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 Annual Report of Oragenics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian J. Bohunicky,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




A signed
original of this written certification has been provided to the company and will
be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.




Dated
this 31day of March, 2010.




/s/ Brian J. BohunickyBrian
      J. BohunickyChief
      Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,339,475
<SECURITIES>                                 3,088,742
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,175,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                       600
<INVENTORY>                                  6,309,201
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,854,817
<PP&E>                                       4,274,174
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,376,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,841,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          565,374
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       371,807
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,290,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,841,273
<SALES>                                      5,145,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,268,558
<CGS>                                        3,416,585
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,416,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               925,622
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                925,741
<INCOME-TAX>                                   339,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            586,251
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   586,251
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16



</TABLE>
#### Wilfred Fred ZOCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27164.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 10, 1954.

■ William E. Kinnear, Beaumont, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, the jury having assessed the punishment at three days in jail and a $50 fine.

No statement of facts is found in the record and the appeal is predicated upon one bill of exception.

" This bill complains.that while the witness L. O. Bernhagen was ■ testifying for the state a “specimen bottle” was handed to him, the label on which contained the words and figures “Willifred Fred Zoch, D.W.I., 11-7-53, 11:55 p.m. C.H.R. and A.W.M.” (initials).

*623The bill reflects that the witness Bern-hagen testified that the initials' stood for C. H. Rudd and A. W. Mays, Highway Patrolmen ; that Mr. Rudd initialed it and then handed the bottle to him and that he (Bernhagen) wrote on the label “alcohol equals .36 percent L.O.B.”

The bill further reflects that A. W. Mays identified the .bottle and label and, over objection, was permitted to read from the label the writing he had placed there.

The trial court qualified the bill stating that both of the named Patrolmen had previously testified that they had “taken a voluntary specimen” at the time they arrested appellant; had sealed it and placed on it a label containing the words and figures first above mentioned which they initialed; that Officer Mays testified that the exhibit was the same specimen turned over to Officer Rudd.

Because of appellant’s earnest contention that the exhibiting of this bottle to the jury, and the reading of the inscription on the label thereof was so highly prejudicial as to call for reversal, we have deemed i.t proper to set the matter out at some length. As stated, this is the sole ground presented for reversal.

The reading of the inscription on the label of what was apparently a specimen of fluid taken from the body of appellant by the officers and tested for its .alcoholic conr tent, does not appear to us inflammatory or prejudicial.

But in any event, this bill does not purport to set out all of the evidence regarding the specimen bottle and, in fact, does not. show what was in the. bottle.

In the absence of *a*statement of facts, we would not be in a position to appraise the bill. See Lewis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 243 S.W.2d 178. For aught we know-, there may have been evidence at the trial which authorized the admission and exhibition of the “specimen bottle” or which cured the claimed error and removed its harmful effect.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles A. Hinrichs, SeniorVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Charles A.  Hinrichs                           |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Charles A.  Hinrichs                               |
| Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
| November 7, 2007                                   |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. and will beretained by Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8312

CHRISTOPHER GALE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 Respondent – Appellee, 

 and 

JON OZMINT, 

 Respondent. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (9:07-cv-02850-PMD) 

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 26, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Christopher Gale, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Christopher Gale seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because 

the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period 

is “‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of 

Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. 

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Accord Bowles v. Russell, 

551 U.S. 205, ___, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2363-66 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on September 2, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed, at the 

earliest, on October 8, 2008.* Because Gale failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening 

of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Gale leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and we dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

 * See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

2 
3 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Ex parte Paul BELL.

No. 27370.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1954.

■ E. R. Wright, Huntsville, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. '

MORRISON, Judge.

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

Relator is confined by virtue of sentences from the District Courts of Wichita, Palo Pinto, Tarrant and Hutchinson Counties. None of these sentences attempt to cumu-late each other except that from Tarrant County. Relator contends that such cumu-lation is insufficient. It reads as follows:

> “It is further ordered that the punishment under this sentence shall begin when the Judgment and Sentence,in Cause No. 9120, in the District Court of Wichita County, Texas and the Judgment and Sentence in Cause No. 5062, in the District Court of Paio Pinto County, Texas have ceased to operate."

Relator states that the nearest case in point is Ex parte Collier, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 243 S.W.2d 177, but points out that the Collier sentence contained an additional phrase not found in the above, to-wit, “now being served by Don R. Collier".

