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 Quarterly Report of Winfield Capital Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Scot Perlin, 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.


/s/ R. Scot Perlin
----------------------------
R. Scot Perlin
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial & Accounting Officer)

Dated: November 13, 2003


                                      -26-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,391
<SECURITIES>                                    16,977
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,233
<PP&E>                                           5,046
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,517
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,728
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,096
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,824
<SALES>                                         13,699
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,699
<CGS>                                              236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   585
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,124)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,124)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,124)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>In the first three quarters of 1997, common share equivalents, if included,
would have an anti-dilutive effect on the net loss per share calculation, and
are therefore excluded from the fully diluted calculation. If included, the net
loss per share would be $0.30 per share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-40291 Summary Calendar

__________________ OSCAR HOUSTON, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus MICHAEL WILSON, Senior Warden at the Michael Unit, ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CV-925
- - - - - - - - - - July 12, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Oscar Houston, Texas inmate #577318, appeals the dismissal of his habeas petition for failure to exhaust state habeas remedies. Houston argues that the district court erred by dismissing the petition for failure to exhaust and by failing to sever his habeas claims from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Houston contends that several of the named respondents haveNo. 96-40291 -2- retaliated against him for pursuing this case. We have carefully
reviewed the record and the appellate arguments. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing on exhaustion grounds. Houston's § 1983 retaliation claim is not properly before this court because it was raised in a postjudgment motion and Houston did not amend his notice of appeal after the district court disposed of the postjudgment motions. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Reeves v. Collins , 27 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 1994). All pending motions are DENIED. AFFIRMED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT KELLEY MAHONEY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-3622 ) FRANCIS MAHONEY, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 23, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Leigh Frizzell Hayes, Judge. Jeffrey A. Rapkin of Law Offices of Jeffrey A. Rapkin, Punta Gorda, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. KELLY, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Name

(Last, First, Middle) Title Company/ Organization Street Address Phone 

Webinar Attendees: The Test Procedure for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTACs) Meetin

City Fax State/ Prov Zip

Meeting Date: 4/28/2014

Davis, James N/A Islandaire 22 Research Way East Setauket NY 11733 N/A N/A 

N/A Multi‐Wing Group 415 Tagore Industrial 

Avenue

Gabr, Hesham Morten Singapore N/A 278640 N/A N/A

Technical AdvocacyCoordinator

Appliance Standards AwarenessProject (ASAP)

529 14th Street NW, 

Suite 600

Mauer, Joanna Washington DC 20045 202-507-4034 N/A

Associate Director Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 S. Bedford Street 

Suite 400

Westphalen, Detlef Burlington MA 01803‐ 781-270-8360 781‐270‐04

5154

Program Manager ‐ 

Regulatory and Compliance

General Electric ‐ Appliances &Lighting

Williams, Yoolanda AP2‐121, Appliance Park Louisville KY 40225 502-452-4802 502‐452‐09

Environmental Scientist New York State Office of the

Attorney General (NYS OAG)

Wilson, Linda 120 Broadway New York NY 10271 212-416-8948 212‐416‐60

Sustainment Engineering

Manager

Wuesthoff, Edward Friedrich Air Conditioning Co. 10001 Reunion Place San Antonio TX 78216 N/A N/A Zakarian, Arshak N/A Energy Solutions 1610 Harrison St. San Antonio TX 94612 N/A N/A 

Contacts Included: 8 

08/25/2014 17:59:17
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 5, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128786-9 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128786-9 COA: 259345, 259400, 259401, 259402 HENRY CHARLES DAVIS, Wayne CC: 03-002568-01, Defendant-Appellant. 03-001583-01, 03-002554-01, 03-001582-01

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the April 18, 2005, April 19, 2005, and Ma y 2, 2005 orders of th e Court of Appeals is c onsidered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for entry of an amended Judgment of Sentence. Defendant’s eight concurrent sentences of 13 years 6 months to 20 years violate the two-thirds rule of MCL 769.34(2)(b). Because the st atutory maximum for each of the involved offenses is 20 years, the longest minimum sent ence defendant could receive is 13 years 4 months. See MCL 750.213, MCL 750.455, MCL 750.457, and MCL 750. 459. The Judgment of
Sentence is to be amended accord ingly. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

d1128 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 5, 2005

Clerk
**Exhibit
      32.02**





**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 Viseon, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), the undersigned, in the
      capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to his 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.




Dated:
              February 19, 2007/s/
                Brian R. DayBrian
                R. Day
              Chief
                Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30462 Summary Calendar

MOSE A. REED, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus HARRY CONNICK, District Attorney, Parish of Orleans; TERRY TERRELL, Warden; RICHARD IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-3160-F

-------------------- August 9, 2000 Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mose A. Reed, Louisiana prisoner #82880, appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. He contends that his third application for state post-conviction relief served to toll the one-year limitations period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). State prisoners attacking convictions or sentences that became final prior to the AEDPA’s April 24, 1996, effective dateNo. 98-30462 -2- have a one-year grace period, commencing on that date, within which to file for federal habeas relief. See Flanagan v. Johnson , 154 F.3d 196, 200 n.2 (5th Cir. 1998). Reed’s conviction became final in 1989. See R. 140. He was therefore required to file his § 2254 petition no later than April 24, 1997. See Flanagan , 154 F.3d at 200 & n.2. Pursuant to § 2244(d)(2), however, the time during which a “properly filed” application for state habeas relief with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending does not count toward the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period. See § 2244(d)(2); Fields v. Johnson , 159 F.3d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1998). Under our recent decision in Smith v. Ward , which the district court did not have the benefit of, Reed’s third application for state post-conviction relief was “properly filed” for the purposes of § 2244(d)(2) even though it was dismissed as untimely under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 930.8. See 209 F.3d 383, 384-85 (5th Cir. 2000). Consequently, this third application for state post-conviction relief tolled the limitations period with 163 days remaining and extended the deadline for filing Reed’s § 2254 petition until May 25, 1998. Reed’s petition, filed on September 14, 1997, is therefore timely. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s dismissal of his petition and REMAND.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>      5 
<LEGEND>    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACT
            FROM THE CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AN
            THE CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
            SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                     2,851
<SECURITIES>                               3,718
<RECEIVABLES>                              6,698
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                5,780
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          21,629
<PP&E>                                     4,956
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            31,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5,744
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5
<OTHER-SE>                                26,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              31,761
<SALES>                                   47,981
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          47,981
<CGS>                                     23,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             23,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          23,183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            1,987
<INCOME-TAX>                                 807
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        1,180
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               1,180
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              $0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                              $0.23

