alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2  Section 906 Certification - CFO



CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Stockgroup Information Systems Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Gillard, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of § 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.







/s/ David Gillard



David Gillard
Chief Financial Officer

March 9, 2004



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000594 25-JUN-2013 08:28 AM
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40285 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TODD W. ALTSCHUL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CR-137-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Following a jury trial, Todd W. Altschul was convicted of five counts of mail fraud and sentenced to serve 87 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Altschul argues that his sentence violates the principles enunciated in Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004). This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263). All outstanding motions are DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JOSE MARTINEZ,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 601 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 30th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
#### MAYS v. STATE.

No. 22747.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1944.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1944.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of burglary, appellant was assessed two years in the state penitentiary.

*528The record is before us without statement of-facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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.
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 the Quarterly Report of Western Power & Equipment Corp. &
Subsidiary (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, C.Dean McLain, Chief Executive 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 the best of 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/ C. Dean McLain
                                           -----------------------------
                                           Name: C.Dean McLain
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           Date: December 15, 2004


     A signed original of the written statements required by Section 906 has
been provided to Western Power & Equipment Corp. & Subsidiary and will be
retained by Western Power & Equipment Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23**

 

Board of Trustees 

LaSalle Hotel Properties:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements onForm S-8 (Nos. 333-104056, 333-86911 and 333-72265) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-104054, 333-51476, 333-44872, 333-76373, and 333-77371) of LaSalle Hotel Properties of our report dated February 6, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheetsof LaSalle Hotel Properties as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, and the relatedfinancial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of LaSalle Hotel Properties. 

 

Chicago, Illinois 

February 18, 2004
#### TUCKER v. STATE.

No. 24964.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1950.

Vincent W. Harris, Dallas, for appellant

Will R. Wilson, Jr., Crim. Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The primary offense charged is the non-capital felony of robbery by assault, together with an allegation of a prior conviction for burglary. The punishment is assessed at life imprisonment in the penitentiary, under the mandate of Art. 62, P.C.

The indictment, in all essentials, is the same as that set forth and discussed in the case of Farris v. Texas, Tex.Cr.App., 233 S.W.2d 856. Appellant here registers- the same objections to the indictment as were there urged-i. e., that the allegation that the former conviction was for the offense of burglary is not sufficient to invoke the provisions of Art. 62, P.C.

The holding in the Farris case, supra, that the indictment was sufficient controls here.

There is no need to again set forth the reasons upon which the conclusion in the Farris case, supra, was reached. In the instant case, we adhere thereto.

The facts support the conviction.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court
#### Opal MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27242.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,

Dec. 8, 1954.

Martin & Shown, Byron R. Conwell, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty. Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order revoking probation which had béen previously granted when appellant was convicted for the offense of felony theft and assessed a penalty of 3 years.

Accompanying the record is the personal affidavit ■ of appellant requesting the dismissal of the appeal. The request is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Financial Statements of Eagle Family Foods Holdings, Inc. for the fifty-three
week period ended July 3, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001054040
<NAME> EAGLE FAMILY FOODS HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUL-3-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-3-1999
<CASH>                                             972
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,017
<ALLOWANCES>                                       192
<INVENTORY>                                     41,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,823
<PP&E>                                          39,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 416,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,991
<BONDS>                                        337,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           94,023
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                    (52,245)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   416,558
<SALES>                                        239,730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               239,730
<CGS>                                          111,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,076
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,170)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,655)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,515)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,515)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION





The
      undersigned, Thomas C. Shields, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
      Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Quarterly
      Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.








Dated:
      November 8, 2006




By:
            /s/
                Thomas C. ShieldsThomas
                C. ShieldsExecutive
                Vice President and
                Chief Financial Officer







This
      certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated
      by
      reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of
      1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated
      by reference.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by
      ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.
#### HOWARD v. STATE.

No. 24986.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1950.

No attorney, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, with a penalty of thirty days in the County Jail and a fine of $100.00.

The record is brought forward without bills of exception or statement of facts. The proceedings appear regular and nothing is presented for review by this Court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [MT-929-00-1420-HE] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The plat of the following described land is scheduled to be officially filed in the Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. 

T. 27 N., R. 56 E., P.M., MT 

The plat, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the adjusted original meanders of the former right bank of the Missouri River, upstream, through section 7, and the subdivision of section 7 and the survey of certain division of accretion lines in section 7 and a portion of a medial line of an abandoned channel of the Missouri River, upstream, through a portion of section 7, Township 27 North, Range 56 East, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted October 20, 2000. 

The survey was requested by the Miles City Field Office and was necessary to identify accretion to original lot 6 in section 7 of the subject township. 

A copy of the preceding described plat will be immediately placed in the open files and will be available to the public as a matter of information. 

If a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, is received prior to the date of the official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. 