Relator contends that the order of cumu-lation contained in the Tarrant County sentence makes no reference to the person who was sentenced in said causes and contains no finding that the relator was the same person. He also asserts that to uphold this order would empower a court to cumulate a sentence with another yet to be tried. We may dispose of the last contention by referring to the instant Order which ■ mentions the judgment and sentence and-thereby shows upon its face that such cases had been tried.

The first contention requires further study. In the Collier case, supra, we said:

> • “The reason for this rule is that the sentence is a final judgment and should, be sufficient on its face to .effect its purpose without resort to evidence in aid thereof. It should further convey to the penitentiary- authorities clear and unequivocal orders of the. trial. court so that they may know definitely how long to detain the convict.”

Applying this test to the case at bar, what, evidence would be required to aid this sentence? When the penitentiary authorities received relator with his new sentence frorri Tarrant County they merely added the term of that sentence to the term of years for which-the relator was being held in two’ definitely described sentences from Wichita and Palo Pinto Counties.

No sentence, however wordy, could provide against the contingency that the penitentiary authorities might find it necessary to identify a convict. Such a contingency *531would have to be met by their Identification Bureau.

Referring again to the Collier case, we said:

> "This court has through the years admonished the trial courts to incorporate in their cumulative sentences a full description of the prior proceeding in the interest of accuracy, but in this case-we feel that a recitation of the number of the cause and the court in which the convict was sentenced is sufficient.”

The relief prayed for is denied.
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 September 30,
2004 (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: 11/9/04                       /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 September 30,
2004 (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: 11/9/04                       /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 or as a separate disclosure document.


                                       74
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                             
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Colorado Nonassociated Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Colorado Nonassociated Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 627    | 600    | 1,300  | 1,689 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2,510  | 3,519  | 3,295  | 3,411  | 3,788  | 4,336  | 5,828  | 8,177  | 9,730  | 7,732 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6,768  | 5,316  | 4,694  | 5,804  | 5,064  | 2,525  | 3,484  | 5,277  | 4,296  | 4,297 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,677  | 2,292  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             618
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,616
<INVENTORY>                                     16,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,189
<PP&E>                                          10,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,825
<BONDS>                                         22,266
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,450
<SALES>                                         12,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,894
<CGS>                                            9,609
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,611
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 737
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (63)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (63)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (63)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### SHADDIX v. STATE.

No. 22545.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1943.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1943.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty, appellant was convicted of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exceptions. All matters of procedure appear regular.

• The judgment oí the trial court is affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT**

** **

I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. BankTrust National Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate BackedTrust Certificates, Motorola Debenture-Backed Series 2002-12 Trust****(the “Trust”), certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Kin respect of the Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporationin respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report of theTrust;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, the information in thosereports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight 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 distribution informationrequired to be provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by theTrustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion insuch distribution reports is included in such reports; and

 

4.               I am responsible for reviewing the activitiesperformed by the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreementand based on my knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the Trustee hasfulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

 

 

Date:  March 31,2010

 

 
| /s/ David J. Kolibachuk             |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President |   |

 

----
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

J OSE J UAN SANDO VAL , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-10-00245- CR

Appea l from the 346th District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC# 20100D02656)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Appella n t, J ose J uan Sandoval, appea ls an order deny ing his motion to reduc e bond. Be cause Appellant has not complied with Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e, we dismiss the appe al. Rule 25.2 g overns a defe ndant’s rig ht of appea l in a criminal case . The rule require s the trial court to en t er a cer

tification of the defe ndant’s rig ht of appea l in ever y case in which it enter s a judgme nt of g uilt or other appea lable order

. T E X . R. A P P . P. 25.2(a) (2). We are require d to dismiss the appe al if a cer

tification showing the def endant’ s rig ht of appe al is not part of the r ecor d. T E X . R. A P P . P. 25.2(d). I n this case , the cler

k’s rec ord does not include the cer tification. The Clerk of this Court notified Appellant by letter dated Aug ust 10, 2010, of the Court’s intent to di s m i s s the appea l without further notice unless Appellant reme died the defe ct by filing the require d cer tification within thirty day s. On September 22, 2010, the Clerk sent a second letter to Appellant, ag ain advising him that the appea l would be dismiss ed without further notice unless he provided the cer tification within thirty day s. Appellant did not respond to either letter, and the requ i red cer tification has not beenfiled. Ac cording ly , the appe al is dismis sed.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice

November

17, 2010 Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

. (Do Not Publish)