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

 

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Copano Energy, L.L.C. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2005, I, Matthew J. Assiff, Senior Vice President and 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 to his 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.

 
| August 15, 2005 | /s/ MATTHEW J. ASSIFF                             |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|            | Matthew J. Assiff                                 |
|            | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1712

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, Jr., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II and 

a minor child JFD, as next best friend,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

Chief District Judge. (4:13-cv-00062-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing of his Federal Tort Claims Act complaint for 

failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis 

v. United States, No. 4:13-cv-00062-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. May 21, 

2013). We deny Davis’ motion to appoint counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned, Dr. Eberhard Kornotzki, the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of LONGHAI STEEL INC. (the Company), DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 2nd day of November, 2010.

/s/ Dr. EberhardKornotzkiDr. Eberhard KornotzkiChief Financial Officer and
Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000707

08-APR-2015

08:27 AM
EXHIBIT 32.3

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



I,  Peter C. Mann,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that this quarterly
report of Prestige Brands  International,  LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September  30, 2005 fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  applicable,  and  that
information  contained in such quarterly  report fairly presents in all material
respects the financial  condition  and results of operations of Prestige  Brands
International, LLC.

                                       /s/ PETER C. MANN
                          ------------------------------------------------------
                          Name: Peter C. Mann
                          Title:  Manager, President and Chief Executive Officer
                          Date: November 29, 2005
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 6, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00182-CV

MARION BRIAN RAMON AND MBR & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellants

V.

NOWAK & STAUCH, LLP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-06227-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Myers, Evans, and Brown 

Opinion by Justice Evans

Before the Court is the appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant 

appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

150182F.P05

/ David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MARION BRIAN RAMON AND MBR & 

ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellants

No. 05-15-00182-CV V.

NOWAK & STAUCH, LLP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-06227-C.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. 

Justices Myers and Brown, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee NOWAK & 

STAUCH, LLP recover its costs of this appeal from appellants MARION BRIAN RAMON and 

MBR & ASSOCIATES, INC..

Judgment entered this 6th day of April, 2015.
MANE

‐ VU NPS Joseph Jakuta (MV) Pat Brewer Rob Sliwinski (NY) Don Shepherd Susan Wierman (MARAMA) John Vimont Paul Miller (NESCAUM) USFS Metro

‐ 4/SESARM Bret Anderson John Hornback Bill Jackson Jim Boylan (GA) Linda Geiser Sushma Masemore (NC) Doris McLeod (VA) FWS Katie (Renwick) Tiger (Cherokee) Tim Allen Tamara McCandless LADCO/MIDWEST Rob Kaleel Jennifer Van Vlerah (OH) Melissa Kuskie (MN) Jonathan Loftus (WI)

CenSARA

Theresa Pella
IA ‐ TBD LA ‐ TBD TX or OK ‐ TBD Place holder for possible tribal representative

WESTAR Bob Lebens Dan Johnson Tom Moore Rita Bates (NM) Karin Landsberg (AK)

OTHER TRIBAL ATTENDEES TBD TBD TBD
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 Quarterly Report of Solo Cup Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended June 28, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert M. Korzenski, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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/ Robert M. Korzenski
|Robert M. Korzenski    
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 11, 2009
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0991 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM134AD

747 - 53 -2502 IN O1 --- 2/7/08 747 - 53A2605 --- 10/8/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- 2..0 i (- OM5 C;;Oi 0 -A/AC1-;lCS'-AL:>

Directorate Identifier: -AD

Estimated Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

Action orooe!ler, aooliance)

(e.g., lnspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost

replacement) (include cost (labor + U.S. for U.S. Fleet

access, testing, (@$85/h port.» Registered

and close-un) our) Products

Incorporation of the

revised MPD -- "

Section 9 structural 1.0 -$ So. GD N/A ~ 00.00 153 C$ 0 ..

inspection

~ I

requirements

,.' (11)

,

I' (Ill $ 0

, II,PO ,.

".1111 $ 0

!! (H" , H.llIJ $ 0

The known number of products in compliance: 0 I

Total Costs of compliance for U.S, fleet: !G8 Is Not

,p' .?S X j::.__} l..'·S t'l - ,'J') .= "tf ,'I OC~~',c"

In

'-'1"' 1".(1 TableBOO5-

Costs covered under warranty $0

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisjield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisjield can also be used to explain warronty costs): N/ A

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?"

YEs'D NOI8J

*Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? ~,

YEs'D NOI8J

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for

either a Yes or No answer. ~

YES D NO I8J

Explanation:
Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? '.)

YES' 0 NO I2J

* Explanation:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Engility Corporation ) 

) 

Under Contract No. N00421-04-D-0071 et al. ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59751 

Mark J. Stechschulte, Esq. 

Vice President/ Assistant General Counsel 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Samuel W. Morris, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Chantilly, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 9 April 2015 

'MARK N. STEMPLE 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 597 51, Appeal of Engility 

Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Order entered April 6, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00344-CV

JENNIFER R. BARNES, Appellant

V.

