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

## Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the
filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) by Electro Energy Inc. (the Registrant), I,
Audra J. Mace, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of
        1934, as amended, and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial conditions
        and results of operations of Registrant.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Audra J. Mace
| | -----------------
| |                  

| | Name: Audra J. Mace           
| | ------------------------------
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  March 30, 2005

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

AND EMC CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00473-ADA

DECLARATION OF BRIAN A. ROSENTHAL IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 31-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 2
1

I, Brian A. Rosenthal, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney permitted to practice law before this Court pro hac vice and am 

licensed to practice law in New York and the District of Columbia. I am a partner with the law 

firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and counsel of record for Defendants Dell Technologies

Inc., Dell Inc. and EMC Corporation in the above-captioned action. I have personal knowledge 

and/or am directly informed of the matters stated below and, if called, would testify to them under 

oath.

2. Attached here as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the applicant’s July 17, 

2014 arguments/remarks made in an argument, from the file history of U.S. Patent No. 9,137,144

filed on September 28, 2012. This was retrieved from the United States Patent Office’s website 

(https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) on October 3, 2020.

3. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: October 5, 2020

/s/ Brian A. Rosenthal___ 

Brian A. Rosenthal

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 31-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Harry Gerenstein, Doing Business as Gerry Maintenance, Respondent, *v.*Harry Weiner, Doing Business as Lido Hat Shop, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

May 23, 1957.

*260
      *Adolph I. King*for appellant.

*Franklin Miller*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff, as owner of a business for the servicing of neon signs, entered into two contracts with the defendant whereby, for a stated monthly charge, he agreed to replace defective or broken neon tubes, and also to perform other maintenance services in connection with defendant’s signs. Insofar as these contracts obligated plaintiff to replace parts which he had not manufactured or sold they are contracts of insurance, and are unenforcible since plaintiff was not licensed to do an insurance business. (Insurance Law, §§ 40, 41; cf. *Automobile Ins. Co.*v. *Barondess,*107 Misc. 513; 1 Richards on Insurance [5th ed.], § 7.) Plaintiff’s obligation was not related to the quality or efficiency of an article made or sold by him *(Ollendorff Watch Co.*v. *Pink,*279 N. Y. 32) but was the assumption of a fortuitous risk and constituted *“*doing an insurance business ’ ’ as defined in section 41 of the said statute. .(See 1949 Atty. Gen. 153.) However, inasmuch as the contracts herein were merely *malum prohibitum*plaintiff should not ■be precluded from prosecuting his claims in *quantum meruit.*

The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts and a new trial granted, with $30 costs to defendant to abide the event.

Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
BRANDON B. WILSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-2740

Opinion filed October 3, 2017.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Brandon B. Wilson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

LEWIS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Hennion & Walsh, Inc. 487


Exhibit 4.3



Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated September 10, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 533 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
on Form S-6 (File No. 333-257106) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


September 10, 2021
|   | 1. | I      have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K of      Oragenics, Inc.; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this      report; |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  July 24, 2009 | /s/Brian Bohunicky           |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                           | Brian      Bohunicky         |
|                           | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
From: To: Subject: Date: Chjck Gary R QV CUS) Myldoon Albert COSD Cape Air Fort Leonard Wood (UNCLASSIFIED) Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:10:10 AM 

### Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Mr. Muldoon, 

### ZDIZ

Iam the Airport ManagerforWaynesville-St Robert Regional @ Forney Field and have been since 2003 to present. During 1990-1993 Iwas the Airfield Commander for Forney ArmyAirfield (before Joint-Use). I know the time is coming fora renewal or change ofair carries for EAS Service into Fort Leonard Wood. I have seen Trans World Express, American Eagle, Regions, Great Lakes and now Cape Air. Iwas a little leery ofCape Air's 402 Cessna's due totheir size ofaircraft, but I have been truly impressed by their reliable service they have provided to Fort Leonard Wood. They provide a more diversified flight schedule fortravelers and have increase ridership overthe past twoyears. We have been pulling forthem to break the annual10,000 enplanements here and we think they will eventually reach that goal given the opportunity. From my perspective their air service here has been a marked improvement over the past nine years I have been the Airport Manager. Ifyou would please pass my comments to Mr. DeVany, Iwould greatly appreciate the help.
Ithought it appropriate to pass on my comments, from my perspective, to howCape Air was doing since Isee their activity daily. Ifyou have anyfurther questions of me, please fill free to call or email me.



