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

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
                              ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     In connection with the filing by Wincroft, Inc. (the "Company") of the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 (the
"Report"), I, Danny Wettreich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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)
               and 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
               operation of the Company.

                                                        /s/ Danny Wettreich
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Danny Wettreich
                                                        Chief Financial Officer


Dated: June 27, 2006
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 Gulf Coast Oil & Gas, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Rahim Rayani, Chief Executive Officer, 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 the best of my
knowledge:

         1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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.


Date:  August 10, 2006
                                          /S/  RAHIM RAYANI
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Rahim Rayani
                                          Chief Executive Officer and President
                                          Chief Financial Officer
#### C. F. BROWN et al., Appellants, v. Raymond W. PACE et al., d/b/a Bluegrass Distributing Co., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 25, 1955.

Buckley & Breckinridge, Leer Buckley, Lexington, for appellant.

Robin Griffin, Lexington, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court, Honorable Joseph J. Bradley, Judge, for $450, with interest awarded appellees.

We have considered the entire record and have found no error prejudicial to appellants’ substantial rights.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
#### Roy A. SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28701.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1956.

*548' No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for- review.

The judgment is affirmed.
November 5, 2015

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 5th day of November, 2015.

10-14-00347-CR	CLINTON DOUGLAS MILLS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 19TH DISTRICT COURT OF McLENNAN COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 2012-1455-C1 – AFFIRMED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment be in all things affirmed, and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6491
<PP&E>                                          207362
<DEPRECIATION>                                   41473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  172380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           103919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         70
<COMMON>                                         10280
<OTHER-SE>                                       68461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    172380
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 10223
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   222180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (10020)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (222607)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (222607)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (222607)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (222607)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1257 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1257

     To require the President to recommend specific reductions in 
nonsecurity discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2011 to offset 
                  the costs of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 2011

  Mr. Bartlett (for himself and Mr. Harris) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the President to recommend specific reductions in 
nonsecurity discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2011 to offset 
                  the costs of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect America from U.S. Military 
Expenses in Libya Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTIONS IN FY2011 NONSECURITY FUNDING TO OFFSET COSTS OF 
              OPERATION ODYSSEY DAWN.

    (a) Submission of Recommendations.--Not later than July 2, 2011, to 
ensure that the cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn does not increase the 
Federal deficit or reduce the capability of the United States Armed 
Forces, the President shall submit to the Congress a list of 
recommendations for specific rescissions of nonsecurity discretionary 
appropriations for fiscal year 2011, for reappropriation to accounts of 
the Department of Defense to replace the amounts obligated for 
Operation Odyssey Dawn for such fiscal year.
    (b) Aggregate Amount of Recommended Rescissions.--The aggregate 
amount of the rescissions recommended under subsection (a) shall be not 
less than the projected cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn for fiscal year 
2011 determined under subsection (c).
    (c) Projection of Cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn.--Not later than 
June 1, 2011, the Secretary of Defense shall prepare and submit to the 
Congress and the President a report containing the projected cost of 
Operation Odyssey Dawn for fiscal year 2011, determined based on the 
cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn through May 15, 2011.
    (d) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``nonsecurity 
discretionary appropriations'' means discretionary appropriations other 
than appropriations made available for an account, program, project, or 
activity of the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, 
or Department of Veterans Affairs.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in each of the Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-2 (No. 333-55874), Form S-8 (No.'s 333-39766, 333-37310,
333-31104,  333-95655, 333-92239, 333-87541, 333-84457, 333-81033 and 333-80135)
of  Imaging  Technologies  Corporation  of  our  report  dated  November 7, 2002
appearing  in  the  June  30,  2002  Annual  Report  of  this  Form  10-K.

/s/  Stonefield  Josephson,  Inc.

STONEFIELD  JOSEPHSON,  INC.
Irvine,  California

November  18,  2002
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 584

To authorize the award of the Purple Heart to persons who were prisoners

of war on or before April 25, 1962.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 21 (legislative day, MARCH 16), 1995

Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr.

WELLSTONE, Mr. FORD, and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To authorize the award of the Purple Heart to persons

who were prisoners of war on or before April 25, 1962.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO AWARD PURPLE HEART.

4 (a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE AWARD.—(1) Subject to

5 paragraph (2), the President may award the Purple Heart

6 to a person described in subsection (b) who was taken

7 prisoner and held captive before April 25, 1962.

8 (2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an

9 award of the Purple Heart under paragraph (1) may be
2

•S 584 IS

1 made only in accordance with the standards in effect on

2 the date of the enactment of this Act for the award of

3 the Purple Heart to a person described in subsection (b)

4 who has been taken prisoner and held captive on or after

5 April 25, 1962.

6 (B) An award of a Purple Heart may not be made

7 under paragraph (1) to any person convicted by a court

8 of competent jurisdiction of rendering assistance to any

9 enemy of the United States.

10 (b) ELIGIBLE PERSONS.—(1) A person referred to in

11 subsection (a) is an individual—

12 (A) who is a member of the Armed Forces of

13 the United States; and

14 (B) who is wounded while being taken prisoner

15 or held captive—

16 (i) in an action against an enemy of the

17 United States;

18 (ii) in military operations involving conflict

19 with an opposing foreign force;

20 (iii) during service with friendly forces en21 gaged in an armed conflict against an opposing

22 armed force in which the United States is not

23 a belligerent party;

24 (iv) as the result of an action of any such

25 enemy or opposing armed force; or
3

•S 584 IS

1 (v) as the result of an act of any foreign

2 hostile force.

