alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed February 17, 2017.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-17-00055-CR

No. 05-17-00056-CR

TIMMIE LEE JENNINGS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F15-76430-R & F15-76431-R

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Myers, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Brown

Timme Lee Jennings pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child 

younger than fourteen years of age. Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court sentenced 

appellant to twenty years’ imprisonment in each case. Appellant waived his right to appeal as 

part of the agreements. See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 

The trial court certified both that appellant has no right to appeal the plea bargains and that he 

waived his right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

By letter dated January 25, 2017, we questioned our jurisdiction in light of the above 

facts. Appellant conceded he waived his right to appeal, and the State agreed.
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2

170055F.U05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TIMMIE LEE JENNINGS, Appellant

No. 05-17-00055-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-76430-R.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown, Justices 

Bridges and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 17th day of February, 2017.
–4–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TIMMIE LEE JENNINGS, Appellant

No. 05-17-00056-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-76431-R.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown, Justices 

Bridges and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 17th day of February, 2017.
Page 1 of 2 

16660087.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

LANCE BILBERRY § 

§ 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

vs. §

§ 

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00470

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 

Defendants.

§ 

§ 

§ 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) advises the 

Court that the Parties have resolved all claims asserted in this case and accordingly files this 

Notice of Settlement. Chase anticipates submitting to the Court within thirty (30) days a Joint 

Stipulation of Dismissal disposing of all claims in this matter with prejudice. Chase requests that 

the Court retain this matter on its docket for thirty (30) days pending execution of the settlement 

documents. 

Case 1:20-cv-00470-RP Document 32 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 2
16660087.1 

Notice of Settlement Page 2 of 2 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Gregg D. Stevens 

GREGG D. STEVENS

State Bar No. 19182500 

FRANK J. CATALANO

State Bar No. 24052991 

MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC 

6688 N. Central Expressway, Suite 400

Dallas, Texas 75206 

Telephone: (214) 445-2406 

Facsimile: (214) 445-2450 

gstevens@mcglinchey.com

fcatalano@mcglinchey.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on April 15, 2021, a correct copy of the foregoing document was filed with 

the Clerk of the Court via the Court’s CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing has been forwarded 

to all counsel of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. 

/s/ Gregg D. Stevens

GREGG D. STEVENS

Case 1:20-cv-00470-RP Document 32 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 2
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., EMC CORPORATION, AND 

VMWARE, INC.

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-482-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Please take notice that attorney Brian M. Koide of the law firm ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, 

PLLC appears as counsel of record for Plaintiff WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Koide hereby requests that all notices required to be 

given, and all papers required to be served in the above-entitled and numbered cause, be copied 

to and served upon him.

Dated: November 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian M. Koide

Brian M. Koide 

Virginia Bar No. 46,329

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (703) 565-2852

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950 

brian@etheridgelaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 42 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via the 

Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure on November 3, 2020.

/s/ Brian M. Koide

Brian M. Koide

Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 42 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 2
[Cite as Reibold v. Unknown, 2010-Ohio-4794.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

EMILY REIBOLD 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

UNKNOWN 

Case No. 2010-04408-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL 

{¶ 1} On March 15, 2010, this court issued a Return of Complaint 

Form/Direction to Complete Form requiring plaintiff to file a corrected complaint naming 

an appropriate state entity as defendant or face dismissal of his case. Plaintiff was also 

ordered to pay the $25 filing fee or to file a poverty statement. Plaintiff has failed to 

comply with the court orders. Therefore, plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED, without 

prejudice, pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(1). The court shall absorb the costs of this case. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

cc: 

Emily Reibold 

9753 Chaucer Court 

Pickerington, Ohio 43147 

DRB/laa 

Filed 6/4/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 10/1/10
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DENNIS GRIM ES, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JAM ES E. TILTON; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 11-56738

D.C . No. 3:06-c v-02309-B TM WVG M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry T. M oskowitz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 15, 2013 ** B e fore : SILVERM AN, B EA, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt prison offic ia ls a

ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing the m qua lifie d im

m unity in C a lifornia

sta te prisone r De nnis Grim e s’ 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion. W e hav e jurisdic tion over an inte rloc utory a ppe a l from

the de nia l 

# FIL ED JAN 17 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).of qua lifie d im m unity . C le me nt v . Gome

z , 298 F.3d 898, 901 (9th C ir. 2002). W e re vie w de novo, Sorre ls v . Mc K e e , 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th C ir. 2002), a nd we re ve rse an d re m and. The distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing de fe nda nts qua lifie d im

m unity on Grim e s’ First Am e ndm e nt c la im be c a use a re a sona ble offic e r in de fe nda

nts’ position c ould ha

ve c onc lude d, pursua

nt to C a l ifornia

re g ulations in forc e at

the tim e , tha t re quiring verific at ion of Grim e s’ re ligious be l ie f be fore providing a ve ge ta rian die t wa s c onstitutiona l. Se e Re snic k v . Adams , 348 F.3d 763, 771 n.8 (9th C ir. 2003) (sta

