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


          CERTIFICATIONS 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 Sunair Electronics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
Synnott B. Durham, 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/ Synnott B. Durham
-------------------------------------
Synnott B. Durham
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
February 17, 2004
#### CLICK v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 21, 1952.

Edward L. Allen, Prestonsburg, for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor in dry territory for the purpose of sale.

He first contends that his demurrer to the indictment should have been sustained because it failed to allege that he “knowingly” possessed the alcoholic beverage. Such allegation would be necessary if he were being prosecuted under KRS 243.840. However, the indictment charges an offense under KRS 242.230. It was not défective.

Appellant next contends that there was insufficient evidence presented against him. This contention is based principally on the ground that the arresting officers made an illegal search. It appears that these officers had observed a number of cars stopping for short intervals near an automobile parked on the highway in front of appellant’s home. Upon going over to investigate, they found him trying to hide ■behind the car, and upon looking through the car window, they observed on the back seat approximately a half case of whiskey in bottles. The officers did not make an illegal search, and the circumstances justified their making the arrest. See Rowland v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 92, 259 S.W. 33. The testimony of the officers, coupled with appellant’s reputation for unlawfully dealing in liquor, was certainly sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Lastly, appellant contends the judgment must be reversed because the Commonwealth failed to prove that the alleged offense was committed in dry territory. We have recently held that this is a fatal deficiency. Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 314 Ky. 702, 236 S.W.2d 930. The Common*372wealth argues that a stipulation in the case to the effect that appellant had twice before been convicted of a similar offense was proof that the place in question was in dry-territory. However, it seems clear that even though Floyd County was dry in 1949 when appellant was before convicted, that is not proof that prohibition was in effect in 1951 when the latest offense was allegedly committed. If the trial judge had taken judicial notice of the fact that Floyd County was still dry territory, and such cognizance had been affirmatively shown in the record, it might have cured the omission. In the absence of such showing or other proof, the judgment must be reversed on this ground for a new trial.

The judgment is reversed for consistent proceedings.
#### BARTON v. STATE.

No. 26474.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 3, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

: WOODLEY, Judge.

The- offense is driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $200.

The record on appeal contains neither a statement of facts nor bill of exception. The proceedings appear regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment , is affirmed.
The electric power sector contributes a third of the total US 

greenhouse gas emissions. One-third. I don't get how that number isn't big 

enough. Is it the hamburger effect? Somehow a quarter pounder seems 

more immense. Perhaps, it's been awhile since we've all had a math 

lesson. 

Now, I don't think. The Count ever covered fractions on Sesame's Street, 

but I can see why he avoided thirds. 

- 1/3 of the world's population lack sufficient access to safe 

drinking water 

- l/3 of Americans over 20 are obese 

-1/3 of Americans have delinquent debt 

No, the Count never taught thirds, because terrible things happen in 

thirds. Maybe half could be better? One Half: can't be that threatening, 

right? Milk comes in half gall ons? Half off clearance items are pretty 

cool. So- what else comes in halves? 

Lungs. According to the American Lung Association half of 

children under 18 experienced an asthma attack. 

Breathing comes in half! Half! Imagine the Count reviewing that. 

"Now kids, half of my bats can't breathe" Quite literally wouldn't fly. 

Not the bats, not on PBS programming, and certainly not for real 

(thankfully still alive) children. 

I don't know ifyou've ever had an asthma attack. But, that is 

probably something they have to cover on Sesame Street by now, given it 

ubiquitous presence among our youth. If you aren't familiar allow me to 

give you a quick primer. 

Imagine your wind pipe tightening --not just one third its size---

but say a 1/8. Your diaphragm is pumping up and down- convulsion 

desperately trying to get air to your lungs. You are heaving the best you 

can, each breath exhausts you, it's like drowning on dry land. Wide-eyed 

and terrified you, you start to knock things over, wave your hands, 

Lauren van Vliet
because if you are lucky to have anyone around to help you, you sure as 

hell can shout out to them. Your entire body flushes with panic as you 

mind tries to coax your body into breathing. 

I know that feeling all too well. And I am here today, because I 

don't want that feeling for anyone else, not in America, not on this Earth. 

I am sick of people telling me America is the best nation. America 

is the world's leader. America this. America that. 

America-needs to quit it, with our self-glorifying propaganda and 

actual act as a world leader. 

And that can start with you. 

Everyone here before you. Everyone you have listened to over the 

past two days, we are the people being the statisticsTake action against antiquated industry that is hurting the American 

people, take action to prevent carbon emissions. 

Lauren van Vliet
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 
Reservation

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB) Oak Ridge. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires 
that public notice of these meeting be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Wednesday, November 8, 2000 6:00 p.m.--9:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Garden Plaza Hotel 215 South Illinois Avenue, Oak Ridge, TN.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Adler, Federal Coordinator, 
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, 
Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4094; Fax (865) 576-9121 or e-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c8a9aca4adbaacaf88a7baa7e6aca7ade6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8beaefe7eef9efeccbe4f9e4a5efe4eea5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental 
restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda:
    1. A presentation on the ``Revitalization of the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory'' will be provided by Mr. Tim Myrick of UT-Batelle.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Dave Adler at the address or telephone 
number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the 
meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the 
presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is 
empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the 
orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public 
comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their 
comments at the end of the meeting.
    Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Resource 
Center at 105 Broadway, Oak Ridge, TN between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. 
Monday through Friday, or by writing to Dave Adler, Department of 
Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 
37831, or by calling him at (865) 576-4094.

