alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 99-11084

Summary Calendar

SYDNEY ANN STUART,

formerly known as

Sydney Ann Howell,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

L.C. HAMMOND; L. MOSES,

# 2302,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CV-197-D

-------------------- June 2, 2000

Before JONES, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sydney Ann Stuart, formerly known as Sydney Ann Howell,

argues that the district court erred in granting the defendant

police officers’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing her 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that she had been arrested based

on an invalidly issued warrant and without probable cause.

Our review of the record reflects that Stuart did not

demonstrate that the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant, which

was prepared by Officer Hammond based on information discovered byNo. 99-11084

-2-

Officer Moses during his investigation, sta ted a deliberate

falsehood or was prepared wit h reckless disregard for the truth.

See Hale v. Fish

, 899 F.2d 390, 400 n.3 (5th Cir. 1990). The error

contained in the affidavit with respect to the date of the offense

was cle arly the result of negligence. Mere negligence is

insufficient to support a constitutional violation. S ee Sanders v.

English , 950 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th Cir. 1992).

Further, the totality of the circumst ances showed that

the information in the affidavit was based on a reliable source who

had provided Officer Moses with truthful information in the past.

See Illinois v. Gates

, 462 U.S. 2 13, 238 (1983). Stuart did not

come forth with any evidence to dispute the pharmacist’s assertion

that the doctor’s office had denied that the doctor had refilled

Stuart’s prescription. The complaint filed by the pharmacy was

sufficient to provide a substantial basis for concluding that

probable cause existed for Stuart’s arrest for fraudulently

obtaining a prescription for a controlled substance. S ee Jones v.

United States , 362 U.S. 257, 269 (1960).

Because Stuart failed to demonstrate that her arrest

arose out of a violation of her constitutional rights, the district

court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for a summary

judgement.

AFFIRMED

.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Network Engines, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,Douglas G. Bryant, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  August 9, 2010 | /s/ Douglas G. Bryant                               |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                        | **Douglas G. Bryant*****Chief Financial  Officer*** |

 

----
Commodity 2006 Pounds 

Applied

2007 Pounds 

Applied

2008 Pounds 

Applied

ALFALFA (FORAGE - FODDER) (ALFALFA HAY) 6 2 3

ALMOND 1788 1462 1191

APPLE 17 25 27

APRICOT 4 3 3

BARLEY (FORAGE - FODDER) 13 20 60

BARLEY, GENERAL 68 32 424

BEANS, DRIED-TYPE 19 39 16

BEANS, SUCCULENT (OTHER THAN LIMA) 8 6

BERMUDAGRASS (FORAGE - FODDER) 34 28 28

BLUEBERRY 14 14 11

CHERRY 140 201 100

CORN (FORAGE - FODDER) 587 535 477

CORN, FIELD, DENT (GRAIN CROP) 22

CORN, HUMAN CONSUMPTION 55 91 129

COTTON, GENERAL 1157 564 348

FORAGE - FODDER GRASSES (ALL OR UNSPEC) (HA 38 41 88

GARBANZOS (INCLUDING CHICK PEAS) 6

GRAPEFRUIT 15 12 5

GRAPES 145 190 224

GRAPES, WINE 263 367 727

KIWI FRUIT 4 1 1

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 462 349 376

LEMON 8 12 8

NECTARINE 34 28 31

N-OUTDR CONTAINER/FLD GRWN PLANTS 12 10 12

OATS (FORAGE - FODDER) 1341 1270 1567

OATS, GENERAL 228 229 296

OLIVE (ALL OR UNSPEC) 8 11 34

ORANGE (ALL OR UNSPEC) 181 175 145

ORNAMENTAL TURF (ALL OR UNSPEC) 33 33 34

PASTURES (ALL OR UNSPEC) 3 6 23

PEACH 90 79 84

PEAR 27 28 42

PEPPERS (FRUITING VEGETABLE), (BELL,CHILI, ETC 13 3

PISTACHIO (PISTACHE NUT) 128 225 240

PLUM (INCLUDES WILD PLUMS FOR HUMAN CONSU 54 136 43

POMEGRANATE (MISCELLANEOUS FRUIT) 14 399 186

POTATO (WHITE, IRISH, RED, RUSSET) 3 26 56

PRUNE 52 37 32

PUMPKIN 13 10

RANGELAND (ALL OR UNSPEC) 2 5

RASPBERRY (ALL OR UNSPEC) 9

RICE (ALL OR UNSPEC) 5358 2007 2091

Carfentrazone-ethyl (128712) Cal. DPR Usage Data 

Publicly available data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CADPR) was used to produce the 

following table outlining the pounds of Carfentrazone-ethyl used in California over the three most recent years 

