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

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Image Technology Laboratories, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard L. Feinstein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:


     (3)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (4)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


May 14, 2004                                         /s/ Richard L. Feinstein
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     Richard L. Feinstein
                                                     Chief Financial Officer







<PAGE>
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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 April 15, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 02-30693

_____________________ HEATHER KRISTENE BARNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
SUSAN L. ARMSTRONG; CITY OF BOSSIER; ABC INSURANCE CO.; XYZ INSURANCE CO., Defendants - Appellees.

__________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-164

_________________________________________________________________ Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We affirm for essentially the reasons set out in the good opinion of the district court.

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2042 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to establish a program 

to issue Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business 

Travel Cards, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2042 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Asia-Pacific Economic 

3 Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION BUSINESS 

5 TRAVEL CARDS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than November 11, 

7 2011, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation 

8 with the Secretary of State, shall establish a program 

9 called the ‘‘APEC Business Travel Program’’ to issue 

10 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards 

11 (ABTC) to eligible United States citizen business leaders 

12 and senior United States Government officials actively en13 gaged in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) busi14 ness. 

15 (b) INTEGRATION WITH EXISTING TRAVEL PRO16 GRAMS.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall inte17 grate application procedures for and issuance of ABTC 

18 with other appropriate international registered traveler 

19 programs of the Department of Homeland Security, such 

20 as Global Entry, NEXUS, and SENTRI. 

21 (c) COOPERATION WITH PRIVATE ENTITIES.—In 

22 carrying out this section, the Secretary of Homeland Secu23 rity shall work in conjunction with appropriate private sec24 tor entities to ensure that applicants for ABTC satisfy 

25 ABTC requirements. The Secretary of Homeland Security 
3 

•HR 2042 EH

1 may utilize such entities to enroll and issue ABTC to 

2 qualified applicants. 

3 (d) FEE.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Homeland 

5 Security may impose a fee for the issuance of 

6 ABTC, and may modify such fee from time to time 

7 as the Secretary determines appropriate. 

8 (2) LIMITATION.—The Secretary of Homeland 

9 Security shall ensure that the total amount of any 

10 fees imposed under paragraph (1) in any fiscal year 

11 does not exceed the costs associated with carrying 

12 out this section in such fiscal year. 

13 (3) CREDITING TO APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT.— 

14 Fees collected under paragraph (1) shall be credited 

15 to the appropriate account of the Department of 

16 Homeland Security and are authorized to remain 

17 available until expended. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 25, 

2011. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2042 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 

other purposes. Cooperation Business Travel Cards, and for tablish a program to issue Asia-Pacific Economic consultation with the Secretary of State, to es-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Respondent

v.

ALLEN FEINGOLD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 126 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2016, the Request to Submit Reply is 

GRANTED, and the “Appeal” is DENIED.
AFS-10-216-E May 7, 2010 Exemption No. 6140H Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12416

Mr. Paul W. Railsback Air Transport Association of America, Inc. 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004-1707

Dear Mr. Railsback:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 6140, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 30, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (ATA), for an extension of Exemption No. 6140, as amended. That exemption from § 121.309(f)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows ATA-member airlines to locate the aft megaphone at door 4-left on their Boeing 747 aircraft.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to ATA.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 6140, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 6140, as amended, to August 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 6140, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 6140.

Sincerely,

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6193

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAMON ANGEL GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lyle E. Strom, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-00036-2; 3:05-cv-00025) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 3, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramon Angel Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ramon Angel Garcia seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garcia has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Arlen Ray WHISENAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27797.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 16, 1955.

McCarthy, Rose & Haynes, by George S. McCarthy, Amarillo, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for indecent exposure to a child; the punishment, four years in the penitentiary.

According to the testimony of the prose-cutrix, a twelve-year-old girl, as she and her girl companion passed along the sidewalk appellant, seated in an automobile, exhibited and exposed to them his male organ while holding it in his hand. Previously thereto, he had attempted, by motioning to them, to get the girls to come to the car in which he was seated.

- We entertain no doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

The appellant did not testify, nor did he offer any affirmative defense.

Over appellant’s objection, the state was permitted to prove by the mother of the prosecutrix that when she (the mother) arrived home in something like an hour after the alleged exposure the prosecutrix said to her, “Mother, a man tried to pick us up.”

The state offered the testimony as and in the nature of an outcry.

*941Note is taken of the fact that the prose-cutrix was permitted to testify, without objection, as follows:

> “I called the police and told them a man tried to pick us up, and I described him, and told what the car license was.”

It appears that proof of the same fact to which appellant was objecting had been introduced without objection from another source, rendering the objection without merit. Moreover, what the prosecutrix told her mother did not tend to show appellant guilty of the offense charged. Prose-cutrix did not say, in that connection, that he exposed his person to her, which was the offense and only offense for which he was upon trial.

We are unable to reach the conclusion that reversible error is reflected.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Huayang International
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, 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.

/s/ Gao Wanjun
Gao Wanjun
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00467-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Pedro J. ARCINIEGA,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-10713

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellee Pedro J. Arciniega recover his costs of the appeal 

from appellant City of San Antonio.

SIGNED January 15, 2020.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
March/20,2016

Mr. Alex Hernandez/ Flyboy drones 400 Santa Cruz Dr. unit 8 Bisbee Az, 85603 Amendment to Regulatory Docket Exemption No. 14887 Regulatory Docket No. FAA – 2015 – 5285. Approved February 18, 2016 I Alex Hernandez/ Flyboy drones request allowance to amend our Exemption No. 14887 include the following aircrafts that .Will conduct commercial operations of UAS meeting or exceeding all operations all operation and safety requirements per section 333. Su ch commercial operations include the approved unmanned aerial systems (UAS) make/model under section 333 Attached to this document) and future Approved UAS as listed on the approved unmanned aerial system (UAS) make/ model under section 333. The list of ua s previously approved by the secretary of transportation under section 333 of 2012 FAA modernization reformat..