    Issued at Washington, DC on October 17, 2000.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-26994 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2871 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2871

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 13, 2013

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, to modify the composition of the 
     southern judicial district of Mississippi to improve judicial 
                  efficiency, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REALIGNMENT OF SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI.

    Section 104(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:

                          ``Southern District

    ``(b) The southern district comprises four divisions.
            ``(1) The Northern Division comprises the counties of 
        Copiah, Hinds, Holmes, Issaquena, Kemper, Lauderdale, Leake, 
        Madison, Neshoba, Newton, Noxubee, Rankin, Scott, Simpson, 
        Sharkey, Smith, Warren, and Yazoo.
Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Jackson.
            ``(2) The Southern Division comprises the counties of 
        George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Pearl River, and 
        Stone.
Court for the Southern Division shall be held at Gulfport.
            ``(3) The Eastern Division comprises the counties of 
        Clarke, Covington, Forrest, Jasper, Jefferson Davis, Jones, 
        Lamar, Lawrence, Marion, Perry, Wayne, and Walthall.
Court for the Eastern Division shall be held at Hattiesburg.
            ``(4) The Western Division comprises the counties of Adams, 
        Amite, Claiborne, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Pike, and 
        Wilkinson.
Court for the Western Division shall be held at Natchez.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendment made by this Act shall take effect on 
the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 12, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 17, 2020

s0414 

# Order

Clerk April 17, 2020

160676

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160676

COA: 346661

Livingston CC: 18

- 025036

- FH

KEVIN WHITE, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal t he September 12, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and

we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues raised by

the prosecutor, but not addressed by that court in its initial review of this case. Contrary

to the determinations of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, there is no record

evidence that the defendant knew that the person to wh om he delivered the controlled

substance had moved from Macomb County to Livingston County and that the controlled

substance would be consumed in Livingston County. Thus, the record does not support

the Court of Appeals’ holding that the defendant intende d the felony or acts done in

perpetration of felony to have an effect in Livingston County. See MCL 762.8; People v

McBurrows , 504 Mich 308 (2019).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
**Exhibit 32(i)**

****

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

	       	In connect with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2007 to be filed with Securities and ExchangeCommission on or about  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas P. Taylor, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

        (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periodscovered by the Report.

        It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------

                            CERTIFICATE 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 Transition Report of First  Deltavision,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies 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), as applicable, 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 result of operations
            of the Company at the dates and for the period indicated.

      This  Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed,  "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


      Dated:  April 15, 2004        By:  /s/ James Ligon
                                       ------------------------
                                       James Ligon
                                       Chief Financial Officer
#### LENOX v. STATE.

No. 24795.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1950.

Rehearing Denied June 21, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $100 and six months’ confinement in the county jail.

The record before us is without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     382,640,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              115,496,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,422,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           587,842,000
<PP&E>                                     741,634,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              55,388,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,948,873,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      361,678,000
<BONDS>                                  1,384,992,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       639,000
<OTHER-SE>                               1,099,330,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,948,873,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,684,355,000
<CGS>                                    1,253,647,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,647,170,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (100,825,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (56,303,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,597,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (57,900,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,490,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (60,390,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.10)





</TABLE>
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00309-CR

James JOHNSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-8282B

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 17, 2008

DISMISSED

On December 9, 2008, appellant filed a motion to dismiss. The motion is GRANTED, and

the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2769 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

AN ACT 

To impose a moratorium on conferences held by the Internal 

Revenue Service. 

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2769 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Playing on Citi3 zens’ Cash Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON IRS CONFERENCES. 

5 The Internal Revenue Service shall not hold any con6 ference until the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Ad7 ministration submits a report to Congress— 

8 (1) certifying that the Internal Revenue Service 

9 has implemented all of the recommendations set out 

10 in such Inspector General’s report titled ‘‘Review of 

11 the August 2010 Small Business/Self-Employed Di12 vision’s Conference in Anaheim, California’’, and 

13 (2) describing such implementation. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 31, 2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### PENN OIL CO. et al. v. GULF OIL CORPORATION.

No. 2289.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Dec. 9, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 30, 1942.

*221Pollard & Lawrence and W. Dewey Lawrence, all of Tyler, for appellants.

Joe S. Brown, of Houston, and Stanley Hornsby, of Austin (John E. Green, Jr., of Houston, of counsel), for appellee.

McCLENDON, Chief Justice.

Rule 37 case. Appeal from a final judgment cancelling a permit to drill well No. 4 on a 3.65-acre lease in the East Texas Oil Field. The appeal was by the Commission, its members, and the permittees. Only the latter, however, have briefed the case, and the appeal is dismissed as to the Commission and its members.

The only ruling complained of by permittees is the overruling of their motion to continue the case from term to term until final judgment should be rendered in three other cases, then pending, which involved the validity ' of permits for three wells which affected permittees’ right to the well in suit. The motion was manifestly without merit. Commission orders must be tested by the condition existing at the time the orders are made. This rule eliminates wells the validity of whose permits is in litigation. General A. O. Co. v. Gulf O. Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W. 2d 314, error refused; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 280 error refused; Wood v. Gulf Oil Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 818, error dismissed C. J.; Stantex v. Gulf Oil Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 407, error refused W.M.; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Rudco Oil & Gas Co., Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 222, error refused. Of course, if such permits should be finally upheld, the permittees would have the right to apply for another permit based upon changed conditions. While not affecting the instant case, it is asserted in appellee’s brief that final judgments have been rendered cancelling all of the permits upon which the motion was predicated.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed as to permittees and the appeal is dismissed as to the Commission and its members.

Affirmed as to permittees; dismissed as to Commission and its members.