         

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                   Consent of Independent Public Accountants

The General Partners
Essex Portfolio, L.P.;

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-68503, No. 333-44467 and No. 333-21989), and the registration
statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-84830 and No. 333-55646) of Essex Portfolio,
L.P., our report dated February 2, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Essex Portfolio, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and
1999 and the related consolidated statements of operations, Partner's capital
and cash flows of Essex Portfolio, LP. and subsidiaries for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2000 and the related financial
statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report
on Form 10-K of Essex Portfolio, L.P.


/s/ KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
March 30, 2001
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge 

Brian Robert Costello 

Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 2 

(0)-1947
#### Ex parte Mario SAPET.

No. 26114.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 22, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell (Special Prosecutor), Houston, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The disposition this day made of the case of Ex parte Alaniz, Tex.Cr.App., 251 S.W.2d 738 which is a companion case, controls the disposition of this case.

For the reasons there assigned, the motion of the state to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,348
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             859
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    124,482
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0     
<LOANS>                                        422,099
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 583,239
<DEPOSITS>                                     353,144
<SHORT-TERM>                                    88,007
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,484
<LONG-TERM>                                    100,433
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 583,329
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,013
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,793
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   145
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,951
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,033
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,402
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,549
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    (697)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 268
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,982
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,218
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,307
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.25
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     5,051
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,230
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       94
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,230
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64737-64738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27862]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Notice of Meeting of the Industry Sector Advisory Committee on 
Services (ISAC-13)

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Industry Sector Advisory Committee on Services (ISAC-13) 
will hold a meeting on November 1, 2000, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. 
The meeting will be opened to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 
and closed to the public from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for November 1, 2000, unless otherwise 
notified.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Department of Commerce, Room 
6800, located at 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution 
Avenues, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Karen Holderman, (202) 482-0345, 
Department of Commerce, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington,

[[Page 64738]]

DC 20230, or Dominic Bianchi, Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, 1724 F St. NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-6120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the opened portion of the meeting the 
ISAC members will comment and make recommendations on the reform of the 
trade advisory system.

Dominic Bianchi,
Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for 
Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-27862 Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
#### LE BOVE v. STATE.

No. 22559.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 16, 1943.

D. C. Bennett, of Orange, and David E. O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction of appellant is for operating an automobile on a public street in the City of Orange while intoxicated.

Notice of appeal was given on January 23, 1943, and the trial term of court adjourned the same day.

The original transcript contained no judgment of conviction. It was discovered that no judgment had been entered on the trial court minutes. On June 1, 1943, and while the case was pending on appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant sought to have judgment entered nunc pro tunc in the trial court and the judge of said court undertook to so enter said judgment on June 1, 1943, as of date January 21, 1943.

Under the restrictive terms of Art. 828, Code Cr.Proc., the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter said judgment while the case was pending here, and could only do so after the jurisdiction of that court had been restored under a mandate from this court. Much has been written on the construction of Art. 828, Code Cr.Proc., and suggestions made as to the propriety of amending same in order to meet just such contingencies as here presented. See Allen v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 642, 65 S.W.2d 311; Turner v. State, 16 Tex.App. 318, 319; Quarles v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 362, 39 S.W. 668; Acuff v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 71, 260 S.W. 572, 262 S.W. 761; Davis v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 114, 28 S.W.2d 794;. Nobles v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 514, 100 S.W.2d 715; Estes v. State, 38 Tex.Cr.R. 506, 43 S.W. 982; Hinman v. State, 54 Tex.Cr.R. 434, 113 S.W. 280; Nicholson v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 112, 7 S.W.2d 1075.

It is only necessary to call attention to< the foregoing cases without elaborating on the question to demonstrate that the only option this court has is to dismiss the appeal for lack of a legal judgment, and it is. so ordered.
DRAFT SPA 16 

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 17 M e Pre-construction Ban 

Note: States must delete the old pre-July 15, 1985 version of 270.1 O(f)(3), that allows construction 

without a permit under limited circumstances. This language must be removed, whether or not the State 

chooses to adopt the provision regarding the construction of TSCA PCB facilities. The change made to 

270.10(f)(1) is considered trivial, however, as it does not alter the meaning of that paragraph. 

FEDERALREQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION 

WAC 173·303 

STATE ANALOG IS: 

EQUIV- LESS MORE BROADER 

ALENT STRIN- STRIN- IN SCOPE 

GENT GENT 

PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAM: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
 

PROGRAM
 

SUBPART B - PERMIT APPLICATION
 

GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
 

e t 

new HWM facilities 270.1 O(f)(1) -806(5) X 

delete old pre-. 

construction provision 

270.10(f)(3) No analog 

Removed 

X 

NEW: TSCA PCB 

facilities 

270.10(f)(3) No analog X 

e
 

CL17.16 - Revised: 09/18/95 

Printed: 10/21/98

July 15, 1985 - Page 4 of 27