alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(b)

                            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 Fidelity Federal Bancorp (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A. Isaac,
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:

     (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.

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is
not being filed for any other purpose.


/s/ Mark A. Isaac
----------------------
Vice President and CFO
March 29, 2005
SERVED: JANUARY 7, 2013
. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN GUNNER GAMA FAADOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0871 

### NOTICE OF HEARINGDATES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthat testimony and evidence 

### will be heard and considered on February 

### 14, 2013, inclusive, in the U.S. TaxCourt: Room 

### 2-1350, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 

### 450 Golden GateAvenue, San Francisco, CA 

### 94102. Hearings 

### will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse on orbefore 5:00p.m. each day. Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper pleading(s). Pleadings may beforwarded by fax, express mail, courieror postal service.**~-A..'I.IJ~··a;.e:·'Goodwin** U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL&·ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite2W1000 1


### Stephen Gunner Gama, 

### Respondent 1958 Country Club Ct., Apt. A Marysville, CA95901 

### ONE COPY

Lindsey M. Nakamura, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Western-Pacific Region, A WP-7.11 Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7138 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0871 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. ·
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF MAX RE CAPITAL LTD.**

This certification is providedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 of Max Re Capital Ltd. (the“Issuer”). 

I, Keith S. Hynes, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer certify that: 

(i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m(a) or 78o(d)); and 

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Issuer. 

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 the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

Dated: June 8, 2006
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132175 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132175 COA: 271268 Eaton CC: 85-000131-FC DAVID HAYMER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the A ugust 4, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

s1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
#### HUDSON v. STATE.

No. A-11669.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 7, 1953.

Percy Hughes, Hobart, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES, Judge.

The defendant, Otis Henry Hudson, was charged by an information filed in the County Court of Kiowa County with driving a Ford pickup truck on the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; was tried; convicted; and pursuant to the verdict of the jury was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and costs, and has appealed.

No brief has been filed on behalf of the defendant and no appearance was made in his behalf at the time the case was regularly assigned for oral argument.

We have examined the record for fundamental error and none has been found. The proof of the state showed that the accused while driving a Ford pickup southeast of the city of Hobart on highway No. 185 near Babbs Switch collided with a truck being driven by Floyd C. Friese, which was loaded with hogs and parked off of the pavement. The proof of the state showed the accused was intoxicated.

The accused testified in his own behalf and denied that he was intoxicated but admitted that he had drunk some beer with a companion whom he had taken to the town of Snyder. Accused testified he was returning from Snyder in the pickup and his lights were flashing on and off when he collided with the truck.

The evidence raised an issue for the determination of the jury. Their judgment on such disputed question of fact will be sustained. The judgment and sentence of the County Court of Kiowa County is affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and POWELL, J., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the periodic report of American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Alan L. Heller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at
the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ ALAN L. HELLER     
|                   |  |  |  | Alan L. Heller         
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Executive 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.



33
Why I Support the Carbon Pollution Standard 

I applaud the EPA for introducing its new carbon pollution rule, which would regulate 

emissions from power plants, This rule is a historic step that will protect the health of Americans 

and will help address climate change. This rule is excellent in that it will specifically address the 

coal industry, an antiquated power source that is extremely detrimental to public health and that 

propels climate change. 

As a researcher, I value good science and sound decisions. The science on climate change 

is clear, as is the science on the benefits of clean air. Safeguarding clean air and addressing 

climate change are absolutely essential to promoting a healthy, safe, sustainable future. 

Regulations that reduce pollution save lives, decrease the amount of money spent on illnesses 

such as asthma, and spur sustainable innovation. Clean air is a public health issue and access to 

clean air a basic right. 

In my career, I have worked all over the city of Chicago and have witnessed first-hand 

the effects of pollution that emerge from coal plants. Unfortunately, it is usually the poorest 

residents who live closest to coal plants and who suffer the economic and personal burdens of 

illnesses that arise from pollution. The right to clean air should not be sacrificed for the private 

profit of fossil fuel companies; this is detrimental to public health and does not solve our need 

for sustainable energy. I urge you to enact the Carbon Pollution Standard and to protect 

Americans' rights to clean air and to a healthy, livable future. 