### v/r Gary R. Chick Chief Airfield Div 573-596-0165**~ary.r.chick.civ@mail.mil** 

### Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
UNITED STATES 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 

 

 

FORM 10-Q 

 

X  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF 

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

 

OR 

 

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

COMMISSION FILE NO. 0-7107 

 

 

SOUTHERN SCOTTISH INNS, INC. 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) 

 

   **LOUISIANA
 **72-0711739**(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)
 **(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

 
**1726 Montreal Circle

Tucker, Georgia 30084

(Address of principal executive offices) 

(Zip Code) 

 
**(770) 938-5966 

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code) 

 
**(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)**
 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes            No

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).     Yes         No 

 

   **CLASS

  **SHARES OUTSTANDING****************
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,950

EX PARTE SCOTTIE DWAYNE HADNOT, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 47,179-A IN THE 30 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM WICHITA COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of one count of

possession of a controlled substance and one count of evading arrest and sentenced to forty years’

and eighteen months’ imprisonment, respectively. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed the

controlled substance conviction. Hadnot v. State, No. 07-10-00296-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jun.

13, 2011) (unpublished). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant of his rights to pursue a pro-se petition for discretionary review.
2

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to notify Applicant

that he had a right to file a pro-se petition for discretionary review The trial court recommends that

relief be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the Seventh Court of Appeals in Cause No. 07-10-

020296-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 47,179-A from the 30 District Court of th

Wichita County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30

days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: January 16, 2013

Do not publish
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS
(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Sterling Bancorp, a New York corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June
30, 2003 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: 8/14/03                       /s/ Louis J. Cappelli
       -------                       ------------------------------------------
                                     Name: Louis J. Cappelli
                                     Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Sterling Bancorp, a New York corporation(the "Company"),
hereby certifies that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June
30, 2003 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: 8/14/03                       /s/ John W. Tietjen
       -------                       -------------------------------------------
                                     Name: John W. Tietjen
                                     Title: Executive Vice President,
                                     Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and are not being
filed as part of the Report.

                                       40
* 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. 98-10051

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN R. DOWARD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF TEXAS,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CV-995-E

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

John R. Doward, federal prisoner # 14709-038, filed an

application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for writ of habeas corpus by a

person in state custody. The district court summarily dismissed

Doward’s § 2254 application as time barred by the one-year

statute of limitations in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act (AEDPA). 

The district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction

to entertain Doward’s § 2254 application. In Pleasant v. Texas,
No. 98-10051

-2-

134 F.3d 1256, 1257 (5th Cir. 1998), we addressed the claim of a

federal prisoner seeking § 2254 relief “because his Texas

conviction was used to enhance the federal sentence for which he

is currently incarcerated.” We cited Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S.

488, 492 (1989), for the proposition “that a petitioner whose

sentence has expired is no longer ‘in custody’ for purposes of

that conviction, even if it was used to enhance his current or

future sentences.” Pleasant, 134 F.3d at 1258. Doward’s state

sentence has expired and he is now in federal custody in Terre

Haute, Indiana, for a conviction from the United States District

Court for New Hampshire. As in Pleasant, the district court did

not have subject matter jurisdiction over the § 2254 application. 

Accordingly, Doward’s motions for a certificate of

appealability (COA) and leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

are GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is hereby

VACATED and the case REMANDED with instructions that it be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

MOTIONS GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
# PRELIMINARY TEC HNICAL SUPPORT

DOCUMENT : ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND CERTAIN

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT:

METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES

MARCH 2011

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc. and Pacifi c Northwest National Laboratory
PER CUR IAM

. 

