alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<page>

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 Report of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, 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: July 11, 2008                           /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Steven R. Blake
                                               Chief Financial Officer
Order filed October 4, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 16
- 00556
- CV NO. 14
- 16
- 00578
- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF A .L.H., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014
- 00466J



### ORDER
These are accelerated appeal s from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue. The appellant in appeal number 14

- 16

- 00556

- CV, M.M., is represented by retained counsel. Counsel filed and was granted a motion for extension until October 13, 2016, to file M.M.’s brief. The appellant in appeal number 14

- 16

- 00578

- CV, L.M., is represented by appointed counsel. L.M.’s brief was due October 3, 2016 , but neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief has been filed.2

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 da ys of the date the notice of appeal is filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines. Therefore we order appellant L. M.’s appointed counsel, Sarah Guidry , to fi le L.M.’s brief no later than October 13, 2016 . If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why s he should not be held in contempt of court. In addition, the court may require appointment of new counsel due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief. If they desire, M.M. and L.M. may file a joint brief that complies with Rule 9.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PER CURIAM
Opinion issued December 10 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 18
- 00869
- CV

——————————— RUTH BACARDI & COMPA NY , Appella nt

V. NAJIB BAOULOS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 55th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2016
- 44867

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ruth Bacardi & Company, has neither established indigence nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal,2

appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 37.3(b), 42.3(b). Appellee subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. More than ten days have passed and appellant failed to respond to the motion to dismiss. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 10.3. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal f or want of prosecution. We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower

.
Opinion issued May 28, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 15 - 00211 - CV

——————————— OMONIEFE MARY BAZUNU , Appella nt

V. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SY STEMS, INC. , Appell e e On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2014 - 46325
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant , Omoniefe Mary Bazunu , has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 20.1 ; see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § § 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 ( West 201 3 ); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts2

of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127 (Tex. Aug. 16 , 20 13 ), reprinted in T EX . R. A PP . P . app. A § B(1)
. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5 ; 42.3 (b)
. We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of prosecution . We dism iss any pending motions as moot
. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.
**Exhibit 32(i)**

****

**CERTIFICATION**

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

In connect with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2004 to be filed with Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive
Officer 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 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 as of the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.

It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.



|Date: January 13, 2005 | By: | /s/ Douglas P. Taylor                      
|---------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Douglas P. Taylor, 
Chief Executive Officer
#### ALBIN v. STATE.

No. 23064.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 14, 1945.

McIntosh & Duncan, of Gilmer, and Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is the possession of whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale. The punishment assessed is a fine of $400.

Appellant’s chief complaint is that the evidence is insufficient to justify and sustain his conviction. With this contention we agree.

The primary offense charged was the possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area. To support this allegation the State depended upon testimony showing that appellant had in his possession a quart of whisky, together with testimony to the effect that some fifteen months prior thereto he had sold a pint of whisky in violation of the law. The facts do not authorize the application of the prima facie rule in that “not more than a quart of whisky” was shown to have been possessed. The State was therefore required, in order to sustain the conviction, to furnish some evidence that the whisky in appellant’s possession was possessed for the purpose of sale as alleged. We are unable to say that the testimony as to the remote sale of a pint of whisky fifteen months prior thereto meets this requirement. The evidence is therefore insufficient to support the con' *448viction. In support of the opinion here expressed we refer to the case of Headspeth v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 139, 151 S.W. 2d 807.

From what we have said, it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded, and it is so ordered.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE EARNINGS PER SHARE DATA IS FOR 
TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC. CLASS A AND CLASS B COMMON STOCK.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000925692
<NAME> TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             142  
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      346
<ALLOWANCES>                                        36
<INVENTORY>                                        141
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          10,849
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         12,660
<COMMON>                                           921
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              474
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,601
<SALES>                                            730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,945
<CGS>                                              491
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    54
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 745
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (196)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (104)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (92)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (92)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000096988
<NAME>                        MARLTON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            587,800
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  18,173,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (685,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    11,462,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               32,214,618
<PP&E>                                          9,758,766
<DEPRECIATION>                                (4,869,457)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 61,025,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,688,399
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          732,856
<OTHER-SE>                                     28,634,516
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   61,025,532
<SALES>                                        21,921,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               21,921,385
<CGS>                                          16,743,909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,743,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,831,843
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   50,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                308,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   526,318
<INCOME-TAX>                                      210,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               316,318
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      316,318
<EPS-BASIC>                                         .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .04



</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Brinker , 2017-Ohio-5504.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-07-129

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 6/26/2017 : BRYAN LEE BRINKER, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2011-04-0501

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee Scott N. Blauvelt, 315 South Monument, Hamilton, OH 45011, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Bryan Brinker, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by theButler CA2016-07-129 trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists five potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proc eedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constituti onal rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., S. POWELL and RINGLAND, JJ., concur.
[No. 34934.