t ing, in a First Am e ndm e nt e x e rc ise of re ligion c a se , “ [w] e have he ld tha t ‘ whe n a public offic i a l a c ts in re lia n c e on a duly e na c te d sta

tute or ordina nc e , tha t offic ia l ordina

rily is e ntitle d to qua l ifie d im m unity ’ ” (c ita

tion om i tte d)). While this c ourt pre viously a ffirm e d the de nia l of qua lifie d im m unity on Grim e s’ R e ligious La

nd Use and Institutiona

l iz e d Pe rsons Ac t

(“ RLUIPA” ) c la im a s to the se de fe nda

nts, se eGrime

s v . Tilton , 384 F. App’ x 603 (9th C ir. 2010), RLUIPA provide s broa de r prote c tion for re l igious e xe rc ise tha n doe s the First Am e ndm e nt. S

e eGre e nev . Solano C

ounty J ail , 513 F.3d 982, 986 (9th C ir. 2008) (re c ogniz ing tha

t RLUIPA “ e xpa

nde d the re a c h of theprote c tion”a fforde d by the

1 1 - 5 6 7 3 8 2First Am e ndm e nt a nd re quire s the gove rnm e nt to m e e t a “ m u c h stric te r burde n” to support a burde n on re ligious e xe rc ise ). Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of qua lifie d im m unity a s to Grim e s ’ First Am e ndm e nt c la im and re m and to thedistric t c ourt for furthe r proc e e dings on Grime s’ RLUIPA c la im . RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

1 1 - 5 6 7 3 8 3
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     In connection  with this annual  report on Form 10-KSB of Tennessee  Valley
Financial  Holdings,  Inc.,  I,  Thomas E.  Tuck,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of
Tennessee Valley Financial Holdings,  Inc., certify,  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 Tennessee Valley Financial Holdings, Inc.

Date:  March 16, 2004                   /s/ Thomas E. Tuck
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Thomas E. Tuck
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2650 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2650

To allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of 
              Minnesota to lease or transfer certain land.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2013

  Mr. Nolan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of 
              Minnesota to lease or transfer certain land.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 
Chippewa Non-Intercourse Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF CERTAIN LAND TRANSACTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
without further approval, ratification, or authorization by the United 
States, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of 
Minnesota (referred to in this Act as the ``Band'') may lease, sell, 
convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of the 
interest of the Band in any real property that is not held in trust by 
the United States for the benefit of the Band.
    (b) No Effect on Trust Land.--Nothing in this Act--
            (1) authorizes the Band to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or 
        otherwise transfer all or any portion of any interest in any 
        real property that is held in trust by the United States for 
        the benefit of the Band; or
            (2) affects any Federal law (including regulations) 
        relating to leasing, selling, conveying, warranting, or 
        otherwise transferring any interest in the real property 
        described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
#### Board of Education of Central School District No. 3 of the Towns of Rotterdam, Schenectady County, and Colonie and Guilderland, Albany County, Plaintiff, *v.*Stanley Gorga et al., Defendants.

County Court, Schenectady County,

December 20, 1957.

*Nicholas Grasso*for plaintiff.

*Maurice W. Grady*for defendants.

*59Archibald C. Wemple, J.

The motion came on to be heard on December 2, 1957, and was later adjourned to December 6, 1957. On the latter date, both attorneys appearing herein stipulated that there were no amendments to be made to the pleadings and that the court was to examine the pleadings as now filed and determine whether or not there were any triable issues raised by these pleadings.

The court finds that the answer of the defendants Stanley Gorga and Antonina Gorga does raise such issues as:

> 1. Whether the property described is the *only*tract available for school purposes.

> 2. What is the value of the land to be condemned.

> *3.*Whether or not all the proceedings were duly authorized and whether *“*all preliminary steps required by law have been taken.”

> 4. Whether the parcels to be taken are properly described.

> 5. Whether a strip of land described is necessary for the purposes indicated in the petition.

> 6. Whether the petitioner has negotiated in good faith and separately as to acquiring a single parcel of some 45 acres.

Section 11 of the Condemnation Law specifically provides for the trial of *“*any issue raised by the petition and answer ” either before the court or a referee. It is clear that some, or all, of the issues noted above and possibly others not noted may require trial. These issues, or some of them, are vital to the successful conclusion of this condemnation proceeding. The rights of the defendants are, of course, affected, but, in a larger sense, the rights of the taxpayers of the school district are concerned in respect to resolving all questions and all issues involving the title which will emerge out of this proceeding.

The defendants, Stanley Gorga and Antonina Gorga, have stipulated, through their attorney, in open court, that the plaintiff could go into possession of the property for the purpose of making test borings, and they have been given tacit permission to continue to occupy the property over the current winter. In fact, the Gorgas’ attorney raised no objection to the appointment of commissioners who, it is assumed, have taken their oaths of office.