# Third D istrict Court of Ap peal

State of F lorida Opinion filed April 17, 2024

. Not final until disposition of t imely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23 -17 28 Lower Tribunal No. 08 -14 505

________________ 

### HLHL, P.A., etc. , Appellant,

vs. 

### Fidel Castro Ruz, etc., et al. ,

Appellee s

.

A n Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami -D ade C ounty, Beatric e Butc hko , J udge. The H all L aw F irm, P.A., a nd A dam S. Hall , for appellant. Mark Migdal & Hayden, Desiree F ernandez , a nd J ose M. F errer , f or appellee s Alfredo Villoldo and Gustavo E. Villoldo

.
Before FERNANDEZ , MILLER a nd LOBREE, JJ.2 A ffirmed. Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith , 486 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1986) (“In order to give timely notice of a charging lien an attorney should either file a notice of lien or otherwise pursue the lien in the original action.”); Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Bauc om , 428 So. 2d 1383, 1385 (Fla. 1983); Naftzger v. Elam , 41 So. 3d 944, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ( “ If notice is not given before entry of the final judgment or an order dismissing the case, the trial court loses jurisdiction to enforce a charging lien in th e original action.”); Central Mortg. Co. v. Callahan , 155 So. 3d 373, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ( “[R] eservation of jurisdiction must be specific .” ); Correa v. Christensen , 780 So. 2d 220 , 220 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2001) ( “It is not enough to support the imposition of a charging lien that an attorney has provided his services; the services must, in addition, produce a positive judgment or settlement for the client, since the lien will attach only to the tangible fruits of the services.”); Franklin & Marbin, P.A. v. Mas cola , 711 So. 2d 46, 53 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1998) ( providing that a charging lien proceeding only applies when “identifiable property recovered as a result of the lawyer’s labors

. ”).
NCK PERRY 

GOVXRNOR 

March 10,2009 

Mr. Lawrence E. Starfield 

Acting Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

Dear Mr. Starfield: 

Pursuant to the requirements in Section 107(d)(l)(A) of the federal Clean Air Act, we have 

enclosed the recommendation for designation of areas in Texas with regard to the revised 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for eight-hour ozone of 0.075 parts per million. 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) developed the enclosed 

recommendation, considering currently available, eligible monitoring data for all areas in Texas 

from the 2005-2007 period. The State of Texas recommendation also takes into account the 

2008 data, which will be certified in accordance with EPA requirements. 

The commission understands that EPA plans to utilize the most recent three years of ambient 

monitoring data as the basis for designations. Additionally, 2009 certified data may be available 

for the EPA's consideration in making the designations. TCEQ staff members are available to 

work with you regarding the appropriate data submission. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact TCEQ 

Chairman Buddy Garcia at (512) 239-5515. 

Governor 
State of Texas 

2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard of 0.075 parts per million 

Designation Recommendation 

The following counties, listed by air quality planning area, should be designated 

nonattainment. All the rest of the counties in Texas should be designated 

attainment/unclassifiable. 

Austin-Area 

Travis 

Beaumont-Port Arthur Area 

Hardin 

Jefferson 

Orange 

Dallas-Fort Worth Area 

Collin 

Dallas 

Denton 

Ellis 

Hood 

Johnson 

Kaufman 

Parker 

Rockwall 

Tarrant 

El Paso County with the exception of tribal lands, i.e., Ysleta Del Sur 

Reservation or Trnst Lands 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area 

Brazoria 

Chambers 

Fort Bend 

Galveston 

Harris 

Liberty 

Montgomery 

Waller 

San Antonio Area 

Bexar 

Tyler Area 

Gwg 

Rusk 

Smith
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-633-000]

Take notice that on September 28, 2000, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern), tendered for filing to part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 191. Southern requests that the Commission approve the revised tariff sheet effective November 1, 2000.

Southern states that the filed tariff sheet is being filed to reference the revised reporting requirements in Section 161.3(1)(2) of the Commission's Regulations with respect to marketing affiliates.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26130 Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M