestic Oil & Gas, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.




/s/ Patrick
      MontalbanChief
      Executive OfficerChief
      Financial Officer





May 14,
2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Majestic Oil & Gas, Inc. and will be retained by Majestic Oil & Gas,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe quarterly report of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Mauceli,principal executive officer of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., the managinggeneral partner of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m OR 78o(d)); and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.
| Date:   May  21, 2007 |       | Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P.        |
|---------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------|
|                            |       | Managing General Partner                 |
|                            |       |                                     |
|                            |       | By: Reef Oil & Gas Partners, GP, LLC |
|                            |       |                                     |
|                            |       | /s/ Michael J. Mauceli                   |   |
| ** **                      | ** ** | Michael J. Mauceli                       |
|                            |       | Manager and Member                       |
| * *                        |       | (principal executive officer)            |

 

This certification is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability ofthat section.  This certification is notdeemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Actof 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13593-13594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5466]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL12-37-000; QF86-36-006]


PowerSmith Cogeneration Project, LP; Notice of Request for Waiver

    Take notice that on February 27, 2012, pursuant to section 
292.205(c) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
Rules of Practice and Procedure implementing the Public Utility 
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), as amended, 18 CFR 292.205(c), 
PowerSmith Cogeneration Project, LP (PowerSmith) filed a Request for 
Waiver, for calendar year 2011, of the operating standard set forth in 
section 292-205(a)(1) of the Commission's Regulations for the topping-
cycle cogeneration facility owned and operated by PowerSmith located in 
Oklahoma. PowerSmith makes such a request because of a delay in certain 
major capital improvements.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).

[[Page 13594]]

Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. 
Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the 
comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to 
serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the 
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email or call (866) 
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 28, 2012.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5466 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Cavalier Group
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Periodic
Report), I, Gerald W. Williams, 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: October 13, 2006

/s/ Gerald W. Williams

Gerald W. Williams Chief Financial Officer

---
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
  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 2, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ William L. BallhausWilliam L. BallhausPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Date: November 12, 2009
#### In the Matter of Robert Delcol, Petitioner, v Denis Dillon et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit further prosecution of the petitioner on a simplified traffic information filed under Nassau County Index Number 793/89, filed in the District Court, Nassau County, on the ground that a trial on this information would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the respondents are prohibited from proceeding with the trial of the simplified traffic information filed under Nassau County Index Number 793/89 against the petitioner and the respondent Dillon is prohibited from further prosecuting that information.

The petitioner argues that where, as here, a court declares a mistrial without obtaining the defendant’s consent, the Double Jeopardy provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions prohibit his retrial for the same crime unless there is a "manifest necessity” for the mistrial. He submits that there was no such manifest necessity. We agree.

Where a defendant moves for or consents to a mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial *(see, People v Ferguson,*67 NY2d 383, 388). However, where a mistrial is declared without the consent of, or over the objection of the defendant "the prohibition against double jeopardy * * * precludes retrial for the same offense unless 'there is a manifest necessity for [the mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated’ ” *(Matter of Enright v Siedlecki,*59 NY2d 195, 199; *accord, People v Catten,*69 NY2d 547, 554 quoting *United States v Perez,*9 Wheat [22 US] 579, 580; *People v Michael,*48 NY2d 1). CPL 280.10 (3) "allows a court to declare a mistrial on its own motion only 'when it is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law’ ” *(People v Michael, supra,*at 9).

Here, nothing in the record would justify a conclusion that the petitioner consented to a mistrial or that the circumstances justified the declaration thereof. Although the petitioner did not specifically object to the mistrial, neither did he consent to it *(cf., People v Ferguson, supra,*at 387-389; *People v Barreto,*149 AD2d 428, 429). That the court’s term was *705shortly to end did not require the declaration of a mistrial. There were several other courses of action available. Thus, the declaration of mistrial was founded upon the convenience of the court and was not based upon a manifest necessity *(see, People v Michael, supra,*at 9). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.