KATHERINE A. KINSER, JONATHAN J. BATES, KINSER & BATES, LLP, PEZZULI 

KINSER, LLP, AND MICHAEL P. PEZZULI, Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-05548

ORDER

We DENY appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATE OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND**

**ACTING PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF**

**QUANTUM ENERGY, INC.**

I, Richard Porterfield, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer of Quantum Energy, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2008 (the “Report”):

|   | a. | complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at November 30, 2008, and the results of the Company’s operations for the quarter ended November 30, 2008. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date:  January 14, 2009

|   | /s/ Richard Porterfield            |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | Richard Porterfield                |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer and***    |
|   | *Acting Chief Financial Officer*** |
NOTICE OF ACCELERATED APPEAL BY DEFENDANT BRADLEY B. MILLER PAGE 1 

CAUSE NO. DC-15-01598 

TALLEY DUNN GALLERY, LLC

and TALLEY DUNN,

§

§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs,

§

§

§ 191st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

v. §

§

BRADLEY B. MILLER, §

§

Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF ACCELERATED APPEAL BY DEFENDANT BRADLEY B. MILLER 

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 25.1, 26.1 and 28.1, Defendant Bradley 

B. Miller files this Notice of Accelerated Appeal of the Temporary Injunction entered by the 

Court in the above-styled matter on March 19, 2015, to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas,

Texas.

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY

4/7/2015 2:37:17 PM

FELICIA PITRE

DISTRICT CLERK

Bridgette Vation

ACCEPTED

05-15-00445-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

4/9/2015 11:01:45 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

05-15-00445-CV

 RECEIVED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 4/9/2015 11:01:45 AM LISA MATZ Clerk
NOTICE OF ACCELERATED APPEAL BY DEFENDANT BRADLEY B. MILLER PAGE 2

Respectfully submitted,

SCHEEF & STONE, LLP

By:__________________________

Eric C. Wood

State Bar No. 24037737

2600 Network Blvd., Suite 400

Frisco, Texas 75034

(214) 472-2100 Phone

(214) 472-2150 Fax

eric.wood@solidcounsel.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

BRADLEY B. MILLER
NOTICE OF ACCELERATED APPEAL BY DEFENDANT BRADLEY B. MILLER PAGE 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been 

forwarded to the following on the 7th day of April, 2015 in accordance with the Texas Rules of 

Civil Procedure:

Via E-file

Dan Hartsfield

Talley Parker

Karen Griffin

Jackson Lewis, P.C.

500 N. Akard, Suite 2500

Dallas, Texas 75201

_____________________________

Eric C. Wood
DISMISS, and Opinion Filed April 6, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00344-CV

JENNIFER R. BARNES, Appellant

V.

KATHERINE A. KINSER, JONATHAN J. BATES, KINSER & BATES, LLP,

PEZZULI KINSER, LLP, AND MICHAEL P. PEZZULI, Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-05548

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Evans, and Brown 

Opinion by Justice Brown

In a letter dated March 30, 2015, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal 

from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 171.098(a) (West 2011). In response, appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the 

appeal. Appellant has informed the Court that she no longer desires to pursue the appeal. 

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

Dismissal of this appeal does not preclude appellant from appealing any subsequently entered 

appealable orders.

150344F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JENNIFER R. BARNES, Appellant

No. 05-15-00344-CV V.

KATHERINE A. KINSER, JONATHAN J. 

BATES, KINSER & BATES, LLP, 

PEZZULI KINSER, LLP, AND MICHAEL 

P. PEZZULI, Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-05548.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. 

Justices Myers and Evans, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees KATHERINE A. KINSER, JONATHAN J. BATES, 

KINSER & BATES, LLP, PEZZULI KINSER, LLP, AND MICHAEL P. PEZZULI recover 

their costs of this appeal from appellant JENNIFER R. BARNES.

Judgment entered this 6th day of April, 2015.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 09, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 09, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0154. HEATHER KIMBROUGH et al. v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

13B3743
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 53 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 53

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT COMMEMORATING 400TH 
              ANNIVERSARY OF ARRIVAL OF FIRST AFRICAN SLAVES.

    Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be 
used on September 9, 2019, for an event

              

 to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first 
African slaves to the territory that would become the United States. 
Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in 
accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may 
prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 53

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall for an event to commemorate 
the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first African slaves to the 
             territory that would become the United States.
```
#### Barbara Boyle WARNER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sterling Jay WARNER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 15607.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 11, 1979.

Arthur J. Ritter, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

R. Paul Van Dam, Salt Lake County Atty., Gerald M. Conder, Deputy Salt Lake County Atty., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

CROCKETT, Justice:

The Department of Social Services (herein Social Services) joined as plaintiff in this action, seeking reimbursement for public assistance it had rendered to plaintiff and two minor children of the parties. Pursuant to various supplemental proceedings to the divorce action, the recital of the detail of which can be spared here, the trial court rendered judgment against the defendant in the sum of $1,600 for unpaid support money.1

The propriety of Social Services joining in said action and obtaining the judgment for *315the purposes indicated has been recognized in the cases of *Bartholomew v. Bartholomew*
      *2*
      **and *Reeves v. Reeves.*
      *3*
      **Furthermore, the defendant was personally served with the Order to Show Cause, upon which the hearing was had and he was represented by counsel at that hearing. At that time, the court denied the defendant’s motion to strike the Order to Show Cause based on a claimed lack of notice and the judgment complained of was entered.

We are not persuaded that there was any error or impropriety in the proceeding, nor that any interference with the actions of the trial court is justified.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiffs (respondents).

ELLETT, C. J., and WILKINS, MAU-GHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.

. It is significant to note that the record of this proceeding shows that there is also a subsequent judgment for $1,725, entered on February 14, 1978, from which no appeal has been *315taken and that such subsequent judgment has thus become final. Consequently, the present appeal challenging the prior judgment appears to be moot.

. Utah, 548 P.2d 238 (1976).

. Utah, 556 P.2d 1267 (1976).