Department Two.

May 12, 1960.]

#### Adolph J. Varrelman, *Appellant,*v. G. M. Blount *et al., Respondents.*
      *1*

*John Hancock,*for appellant.

*Jack Doty,*for respondents.

Reported in 351 P. (2d) 1039.

Per Curiam.

— Plaintiff appeals from a judgment that dismisses his complaint with prejudice and quiets title to the disputed property in defendants in whom record title stands.

The trial court stated in its memorandum opinion:

> “The rule of law involved is not in dispute. The burden is upon the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has acquired title by adverse possession by showing that his possession of these premises were actual, uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period of ten years.”

The trial court found, upon conflicting testimony, that the disputed property

> “ . . . is located in country that is broken, mountainous, and very sparsely settled; and that [the] disputed area *212is very much in its natural state, being covered with underbrush and Ponderosa pine trees.”

Plaintiff has assigned error to all findings of the trial court that involve disputed issues of fact. A study of the record and of the photographic exhibits convinces us that there was ample evidence to support every finding of fact made by the trial court, and to support its conclusion that plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof necessary to establish his alleged claim of title by adverse possession.

This court cannot retry factual cases. *Gilbert v. Rogers, ante*p. 185, 351 P. (2d) 535 (1960), and cases cited.

The judgment is affirmed.
From: thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com [mailto:thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com]

Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:06 AM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: Meyers, Aaron; Andrew Delaski; Ali Ghafourian (aghafourian@ermco-eci.com); Alex Hofmann; Aris
Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Matt Miller; Robert Berman; Brian Coffey; Hirsch, Bruce R; Bruce Smith; Chris Bolduc; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexle r; Simmons, Chuck; Silcox, Clark; Charlie Stevens; Dan Cohen; Millure, Dave; Dave Brender (dbrender@cd a.copper.org); Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Rosenquist; Greg Coulter; James Lass; jay.ballard@schneider -electric.com; Jennifer Tiedeman; Freeman, Jeremiah; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Schoen; Jerry Hodge; Creevy, Jim; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; Caskey, John; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Kenneth.Harden@schneider-electric.com; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Meg Waltner; Ned Brush (Ned.efbrush@gmail.com); Ryan, Paul; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Puesh Kumar; Polinski, Raymond; Rob Greeson; Rick Anderson; (rjstahara @centralmoloneyinc.com); Bob Saint; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Stev e Nizinski; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman;
Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo Subject: LVDT Work Group

Team, Per our discussion at the end of 10/13 meeting, here is an estimated market mix for Design Line 7 and 8. I have also included Schneider Electric published efficiency levels for products that are in each section of

the mix.

Thomas Patzner | Low Voltage Transformers | Square D / Schneider Electric
1010 Airpark Center Drive | Nashville, TN 37217 |  Office: 615-844-8536 |  Five Digit Dialing: 48536  e-mail: thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com |  Website: www.us.squared.com/EEXFMR

Low Voltage Transformer Technical Support  e-mail: lvgp-marketing@us.schneider-electric.com 

##  Please consider the environment before printing this email
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7667** 

KEITH JAMES SEARS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. SUSAN WHITE , Respondent

– Appellee , and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:12

- hc

- 02066

- F )

Submitted : February 27 , 2014 Decided: March 4 , 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Keith James Sears, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Keith James Sears seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c )(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the dis trict court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sears has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Sears’ motion for a certificate of appealability , deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We grant Sears’ motions to file an over sized informal brief and to file an amended informal brief. We dispense with oral argument3 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
Date: March 4

, 20 1 6

To: Docket , EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 201 4

- 0738

From: Andrew Bouchard

Subject: Meeting Record for Jan uary 1 2 , 201 6
, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and

Occidental Chemical Corporation

On January 12 , 201 6
, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participated in a conference call with Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)

. The purpose of the call was to discuss the ir initial MPGF AMEL notice and the comments that OCC submitt ed to the docket on this notice

. During the confer ence call, OCC ran through their submitted comments and provided one additional clarification about them . Specifically, OCC clarified their comment on o perating r equirements (1)(f) and (4) in Section III with respect to the calculation of monitor downtime associated maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain precision and accuracy and zero and span adjustments to not exceed 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material and suggested that the EPA consider a non

rollin g 12

- month (i.e., annual) basis even though their comment stated a rolling 12

- month basis

. See Attachment 1 for t he names and affiliations of the meeting participants

.Attachment 1

Participants in January 12 , 201 6 EPA/ OCC Meeting

Occidental Chemical Co rporation Representatives Chris Krishna Mark Evans Stephanie Engwall

U.S. EPA Representatives Andrew Bouchard Brenda Shine