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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection withthe annual report on Form 10-K of Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc.(the “Company”) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”),I, R. Richard Wieland II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to the extent applicable; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

|        | Date: March 15, 2006                   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ R. RICHARD WIELAND II                   |
|   | R. Richard Wieland II                       |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer*                   |
|   | ADVANCED LIFE SCIENCES  HOLDINGS, INC. |

 

----
EXHIBIT 31

                               10-K CERTIFICATION

                                  Certification

            1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of GreenPoint
Mortgage Funding Trust 2005-HE1;

            2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

            3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing , or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

            4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement
included in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance
with the terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and except
as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
the servicing agreement; and

            5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or
similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company.

                                    By:    /s/ Robert McGinnis
                                           ------------------------------
                                    Name:  Robert McGinnis
                                    Title: President
                                    Date:  March 30, 2006
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, William J. Fox, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K,and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reportsfiled in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual reportof Lehman ABS Corporation, on behalf of Corporate Backed Trust Certificates,News America Debenture-Backed Series 2002-9 Trust****(the“Trust”);

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, the information inthese reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the distributionor servicing information required to be provided to the Depositor by theTrustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusionin these reports is included in these reports; and

 

4.               I am responsible for reviewing theactivities performed by the Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling andservicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annualcompliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its obligations underthat agreement.

 

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National Association, asTrustee.

 
| Date:  March 31,  2010 |                                                         |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |                                                         |
|                        |                                                         |   |
| By:                         | /s/  William J. Fox                                          |   |
|                        | Name:  William J. Fox                                        |   |
|                        | Title:  Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President |   |

 

----
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DROPBOX, INC, 

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-00251-ADA

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DROPBOX, INC., 

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 6:21-cv-758-ADA

NOTICE OF AGREED EXTENSION

Dropbox, Inc. and Motion Offense, LLC hereby notify this Court that the parties have 

agreed to extend the deadline for Dropbox, Inc. to file its motion regarding its proposed bill of 

costs pursuant to Local Rule CV-54(a)(3)(B) to November 14, 2024. The agreed extension will 

not change the date of a hearing, trial or other Court event, and all other deadlines will remain in 

effect.

October 29, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gregory H. Lantier

Kelly Ransom

Texas State Bar No. 24109427

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP

303 Colorado, Suite 2000

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel: (512) 495-6400

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 449 Filed 10/29/24 Page 1 of 3
2

Kelly.ransom@kellyhart.com

Gregory H. Lantier (pro hac vice)

Amanda L. Major (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 

DORR LLP

2100 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC 20037

Tel: (202) 663-6327

Tel: (202) 663-6304

gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com

amanda.major@wilmerhale.com

Liv Herriot (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 

DORR LLP

2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400

Palo Alto, California 94306

Tel: (650) 858-6138

liv.herriot@wilmerhale.com

Rauvin A. Johl (pro hac vice)

Makenzi G. Herbst (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 

DORR LLP

60 State Street

Boston, MA 02109 

Tel: (617) 526-6171

Tel: (617) 526-6104

Tel: (617) 526-6109

rauvin.johl@wilmerhale.com

makenzi.herbst@wilmerhale.com

Harry L. Gillam, Jr.

Texas State Bar No. 07921800

GILLAM & SMITH, L.L.P.

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, Texas 75670

Tel: (903) 934-8450

Fax: (903) 934-9257

gil@gillamsmithlaw.com

Attorneys for Dropbox, Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 449 Filed 10/29/24 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing 

document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on October 29, 2024.

/s/ Kelly Ransom

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 449 Filed 10/29/24 Page 3 of 3
|                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                                       
|View History:                                                                                              
|                                                                                                           
|Louisiana Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                           
|Louisiana Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 539    | 423    | 591    | 559    | 912    | 187    | 449    | 2,307  | 1,067  | 114   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 658    | 5,528  | 337    | 1,053  | 2,461  | 1,639  | 583    | 393    | 2,289  | 1,612 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,062  | 1,824  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

APPLIANCE COMPUTING III, INC. §

d/b/a SUREFIELD §

 §

Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00376

 §

v. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 §

REDFIN CORPORATION, §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

This Court, having considered Defendant Redfin Corporation’s Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (the “Motion”), hereby GRANTS the Motion and 

ORDERS the following:

The deadline for Defendant Redfin Corporation to answer or otherwise respond to the 

Complaint is extended to June 25, 2020.

SIGNED this _______ day of June, 2020.

_________________________________

HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 14-1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Strobert, Appellant.

Judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), rendered June 9, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and *308sentencing defendant, as a predicate felony offender, to concurrent terms of *AVi*to 9 years in prison, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree on evidence that undercover officers observed him selling heroin to a third person, argues on appeal that the court’s charge to the jury, wherein the court charged on defendant’s election not to testify but refused to instruct that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not establish guilt, constituted error requiring a new trial.