available (2006 - 2008). 
RICE, WILD (GRAIN CROP) 301 591 824

RIGHTS OF WAY 49 18 132

RYE (ALL OR UNSPEC) 2 10

RYEGRASS, PERENNIAL (FORAGE - FODDER) 30 31

SOIL APPLICATION, PREPLANT-OUTDOOR (SEEDBE 154 69 92

SORGHUM (FORAGE - FODDER) (SORGO, ETC.) 7 15 109

SORGHUM/MILO GENERAL 27 18 12

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 1 2 3

SUDANGRASS (FORAGE - FODDER) (SORGHUM SUDANESE) 5 10

SUGARBEET, GENERAL 2 2

SUNFLOWER, GENERAL 3 8

TANGELO 10 18 7

TANGERINE (MANDARIN, SATSUMA, MURCOTT, ETC 29 70 34

TOMATO 28 1 16

TOMATOES, FOR PROCESSING/CANNING 90 68 105

TRITICALE (GRAIN CROP) 7 22 37

UNCULTIVATED AGRICULTURAL AREAS (ALL OR UN 151 80 120

WALNUT (ENGLISH WALNUT, PERSIAN WALNUT) 292 256 226

WHEAT (FORAGE - FODDER) 1267 1236 1446

WHEAT, GENERAL 784 704 1122

Chemical Total 15612 11,928 13553

Date Prepared: 05/26/10

Cal DPR Data: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm

Empty cells indicate no available usage.
#### Ex parte C. W. PHARES.

No. 28239.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 14, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Joe L. Cox, Dist. Atty., Plainview, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*951WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant, having waived examining trial on a murder charge, was remanded to jail in default of bond fixed by the magistrate at $25,000. He sought and was granted writ of habeas corpus and at the hearing the district judge reduced the amount of his bond to $12,500, but declined to order his release and appellant gave notice of appeal to this court.

It now appears that appellant has entered into bond in the reduced amount and has /been released from custody.

The question raised has become moot. Ex parte Spivey, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 578, 165 S.W.2d 111.

The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 99.1





PVH Corp. Declares Quarterly Cash Dividend








NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)— May 1, 2024 - - PVH Corp. [NYSE:PVH], announced the Board of Directors of PVH Corp. declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.0375 per share payable on June 26, 2024 to stockholders of record on June 5, 2024.








About PVH Corp.





PVH is one of the world's largest fashion companies, connecting with consumers in over 40 countries. Our global iconic brands include Calvin Klein and TOMMY HILFIGER . Our 140-year history is built on the strength of our brands, our team, and our commitment to drive fashion forward for good. That's the Power of Us. That's the Power of PVH.





Follow us on Facebook , Instagram , X and LinkedIn .








Contact:


Mark D. Fischer


Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary


(212) 381-3509
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1757 

To make permanent the estate tax provisions enacted as part of the Tax 

Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act 

of 2010. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2011 

Ms. BERKLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To make permanent the estate tax provisions enacted as 

part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ESTATE TAX PROVISIONS OF TAX RELIEF, UN4 EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REAUTHORIZA5 TION, AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2010 MADE 

6 PERMANENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Tax Relief, Unem8 ployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1757 IH

1 Act of 2010 is amended by striking section 304 (relating 

2 to application of EGTRRA sunset to this title). 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 901 of the 

4 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

5 2001 is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘apply—’’ and 

7 all that follows and inserting ‘‘to taxable, plan, or 

8 limitation years beginning after December 31, 

9 2012’’, and 

10 (2) in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘years, estates, 

11 gifts, and transfers’’ and inserting ‘‘years’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2087 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2012 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in 

the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia. 

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2087 RFS

1 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS. 

2 (a) REMOVAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

3 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 

4 shall execute such instruments as may be necessary to re5 move all deed restrictions described in subsection (b) relat6 ing to the parcel of land described in subsection (c). 

7 (b) DEED RESTRICTIONS.—The deed restrictions re8 ferred to in subsection (a) are those restrictions, including 

9 easements, exceptions, reservations, terms, conditions, and 

10 covenants described in Quitclaim Deed No. 17808A from 

11 the United States to Accomack County, Virginia, executed 

12 on December 20, 1976, and recorded among the real es13 tate records of Accomack County, Virginia, by the Clerk 

14 of the Circuit Court, on pages 292 through 296 of Deed 

15 Book 381. 

16 (c) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcel of land re17 ferred to in subsection (a) consists of approximately 31.6 

18 acres situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, 

19 Virginia, more particularly described in the metes and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2087 RFS

1 bounds description recorded on page 292 of the quitclaim 

2 deed described in subsection (b). 

Passed the House of Representatives March 20, 

2012. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 15.2

                        [Letterhead of Genland Law Firm]

June 12, 2008

China Techfaith Wireless Communication Technology Limited Tower D2, IT Park,
Electronic Town
No.10 A, Jiu Xian Qiao North Road
Chao Yang District
Beijing, China 100015
People's Republic of China

Dear Sirs,

Re: China Techfaith Wireless Communication Technology Limited (the "Company")

We consent to the reference to our firm under the headings "Risk Factors" and
"Regulation," insofar as they purport to describe the provisions of PRC laws and
regulations, in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (the "Annual Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC"). We also consent to the filing with the SEC of this
consent letter as an exhibit to the Annual Report.