Sincerely, 

Jessica Bell 

Project Manager, Social Neuroscience Lab, University of Chicago 

jessicabell@uchicago.edu
SERVED DECEMBER 13, 2010 

PARTMENT OF 

\NSP0RTAT10N 

^rl OFER/uiONS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WEBCO Aircraft Company 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09CE0001 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0839 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

The deadline for completion of discovery currently is December 31, 2010 {see 

Order Continuing Case and Amending Procedural Order, served May 4, 2010 ("Order of 

May 4")). Respondent Webco Aircraft Company ("Respondent") on December 7, 2010, 

filed a Motion for Order Continuing Case and Amending Procedural Order ("Motion"). 

It asks that the discovery deadline be extended to June 6, 2011. In support. Respondent 

cites developments in a companion case pending before the National Transportation 

Safety Board ("NTSB"). The ultimate resolution of that case may affect matters in this 

one. Respondent states. Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") 

has not answered the Motion. 

For good cause shown. Respondent's Motion is hereby GRANTED. The 

discovery deadlines set by the Order of May 4 are hereby extended to June 6, 2011. The 

hearing will be scheduled by subsequent order. 
tmtmm 

t ^ 

SO ORDERED. 

U.B. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

i-m 
FAA Docket No. CP09CE0001 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Robert Weber, President 

Webco Aircraft Company, Respondent 

1134 N.Oliver Road 

Newton, KS 67114-9446 

Edward A. McConwell, Respondent's Counsel 

McConwell Law Offices 

5925 Beverly 

Mission, KS 66202 

TEL: 913-262-0605 

FAX: 913-262-0652 

David Kessler, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Central Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT Building, 901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3763 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building (jround Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor: 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant: 202-366-5121 

FAX; 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention; Hearmg Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 126 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. PAUL RYAN

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 18, 2012

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, during the course of the week, I 
was absent for legislative business; had I been present, I would have 
cast the following votes:
  Rollcall 557--H.R. 6122--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--
``yes.''
  Rollcall 558--H.R. 2139--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as 
Amended--``yes.''
  Rollcall 559--H.R. 6186--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--
``yes.''
  Rollcall 560--H. Res. 773--On Ordering the Previous Question--
``yes.''
  Rollcall 561--H. Res. 773--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.''
  Rollcall 562--H.R. 4264--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as 
Amended--``yes.''
  Rollcall 563--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
  Rollcall 564--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
  Rollcall 565--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
  Rollcall 566--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
  Rollcall 567--H.R. 5544--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions--
``no.''
  Rollcall 568--H.R. 5544--On Passage--``yes.''
  Rollcall 569--H.R. 5949--On Passage--``yes.''
  Rollcall 570--H.R. 3857--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as 
Amended--``yes.''
  Rollcall 571--H.R. 5865--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as 
Amended--``no.''
  Rollcall 572--H. Res. 778--On Ordering the Previous Question--
``yes.''
  Rollcall 573--H. Res. 778--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.''
  Rollcall 574--H. Res. 779--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.''
  Rollcall 575--H.R. 1775--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as 
Amended--``yes.''
  Rollcall 580--S. 3245--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--
``yes.''
  Rollcall 581--H.R. 6213--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
  Rollcall 582--H.R. 6213--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
  Rollcall 583--H.R. 6213--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions--
``no.''
  Rollcall 584--H.R. 6213--On Passage--``yes.''