While the court seemingly violated CPL 300.10 (2) by instructing the jury concerning defendant’s failure to testify in the absence of a request for such an instruction from defense counsel, any error, if any, should be viewed as harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence and the fact that defense counsel on summation commented on defendant’s failure to testify. *(See, People v Vereen,*45 NY2d 856; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237.) Similarly, the court’s refusal to charge that defendant’s mere presence at the scene of the crime, without more, is not sufficient to find defendant guilty was not error; defendant was observed by the police possessing the drugs and passing the drugs to a buyer in exchange for cash, and no issue of accessorial liability, the usual predicate for such a charge, was presented at trial. Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
ACTIO N 

SlO-l 10124-007 

Pettiford, Marie (OST) CONTROL NO 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

david@vikingtrvl.net 

Friday, January 21, 2011 10:43 PM 

LaHood, Ray(OST) 

Kurland, Susan (OST); Devany, Dennis (OST); 

Sean.parnell@alaska.gov; Marc.luiken@alaska.gov-commissioner 

Support of essential air service that Alaska Air provides - Docket 

OST-1998-489g 

en o-i 

VIKING TRAVEL, INC. www.AlaskaFerrv.com 

David Berg, President Phones: 800.327.2571 

101 N. Nordic Drive 907.772.3818 

P.O. Box 787 Fax: 907.772.3940 

Petersburg AK 99833 E-Mail: david(S).AIaskaferrv.com 

January 21, 2011 

The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re; Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova, Gustavus. Petersburg. 

Wranqell. and Yakutat. Alaska. Docket OST-1998-4899 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

This letter is to express our strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to continue to provide 

essential air service to our community. 

Alaska's current pattern of service - using jet aircraft - meets crucial needs that would be difficult, if 

not impossible, to meet with any other type of service or aircraft type: 

Alaska's service connects Southeast Alaska passengers to our nearest major gateways, with direct 

flights to Anchorage or Seattle. From these hubs, our community can access the airline's extensive 

route system and benefit from its marketing relationships with other carriers. The 737-400 

combination ("combi") passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Airtines proposes to continue using 

on this route, provides freight, mail and cargo capacity that a non-jet carrier simply cannot provide. 

Further, the 737-400 combi aircraft is equipped with unique technology, which increases the reliability 

of our service during inclement weather. In sum, Alaska's jet service is critical to the economic well 

being of our community. 

For these reasons, we respectfully urge DOT to select Alaska Airlines to continue to provide essential 

air service to Southeast Alaska, as the airline has successfully done for more than thirty years. 
Sincerely, 

Viking Travel. Inc. 

David Berg, President 

cc: Susan Kuriand, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 

Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

The Honorable Sean Parnell, Governor, State of Alaska 

Marc A. Luiken, Commissioner, Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities
N OTE : T his order is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

KIM EDWARD LAUBE

, Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

FURMINATOR, INC.

, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

201 1- 1241

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in N o. 1 0- CV

- 7328 , Judge
Ronald S.W. Lew

.

______________________

O R D E R

Having received no objection to this court’s July 30, 2013 order,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. Case: 11-1241 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 08/14/2013KIM LAUBE V

. FURMINATOR

, INC

. 2

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O'Toole
Daniel E. O'Toole
Clerk

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 14, 2013

s21 Case: 11-1241 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 08/14/2013
* 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. 01-51245 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAVIER MARTINEZ-ULLOA, also known as Javier Martinez-Zulloa, also known as Javier Martinez-Venezuela, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-825-1

-------------------- June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Javier Martinez-Ulloa appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction of being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Martinez-Ulloa complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior removal following an aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the sentencingNo. 01-51245 -2- provision violates the Due Process Clause. Alternatively, Martinez-Ulloa contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
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. Martinez-Ulloa acknowledges that his arguments are 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 arguments 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), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). 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 the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4800 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain single serve and full 

pot coffee makers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain single 

serve and full pot coffee makers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SINGLE SERVE AND FULL POT COF4 FEE MAKERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Combination single serve 

and full pot automatic drip 

coffee makers (provided for 

in subheading 8516.71.00) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4800 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
^ 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Drake Aerial Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Air America 

Aerial Ads and James Miller 

Complainant, 

City of Cleveland 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-09-02 

"T;.: 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

Pursuant to 14 CFR Section 16.11(a), the Director does hereby extend the date thaCthe § 

Director's initial determination will be rendered, in the above referenced case, to on or 

before February 19,2010. 

An extension of time is essential for a fair and complete hearing of the matter before the 

agency. 

^c^f^ ^ FEB - 2 2C10 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Field Operations 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February ^ ,2010.1 caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid), a true copy of the foregoing document 

addressed to: 

Rebecca E. Dupuis 

Nathan A. Hall 

Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP 

North Courthouse Square 

1000 Jackson Street 

Toledo, OH 43604 

Counsel for Complainant 

Edward W. Sauer 

Charles F. Donley, II 

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. 

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Robert J. Triozzi 

City of Cleveland Department of Law 

601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 

Cleveland, OH 44114 

Counsel for Respondent 

Hand Delivered to: 

Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

Arine Torgerson 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Field Operations
#### Ex parte MEADOWS.

No. 25589.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 31, 1951.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus brought by relator Fred A. Meadows, seeking his release from the Texas Prison System.

The record shows that relator was on March 14, 1945, in Cause No. 15875, in the District Court of Jefferson County, sentenced to serve a term of not less than two nor more than ten years. Relator was given credit by the trial court for time spent in jail so that such sentence began to run on August 17, 1944.

On the same day, to wit, March 14, 1945, in Cause No. 15869, in the same Court, relator was sentenced to serve a term of not less than two nor more than ten years. This sentence contains the following order: “And it appearing to the Court that the defendant was convicted and sentenced in Cause No. 15875, for a term of ten years, it is the further order of the Court that the sentence in this cause be suspended until sentence in Cause No. 15875 ceases to operate.”

In Ex parte Collier, Tex.Crim.App., 243 S.W.2d 177, we recently had an occasion to-discuss our prior opinions dealing with this, subject to which reference is here made.

Having concluded that the above order is sufficient to cumulate the sentences, the relief prayed for is denied.