Yours faithfully,


                                        /s/ Genland Law Firm
                                        Genland Law Firm
Michael Bohannan #1841746

9601 Spur 591

Amarillo, Texas 79107-9606

January 23, 2015

s^«4a-o?v

Clerk of the Court

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2308

Re: Filing Questions

Dear Clerk:

Back in November 25, 2014, I sent you correspondence seeking

the Court's (or your's) instruction as to how I should comply

with the Court's rules. I am enclosing another copy of that

correspondence. I have not heard anything back from you or the

Court as to it..

I am enclosing an additional copy of this letter for file

stamping to verify receipt. Please return it to me in the

postpaid envelope provided.

Thank you for your time and help.

COURT OFCRIMAL APPEALS

JAN 26 2015

Abel Acosta, CteirH

cc: file

Sincerely,

Michael W. Bohannan

806-381-7080
Michael Bohannan #1841746

9601 Spur 591

Amarilio, Texas 79107-9606

January 23, 2015

Clerk of the Court

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

*
Michael Bohannan #1841746

9601 Spur 591

Amarilio, Texas 79107-9606

November 25, 2014

Clerk of the Court

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2308

Re: Filing Questions

Dear Clerk:

Please find this letter seeking the Court's (or your)

instruction as to how I should comply with the Court's Rules when

that time comes. I am currently preparing a rehearing motion in

a criminal appeal. Odds are pretty great I will be presenting

a PDR soon.

I understand TRAP 68.11 to say that I must provide the Court,

the person who represented the State in the appellate court, and

the state's prosecutor (I am guessing that is the Attorney General)

a copy of the PDR with the appellate court's opinion(s).

My second.area of confusion is I am imprisoned in the TDCJ.

and they will not make copies of legal papers available (free or

paid). They tell us we can contact the State Law Library in ••--—---_

Austin, but they only have the records for the 2nd Dist. Court of

Appeals, not the one I am in. If I can find someone to make

copies for me, I have to mail my only copy of the opinions

(hoping they do not get lost), wait for them to copy and return

them (hoping they do not get lost), and then wart for. the prison

officials to deliver them to me (hoping they do not get "lost").

And all this time- i"~do not have the documents to use in preparing

nr-y pd.r .. x am"sure you get many many-PDR's from TDCJ- prisoners

who are filing pro se. How are they complying with TRAP 68.4(i)?

My third problem is that oral arguments were held in the
appellate court. How does one go about obtaining a transcript

of those oral arguments to use in the preparation of my PDR?

How will my indigence affect this?

Thank you for providing me any help with my concerns about

the copies of the appellate opinion(s), about who, specifically,

service is to be made upon, and the oral argument transcript.

Sorry to be such a bother.

• Respectfully,

cc: file

Michael W. Bohannan

806-381-7080

- 2 -

#1841746
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2115 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the 

numerical limitations on immigrant visas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2011 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. AUSTRIA, Ms. HANABUSA, Ms. CHU, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Mr. HONDA, and Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans 

from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Filipino Veterans of 

5 World War II Family Reunification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM IMMIGRANT VISA LIMIT. 

7 Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the 

9 end the following: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2115 IH

1 ‘‘(F) Aliens who are eligible for an immigrant 

2 visa under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 203(a) 

3 and who have a parent who was naturalized pursu4 ant to section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990 

5 (8 U.S.C. 1440 note).’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
* 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

October 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20015

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE VICTOR TORRES, also known as

Jose Victor Torres-Valles, also known as

Jose Victor Torres-Baez, also known as

Heriberto Ochoa-Gomez, also known as

Jose Feliciano Perez-Mesa,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-127-ALL

--------------------

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Victor Torres appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the

United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Torres argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing

Guidelines by characterizing his state felony convictions for

possession of a controlled substance as aggravated felonies for

purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Torres’s argument is
No. 06-20015

-2-

unavailing in light of circuit precedent. See United States v.

Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Torres

argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome

v. United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943). Having preceded

Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome is not “an intervening Supreme Court case

explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” See

United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).

Torres also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The

Government argues that Torres lacks standing to bring a facial

challenge to the constitutionality of § 1326(b).

Because Torres may be entitled to a lesser sentence if his

constitutional challenge were successful, he has standing. See

Henderson v. Stalder, 287 F.3d 374, 380 (5th Cir. 2002). Torres

cannot succeed on his constitutional challenge, however, because

his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Torres contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis

that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v.

Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Torres properly concedes that his

argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit
No. 06-20015

-3-

precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further

review.

AFFIRMED.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51422

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR EFRAIN NAVARETTE-CANO, also known

as Hector Navarrette, also known as Hector Cano,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-1124-ALL-DB

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Hector Efrain Navarette-Cano appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Navarette-Cano contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-51422

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Navarette-Cano maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Navarette-Cano acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
```

Exhibit 99.3

                            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 Form 10-QSB Quarterly Report of Huayang International
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        o   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        o   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

November 19, 2002,
By: /s/ Kitty Zhao
Kitty Zhao, Principal Accounting Officer
```
**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 Network Engines, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Douglas G. Bryant, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

 
| Dated: August 9, 2007 |       | /s/ Douglas G.  Bryant         |
|-----------------------|------------|--------------------------------|
|                  | ** ** | **Douglas  G. Bryant**         |
|                  | ** ** | ***Chief  Financial Officer*** |

 

----