alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      32


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
      the
      registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant's
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Form
      10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form
      10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the registrant.





Date:
                November 10, 2005Amanasu
                Environment Corporation/s/
                Atsushi MakiAtsushi
                MakiCEO,
                CFO, CAO
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF DUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


  NAME                                             ORGANIZED UNDER LAWS OF     OWNERSHIP
  ----                                             -----------------------     ---------
<S>                                               <C>                         <C>

DuPont Dai Nippon Engineering                                      Delaware        50.0%

DuPont Photomasks Company Limited, Shanghai       Peoples Republic of China        71.5%

DuPont Photomasks Delaware, Inc.                                   Delaware       100.0%

DuPont Photomasks Foreign Sales Corporation                        Barbados       100.0%

DuPont Photomasks (France) S.A.                                      France       100.0%

DuPont Photomasks GmbH                                              Germany       100.0%

DuPont Photomasks Korea Ltd.                              Republic of Korea       100.0%

DuPont Photomasks UK Limited                                 United Kingdom       100.0%

DPI Reticle Technology Center, LLC                                 Delaware        25.0%

DuPont Photomasks Japan Company, Limited                              Japan       100.0%

DuPont Photomasks Singapore Pte Limited                           Singapore       100.0%

DuPont Photomasks Taiwan, Limited                         Republic of China        49.1%
</TABLE>

                                       1
#### Peter B. ROEMER and John S. Hickey, Appellants, v. William F. PUNCHARD and Robert D. Pillsbury, Appellees, v. Peter Mansfield, Barry LW. Chapman, Robert Turner, and Roger M. Bowley, Appellees.

No. 02-1365.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Jan. 27, 2003.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
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


The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Gladstone Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2022 (“Form 10-Q”), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: July 27, 2022


/s/David GladstoneDavid GladstoneChief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Directors
Exhibit 32.2


                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     The undersigned executive officer of PFS Bancorp, Inc. (the "Registrant")
hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.

                                   /s/Stuart M. Suggs
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                   Name: Stuart M . Suggs
                                   Title: Corporate Treasurer, Chief Operating
                                           Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Date:  May 16, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to PFS Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by PFS Bancorp, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
        31
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I,
        Atsushi Maki, certify that:
 
 1.  
         I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Amanasu
        Environment Corporation;
 
 2.  
         Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
        of 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; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
        statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
        present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
        and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
        this
        quarterly report;
 
 4.  
         I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
        procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
        the
        registrant and we have:
 
 a)  
         Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
        disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
        ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
        consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
        particularly during the period in which this report is being
        prepared;
 
 b)  
         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
        procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
        of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
        by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)  
         Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
        over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
        fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
        materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
        and
 
 5.  
         I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s
        auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons
        performing the equivalent function):
 
 a)  
         All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
        operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
        likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
        summarize and report financial data; and
 
 b)  
         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
        employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls
        over
        financial reporting.
 
 
 Date:
                  August 21, 2007/s/
                  Atsushi MakiAtsushi
                  MakiCEO,
                  CFO, CAO
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 0047 5

- CR

Charles Ombati Moreka

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County ( 1184851 )

April 11, 2013

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

S ECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By_________________________________

Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCE
                         CALLISTO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
              FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I am the Vice President, Finance of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with
the Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 and
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-QSB").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-QSB 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 the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 12, 2004

                                                     /s/ Bernard F. Denoyer
                                                     -----------------------

                                                     Bernard F. Denoyer
                                                     Vice President, Finance
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20330 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSÉ NALASCO-AMAYA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-759-ALL

-------------------- November 6, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * José Nalasco-Amaya appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. He argues that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history points by refusing to treat his prior sentences for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and burglary of a motor vehicle as “related cases” under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). Given that the offenses did not occur simultaneously, they were not committed against the same victim,No. 02-20330 -2- they were not identical offenses, they were not committed at the same geographic location, they were separated by nearly 24 hours, and they resulted in Nalasco’s receipt of two distinct sentences, it cannot be said that the district court erred in determining that these were separate offenses for purposes of calculating Nalasco’s criminal history points. United States v. MorenoArredondo , 255 F.3d 198, 201, 207 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 491 (2001)
. Nalasco correctly concedes that his remaining arguments are foreclosed by this court’s precedent, and he raises them only to preserve their further review. His argument that the district court erred in treating his conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as an aggravated felony pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) is foreclosed by United States v. GalvanRodriguez , 169 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 1999). His argument that the district court erred in refusing to suppress evidence of his prior deportation because the deportation proceeding violated his due process rights is foreclosed by United States v. BenitezVillafuerte , 186 F.3d 651, 657 (5th Cir. 1999). His final argument that the aggravated felony provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is an element of the offense of illegal reentry which must be charged in the indictment and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202No. 02-20330 -3- (2001). We are bound by this court’s precedent absent an intervening Supreme Court decision or a subsequent en banc decision. See United States v. Short , 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
Filed 8/30/13 P. v. Garcia CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDRES GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B247999

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. Nos. NA088395)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. 

Brian J. Back, Judge. Affirmed.