In addition Alex Hernandez known as Flyboy drones is also requesting allowance to amend to our exemption No. 14887 Regulatory Docket No. FAA – 2015 – 5285. Approved February 18, 2016 to add real estate, advertising, industrial sites, construction sites, agriculture, farming, and flight demonstrations to increase public knowledge, building inspections, site surveys, aerial mapping, special eve nts, geological surveying, environmental studies, outdoor recreational facilities, and landscapes, search and rescue operations
**Exhibit
      32**





**Section
      1350 Certifications**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of IsoRay, Inc., a Minnesota
      corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:




To
      my
      knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
      ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      September 29, 2008




/s/
                Dwight BabcockDwight
                BabcockInterim
                Chief Executive Officer





Dated:
      September 29, 2008





/s/
                Jonathan R. HuntJonathan
                R. HuntChief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit
23
















Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-128202 and No. 333-134249 on Forms S-8 and the Registration Statement No.
333-146121 and No. 333-157631 on Forms S-3 of Parke Bancorp, Inc. of our
report, dated March 24, 2010, relating to our audit of the 2009 consolidated
financial statements of Parke Bancorp, Inc., appearing in the Annual Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Parke
Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.

















Blue
Bell, Pennsylvania


March 24,
2010


McGladrey
& Pullen, LLP is a member firm of RSM International –
 an
affiliation of separate and independent legal entities.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7310
RICHARD LAMAR FENSTERMACHER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. R. GUILLORY, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-93-905-R) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Lamar Fenstermacher, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Fenstermacher v. Guillory , No. CA-93-905-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 9, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 6, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50888 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JULIAN JAVIER RODRIGUEZ-GARDEA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-1200-1-H

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Julian Javier Rodriguez-Gardea (“Rodriguez”) appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. He argues that the district court erred by not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove venue in the Western District of Texas.No. 02-50888 -2- Rodriguez failed to timely raise a venue objection.
See United States v. Carreon-Palacio , 267 F.3d 381, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2001). Thus, he did not preserve the issue for appellate review. This appeal lacks merit and borders on frivolity. Accordingly, Rodriguez’s attorney is cautioned against bringing such appeals in the future. We remind him of his obligations to refrain from raising frivolous issues on appeal and to avail himself of the procedures outlined in Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) for disposing of cases that present no nonfrivolous issues. See United States v. Humphrey , 7 F.3d 1186, 1191 (5th Cir. 1993). We also admonish him that all counsel are subject to sanctions for bringing frivolous appeals. See United States v. Burleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994). Because Rodriguez failed to preserve the sole issue raised on appeal, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1


                                IDI Global, Inc.

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officers of IDI Global, Inc. (the "Company") certify
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

1.       the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter
         ended September 30, 2004, 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 Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



Date: August 12, 2005        /s/ Kevin R. Griffith
                             Kevin R. Griffith
                             Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 12, 2005        /s/ Steven D. Weatherly
                             Steven D. Weatherly
                             Principal Financial Officer
VIA EMAIL UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D

.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
September 15, 2014 Subject: Cancellation ofPHMB product-specific DCI issued July 9, 2014
Dear Registrant: I am writing to inform youthat EPA has cancelledthe following DataCall-in (DCI) that was issued onJuly 9, 2014 as part ofthe Poly (hexamethylenebiguanides) hydrochloride (PHMB) reregistration (Case# 3122): PDCI-111801-30511. This letter also serves as notice that EPA intends to reissue the appropriate datarequirements under PDCI-111801-35037. All requirements associated with PDCI-111801-30511 have been cancelled and no additional action is required under that data call-in. The Agency cancelled the DCI because, due to an internal processing error, the original list ofdatarequirements was incomplete. All PHMB registrants will receive the new DCI electronically viaEmail along with instructions for complying with the DCI requirements. This letter will be placed in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0305 at regulations.gov as part ofthe public record and you are encouraged to retain a copy for your records. You do not need to respond to this letter. Ifyou have chemical-specific questions orneedassistance responding to the new DCI, please contact the chemical review manager (CRM) identified in the DCI.



# c-Y'cX~ Susan Lewis, Director Antimicrobials Division Office ofPesticide Programs
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1400 

CAF 12-00012 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF RONALD DAVID RAGIN, III, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

V

 

HERMAN DORSEY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.)

 

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

DAVID A. SHAPIRO, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

MARY ANNE CONNELL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO, FOR AALIYAH R. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Rosalie

Bailey, J.), entered October 24, 2011. The order dismissed the

petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is 

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Matter of Ragin v Dorsey ([appeal No. 1]

___ AD3d ___ [Dec. 28, 2012]).

Entered: December 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the application of our report dated January 9, 2003 included in this Form 10-K of 4-D Neuroimaging,
relating to their consolidated financial statements and schedule for the year ended September 30, 2002, and previously filed Form S-8 No. 33-60743,
No. 33-61057, No. 33-32260, No. 33-33179, No. 33-68136, No. 333-54322 and
No. 333-90450.

|                                                              |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                              |  | 
|                                                              |  | 
|                                                              |  | 
|/s/SWENSON ADVISORS LLPSan Diego, California
January 13, 2003 |  | 

---

QuickLinks