3 (2) Any wound of a person referred to in paragraph

4 (1)(A) that is determined by the Secretary of Veterans

5 Affairs to be a service-connected injury arising from being

6 taken prisoner or held captive under a circumstance re7 ferred to in paragraph (1)(B) shall also meet the require8 ment set forth in paragraph (1)(B).

9 (c) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER AUTHORITY TO

10 AWARD THE PURPLE HEART.—The authority under this

11 Act is in addition to any other authority of the President

12 to award the Purple Heart.

Æ
#### Arthur CUELLAR, by next friend, Anthony Cuellar, and Anthony C. Cuellar, Individually, Appellant, v. H. E. BUTT GROCERY COMPANY a/k/a H. E. B. Food Stores, Appellee.

No. 181.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Corpus Christi.

Dec. 8, 1965.

Herschel Bernard, San Antonio, for appellant.

W. N. Woolsey, of Lewright, Dyer & Redford, Corpus Christi, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of ap-pellee. Suit was filed in Bexar County, Texas, in December, 1962, by appellant. The defendant-appellee filed its plea of privilege to be sued in Nueces County. No controverting affidavit was filed and the case was transferred to Nueces County. Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on the 14th day of May, 1964. Certificate of notice was given to the appellant that the motion had been filed and set for hearing. The transcript does not show any answer filed to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, nor does the request by the appellant, designating matters on file to be prepared by the clerk of the trial court, make any such request for plaintiff’s answer, affidavits or depositions in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On the 1st day of June, 1965, summary judgment for defendant was granted. Proper notice of appeal and appeal bond were timely filed by appellant and the transcript was filed in this Court on the 30th day of July, 1965. Although appellant’s brief was due to be filed in this Court on the 29th day of August, 1965, no brief has ever been filed.

Rule 414, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that appellant shall file his brief in the Court of Civil Appeals within thirty days after the filing of the transcript (and statement of facts, if any). The time for filing the initial brief expired on the 29th day of August, 1965. Rule 415, T.R.C.P., provides for the dismissal of appeals for failure to file briefs for want of prosecution. Appellant has not attempted to show any good cause why he has not filed his brief. The failure of appellant to comply with the rules relative to the filing of briefs authorizes the Court to dismiss the appeal. Rules 414 and 415, T.R.C.P.; Sneed v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 330 S.W.2d 472; Franke v. Franke, Tex.Civ.App., 373 S.W.2d 891.

Because of the fact that the appellant has neither filed nor tendered for filing any brief in this' Court and because the appellant has made no effort to show good cause for his failure to file his brief, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1342

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEWIS F. CARTER,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

MARY CARTER; BOBBY CARTER; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF 

TAXATION,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00674-MHL)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 22, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Lewis F. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce R. Ellisen, Randolph Lyons Hutter, Tax Division, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Lewis F. Carter appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the 

United States in its action seeking to foreclose federal tax liens. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Carter, No. 3:16-cv-00674-MHL (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2018). 

We deny Carter’s motions for a stay pending appeal and for a hearing, and 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>
        <S> <C><ARTICLE> 5<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR  THE  PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                   7,473,284
<SECURITIES>                             5,464,753
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                10,000
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        13,166,269
<PP&E>                                     808,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          15,540,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,316,463
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     7,118
<OTHER-SE>                              14,216,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            15,540,111
<SALES>                                    153,482
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           153,482
<CGS>                                      967,884
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           10,072,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           959,060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          24,435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (9,952,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (9,952,072)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                           (9,952,072)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (1.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (1.41)

        

</TABLE>
#### Sally Ann JONES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 4, 1957.

O. J. Cockrell, Jackson, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Breathitt Circuit Court, Ervine Turner, Judge.

We are affirming the judgment m this case imposing a fine of $200 and sentencing the appellant to 120 days in jail for selling whiskey in Local Option Territory because we think there was sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. Furthermore, the variance between the indictment and the proof was not mentioned in the motion and grounds for a new trial.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
|Exhibit 11                                                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                             
|Merchants Bancshares, Inc.                                                                                                                   
|2005 10-K - Computation of Earnings Per Share                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                                             
|The following table presents a reconciliation of the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share for the year ended December 31, 2005
|                                                                                                                                             

|                                        |  | Net                                            |  |           |  | Per Share
|--------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------- |  | --------- |  | ---------
|2005                                    |  | Income                                         |  | Shares    |  | Amount   
|                                       
|                                        |  | (In thousands except share and per share data)
|                                        |  |                                                |  |           |  |          
|Basic Earnings Per Share:               |  |                                                |  |           |  |          
|Income Available to Common              |  |                                                |  |           |  |          
|Shareholders                            |  | $11,902                                        |  | 6,318,524 |  | $1.88    
|Diluted Earnings Per Share:             |  |                                                |  |           |  |          
|Options issued to Executives            |  | --                                             |  | 42,151    |  | --       
|Income Available to Common Shareholders |  |                                                |  |           |  |          
|Plus Assumed Conversions                |  | $11,902                                        |  | 6,360,675 |  | $1.87    

<PAGE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WARREN EARL YERGER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 514 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of March, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-17-00448-CV

IN RE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 19, 2017

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On July 13, 2017, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and “Emergency Motion 

for Immediate Temporary Relief.” The court has considered Relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus and is of the opinion that Relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the 

petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief are denied. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016CI18283, styled Danbury Aerospace, Inc., et al. v. Continental Motors, 

Inc., pending in the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Norma Gonzales presiding.