David H. Goodwin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

_____________________________
2

Andres Garcia was convicted of five counts of committing forcible lewd acts upon 

a child, and sentenced to 20 years in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1).) In a 

prior appeal we modified defendant’s sentence to impose five consecutive five-year terms 

for each conviction, increasing his total sentence to 25 years in state prison. In all other 

respects we affirmed the judgment. Following remittitur, the trial court modified the 

sentence as directed by this court. This appeal followed. We affirm.

FACTS

We detailed the underlying facts in the prior nonpublished opinion. (People v. 

Garcia (Aug. 28, 2012, B237667 [nonpub. opn.].) Those facts are not at issue here. 

In our previous decision we modified the judgment to impose five consecutive five-year 

terms for each conviction. At a subsequent re-sentencing hearing, defense counsel 

argued this court’s opinion as to sentencing was incorrect. The trial court modified the 

sentence as we had directed, and advised defendant of his right to seek review in the 

California Supreme Court.1 

DISCUSSION

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed appellate defense counsel. 

On June 12, 2013, appellant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On the same day, we notified 

appellant by letter that he could submit within 30 days any ground of appeal, contention, 

or argument which he wished us to consider. Appellant has not filed a response. 

We have independently reviewed the record submitted on appeal, and are satisfied that 

appellant’s appointed counsel has fulfilled his duty, and that no arguable issues exist. 

(See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

 

1 We note defendant sought review in the California Supreme Court on the issue of 

whether the trial court erred in imposing multiple punishments under Penal Code sections 

654 and 667.61. In November 2012, the court denied defendant’s petition for review.
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BIGELOW, P. J. 

We concur:

RUBIN, J. 

GRIMES, J.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned,the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Gladstone CapitalCorporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of TheSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended December 31, 2008 (“Form 10-Q”), filed concurrentlyherewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andthat the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

Dated: February 3, 2009

 

 
| /s/ David Gladstone     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| David Gladstone         |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# SNAP STAKEHOLDER MEETING August 22, 2013 1:30 PM

– 4 : 0 0 PM E D T Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036

EPA is hosting a stakeholder meeting f or interested stakeholders to ex change information on the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced the Climate Action Plan that will “[keep] the United States of America a leader, a global leader in the fight against climate change.” As part of his plan, President Obama directed EPA to use its authority through the SNAP Program “to encourage private

- sector investment in low

emissions technology by identifying and approving climate

- friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemic al alternatives.” The SNAP program was established in 1994 by Section 612 of the Clean Air Act to ensure that alternatives to ozone

- depleting substances used in key sectors pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment than what is currently or potentially available

. Toward that end, SNAP reviews alternatives based on toxicity, flammability, ozone

- depletion potential, global warming potential, environmental fate, and other criteria. SNAP has listed hundreds of acceptable alternatives, and in this process has valued highly our engagement with our stakeholders. The purpose of this meeting is to begin a dialogue between stakeholders and EPA on next steps and effective approaches going forward to meet the goals laid out in the Climate Action Plan for the SNAP program. 

## Agenda

1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Overview : the Climate Action Plan and HFC s
3. T he SNAP Program

a. Discussion
4. Complementary Approaches

a. Discussion
5. Additional Discussion
6. Conclusion & Next Steps

## Key Discussion Questions
To help frame our discussion, please consider the following questions ahead of the meeting on August 22 nd . We look forward to engaging in a discussion on these and other topics you may wish to raise

.

 What are some ways that SNAP can help “encourage private

- sector investment in low

emissions technolog [ies] (?)”

 While responding to the Climate Action Plan’s goal of “prohibiting certain uses of the mo st harmful ” alternatives , how can SNAP provid e a degree of certainty for future investment s ?

 I n what end uses are low

- GWP alternatives already being used?

 What barriers do companies face in developing additional low

- GWP alternatives?

 Under what circumstances/conditions would it make sense for EPA to change the listing status of certain high

- GWP HFCs?

 What transition times would be needed to move to alternatives ?

 What end uses will require continued servicing and for how long?

 Are there complementary approaches that can achieve further GHG reductions?

 What could complementary approaches achieve ?
Exhibit 21

             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

As of December 31, 2003, the Registrant owned all of the issued
and outstanding capital stock of (1) Great Bay Power Marketing,
Inc., a Maine corporation, (2) BayCorp Ventures, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company and (3) Great Bay Hydro Corporation, a
New Hampshire corporation.

As of December 31, 2003, the Registrant owned approximately 49.7%
of the issued and outstanding capital stock of HoustonStreet
Exchange, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("HSE-Del.") (giving
effect to the conversion into HoustonStreet Common Stock of all
issued and outstanding shares of HoustonStreet Preferred Stock
convertible into HoustonStreet Common Stock.)

Great Bay Power Marketing, Inc. conducts business only under the
business name of Great Bay Power Marketing, Inc.  BayCorp
Ventures, LLC conducts business only under the business name of
BayCorp Ventures, LLC.  Great Bay Hydro Corporation conducts
business only under the business name of Great Bay Hydro
Corporation.  HSE-Del. conducts business only under the names
HoustonStreet Exchange, Inc. and HoustonStreet and
HoustonStreet.com.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                              248,325
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        63,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    431,039
<PP&E>                                              591,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (206,304)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      876,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3,420,283
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            638,285
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3,429,913)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        876,535
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     30,422
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,866,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    107,250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,242,471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,185,702)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,185,702)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,185,702)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.06)


</TABLE>