As to these matters, the order of this court shall stand. As to the issues yet to be tried, the attorneys for the parties are directed to appear before this court in the court chambers on December 26, 1957 at 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of framing the issues and setting a date for trial of said issues so framed. There will be no delay in bringing the issues to a conclusion.

Enter order accordingly.
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 StockerYale, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy P. Losik,
Chief Operating Officer and 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 to my knowledge:




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




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




/s/ Timothy P. LosikTimothy
      P. LosikChief
      Operating Officer and Chief Financial OfficerAugust
      3, 2009
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO

______________________________________

MELODY JOY CANTU AND DR. RODRIGO 

CANTU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and DIGITAL 

FORENSICS CORPORATION, LLC,

Defendants.

5:20-CV-0746 JKP – HJB

______________________________________

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

Notice is hereby given that, subject to approval by the Court, Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu 

and Dr. Rodrigo Cantu substitute Michael Hassard, NY Bar No. 5824768 as counsel of record in 

place of Rain Minns.

New Counsel Withdrawing Counsel

Michael Hassard Rain Minns

NY Bar No.: 5824768 Rain Minns Law Firm

Tor Ekeland Law, PLLC 4412 Spicewood Springs Rd.

30 Wall St., 8th Floor Suite 500

New York, NY Austin, TX

(718) 737-7264 (512) 372-3222

michael@torekeland.com rain@rainminnslaw.com

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01B915B9-91AE-4088-B656-75D8ACBDAC26 Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 129 Filed 08/21/23 Page 1 of 4
2

CONSENT

I consent to the above substitution. I consent to the above substitution.

____________________________ ____________________________

Melody Joy Cantu Dr. Rodrigo Cantu

August 18, 2023 August 18, 2023

I consent to the above substitution. I consent to the above substitution.

____________________________ ____________________________

Rain Minns Michael Hassard

August 18, 2023 August 18, 2023

The substitution is hereby approved and so ORDERED.

Date:_________________ _______________________________

HON. JASON K. PULLIAM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01B915B9-91AE-4088-B656-75D8ACBDAC26 Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 129 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 4
3

Brooklyn, NY

Dated: August 18th, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael Hassard 

(NY Bar No. 5824768)

Tor Ekeland Law, PLLC

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 

(718) 737 - 7264

michael@torekeland.com

/s/ Tor Ekeland

(NY Bar No. 4493631)

Pro Hac Vice

Tor Ekeland Law, PLLC

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 

(718) 737 - 7264

tor@torekeland.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Melody Joy 

Cantu and Dr. Rodrigo Cantu

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01B915B9-91AE-4088-B656-75D8ACBDAC26 Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 129 Filed 08/21/23 Page 3 of 4
Certificate of Service

I certify that on this 21st of August 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

electronic notification of such filing to the parties on record.

/s/ Michael Hassard

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 129 Filed 08/21/23 Page 4 of 4
From: Llenza, Charles 

Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 7:39 PM 

Subject: Notice of Public Meeting: Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave 

Ovens, and Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial 

Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers) and Public Meeting Notice 

Importance: High

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

On Friday, October 30, 2009, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR) Regarding Energy Conservation Standards 

for Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and 

Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial 

Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers) and a Related Public Meeting notice. 

 

DOE will hold an informal public meeting, on Monday, November 16, 2009, to discuss 

the SNOPR as issued. The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-245, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121 from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST. 

Additional information and the SNOPR are available at the DOE website: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/clothes_washe

rs.html

If you have any additional questions please contact:

Stephen Witkowski, P.E.

Project Manager 

(202)586-7463 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

*******************************************************************************************

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED 

FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMES ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED 

RECIPIENT, OR AN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED 

RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY 

PROHIBITED. IF THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS NON-PUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT ANY CONSUMER OR CUSTOMER 

OF THE SENDER OR INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE FURTHER PROHIBITED UNDER PENALTY OF LAW FROM USING OR 

DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION TO ANY THIRD PARTY BY PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL GRAMM-LEACH-BAILEY ACT. IF 

YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY 

TELEPHONE AND RETURN OR DESTROY THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO ASSURE THAT IT IS NOT READ, COPIED, OR 

DISTRIBUTED BY OTHERS.

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 66.5
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2011 - 1453 Directorate ID : 2009 - SW - 46 - AD Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109, A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109K2,

A109E, A109S, and A119 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 203 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : This proposed AD is prompted by failure of the tail rotor pitch control link assembly caused by a production defect and the proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of that assembly . Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 3,188 Labor per Helicopter ( 5 x $ 8 5 /work - hour) $ 425 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 3,613 Total US Fleet Cost $ 733,439 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Gary

Roach
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of The Stephan Co. (the "Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert C. Spindler,
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, to my knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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





/s/
      Robert C. SpindlerRobert
      C. SpindlerChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      20, 2009