                          ____________________
```
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 NexHorizon Communications,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Daniel M. Smith 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

           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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


Dated: March 28, 2008




/s/ Daniel M. Smith
-------------------------------
Daniel M. Smith, Chief Financial Officer
Amendment to the Advisory Agreement dated January 1, 2012



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO THE ADVISORY AGREEMENT 
 This
AMENDMENT dated as of the 1st day of January 2012 to the ADVISORY AGREEMENT made as of the 30th day of April, 2007, among CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC (formerly Demeter Management Corporation), a Delaware limited liability company (the “Trading Manager”), MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY WNT I,
LLC (formerly Morgan Stanley Managed Futures WCM I, LLC), a Delaware limited liability company (the “Trading Company”) and WINTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED, a United Kingdom company (the “Trading Advisor”). 

W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, the Trading Manager, the Trading Company and the Trading Advisor wish to amend the Advisory Agreement dated as of April 30,
2007 to increase the amount of leverage used to manage the Trading Company’s assets and reflect a change in the Trading Advisor’s management fee compensation (from 2% per year to 1.5% per year). 

NOW, therefore, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. The first sentence of Section 2(f) shall be deleted and replaced by the following: 
 In performing services to the Trading Company, the Trading Advisor shall utilize its Diversified Trading Program (the “Trading Program”), as described in the Disclosure Document, and as modified
from time to time; provided, however, that the Trading Manager and the Trading Company agree that amount of leverage applied to the assets of the Trading Company allocated to the Trading Advisor by the Trading Manager shall be up to
(but not in excess of) 1.5 times the assets of the Trading Company allocated to the Trading Advisor by the Trading Manager (the “Trading Level”), unless otherwise agreed by the parties hereto in writing. The Trading Advisor shall trade the
Trading Company’s assets on the basis of the Trading Level. 
 2. The first sentence of Section 5(a)(i) shall be
deleted and replaced by the following: 
 The Trading Company shall pay the Trading Advisor a monthly
management fee equal to 1/12 of *% (a *% annual rate) of the Assets (as defined in Section 2(a) hereof) of the Trading Company allocated to the Trading Advisor as of the first day of each month (the “Management Fee”). 

 

	* 	 This information has been redacted in accordance with the Order Granting Confidential Treatment Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, dated
January 14, 2009, File No. 000-53113 - CF#21688, and the Order Granting Confidential Treatment Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, dated January 14, 2009, File No. 000-53114- CF#21687. 









 3. In all other respects the Advisory Agreement remains unchanged and of full force and
effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the day and year
first above written. 
  

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By	 	  

		 	Walter Davis
		 	President
	
	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY WNT I, LLC
		
	By:	 	Ceres Managed Futures LLC
		 	(Trading Manager)
		
	By	 	  

		 	Walter Davis
		 	President
	
	WINTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED
		
	By	 	  

		 	Martin Hunt
		 	Director, Winton Capital Management Limited



  
 – 2
–
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blast Energy Services, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John MacDonald,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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, 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.




Date:
April 30, 2008





By:
            /s/
      John MacDonaldJohn
      MacDonaldChief
      Financial OfficerPrincipal
      Accounting Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41347

JEFFREY JONES, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

OFFICER ALEX SHIVERS, Individual and Official Capacity; CORPORAL 

NICK EMMONS, Individual and Official Capacity, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-354

Before REAVLEY, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is a qualified immunity case. While executing an arrest warrant, 

the defendant, Officer Alex Shivers, was posted at the rear of the suspect’s

house. The plaintiff, Jeffrey Jones (a firefighter, bounty hunter, and licensed 

peace officer), believed himself to be assisting in the operation and thought 

that he was supposed to “watch the rear.” While Shivers held his position, 

Jones came up from behind. Dressed in plain clothes, Jones entered the back 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41347 Document: 00514144643 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2017
No. 16-41347

2

yard by stumbling over a fence, rising with a weapon in hand. The weapon 

was a Taser, but Shivers did not know that. And Shivers did not know that 

Jones was a friend; he perceived an armed man who had just crossed over a 

back yard fence to interfere with the execution of a warrant. Reacting to Jones’ 

unanticipated arrival, Shivers took a spill of his own, falling behind a 

doghouse. Upon rising, Shivers shot Jones twice. 

There is a factual dispute over whether Jones was aiming the Taser at 

Shivers, but not over whether the weapon was unholstered and in his hand. A 

police officer does not have to permit a suspect to aim his weapon before 

answering the threat. See Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston, 826 F.3d 272, 279 

n.6 (5th Cir. 2016), as revised (June 16, 2016). There is a factual dispute over 

whether the officer in charge at the scene had told Shivers about Jones being 

there or instructed Jones to assist by moving to the rear of the home, but there 

is no genuine dispute as to whether Shivers was expecting Jones to help him 

guard the backyard. He was not. While facts are viewed in the light most 

favorable to the nonmovant, we must consider “only the facts that were 

knowable to” Shivers. White v. Pauly, 137 S.Ct. 548, 550 (2017). Finally, on 

these particular facts, Shivers’ failure to issue a verbal warning prior to 

shooting is no bar to the grant of qualified immunity. Id. at 551–52.

Ultimately, this case involves a highly unusual fact pattern—multiple 

miscommunications and mistakes of fact that led to a friendly-fire incident. 

Under the circumstance, whether or not the shooting represented a Fourth 

Amendment violation, Shivers is entitled to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-41347 Document: 00514144643 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2017