This particular plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been accepted or dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107-6800. 

Dated: October 24, 2000. 

Steven G. Schey, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Resources. 

[FR Doc. 00-28266 Filed 11-2-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
#### WHATLEY v. STATE.

No. 21505.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 26, 1941.

Scott & Hall, of Marshall, B. F. Whit-worth, of Linden, and Carney & Carney and Tom J. Mays, all of Atlanta, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder without malice; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The trial was had in Harrison County on a change of venue from Marion County.

It was charged in the indictment, in substance, that appellant, with malice aforethought, killed E. R. Todd by shooting him with a pistol.

The state’s theory, given support in the evidence, was to the effect that appellant killed deceased without provocation.

Appellant’s testimony raised the issue of self-defense. According to his version, deceased had drawn his pistol and had it in his hand in an effort to kill him. Believing that his life was in danger, he drew his pistol and fired the shots that resulted in the death of the deceased.

The court charged on self-defense, but overruled appellant’s objection to the charge for its failure to embrace an instruction covering the provisions of Article 1223, P.C. We quote the provisions of said article, as follows: “When the homicide takes place to prevent murder, maiming, disfiguring or castration, if the weapon or means used *by*the party attempting or committing such murder, maiming, disfiguring or castration are such as would have been calculated to produce that result, it is to be presumed that the person so using them designed to inflict the injury.”

Appellant’s testimony clearly showed an attack by deceased with a weapon of the nature described in the statute. It has been held by this court that, where the evidence raises the issue of the use of a deadly weapon by the deceased, it is an absolute presumption, imperative to juries, as well as courts, that the deceased intended to inflict the injury mentioned in Article 1223, supra; and further, the provisions of the article must be given in charge to the jury. Yarborough v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 84 S.W.2d 729; Gaither v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 154, 3 S.W.2d 814; Strickel v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 33 S.W.2d 451; Holland v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 164, 15 S.W.2d 626; Carter v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 508, 262 S.W. 79; Mason v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 642, 228 S.W. 952; Bailey v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 550, 17. S.W.2d 1051. Giving effect to the -decisions, we are constrained to hold that the court fell into reversible error in failing to respond to appellant’s exception to the charge.

If another trial be had note should be taken of the holding in Best v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 327, 125 S.W. 909, and Lewis v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 231 S.W. 113, relative to the application of the law of murder to 'the facts where self-defense is an issue.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

*99PER 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KEVYN D. STONE, #0625900, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-CV-0708-E-BK

§

ERIC LABOVITZ, ET AL., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed. The Court reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions,

and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate.

SO ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2022.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00708-E-BK Document 10 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 28
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
COMMONWEALTH INCOME & GROWTH FUND II
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         225,065
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  583,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               808,479
<PP&E>                                      14,381,085
<DEPRECIATION>                             (9,286,171)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,049,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          481,039
<BONDS>                                      2,160,896
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,407,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,049,008
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,120,928
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,129,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,571)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,571)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Case 4:22-cr-00076-P Document 28 Filed 05/11/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 63
Case 4:22-cr-00076-P Document 28 Filed 05/11/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 64
APRIL TERM, 1771.

#### Waters *against*Caton.

*WATERS,*in an action of debt on a bond, obtained judgment against *Catón,*for 400/. to execute which, *Waters*sued out a *fieri facias,*and subsequent to the issuing of the *fieri facias,*on the same day he sued out an attachment on the same judgment. Part of the judgment was levied on each execution.

Motion was made on behalf of the defendant, to quash the attachment.

*S.*Chase, for defendant.

When one execution is sued out, another execution cannot issue on the same judgment before the return of the first, because the second ought to recite the first, and how much of the debt is satisfied, and what remains unsatisfied. 1 *Stra.*226. *Salk.*318. Gilb. *Exec.*24, *25,*26. cites *Cro. Eliz.*344. *Gilb. Exec.*70, 71.

*fiohmon,*contra.

There would be a great inconvenience, if after a *capias ad satisfaciendum*had issued without effect, no attachment *408could issue till it was returned, as others might attach the effects, and a prior judgment would remain unsatisfied, whilst the effects of the defendant would be swept away by attachments issued subsequent to such judgment.

The law respecting executions, was formerly very rigorous, and where the party elected one process to obtain, execution of a judgment, he could not resort to another. 2 *Inst.*395. That rigour has since been much mollified, and now where the plaintiff has obtained no satisfaction by elegir, after the return of it, he may have other process. 2 *Raym.*1451. Where a man takes out two different executions, he cannot execute both. 8 *Mod.*302. If a man has lands in two different counties, and takes two elegits at the same time, it is regular. 1 *Stra.*462. cites also 1 *Barn.*Notes, 132. 138. 2 *Barn.*Notes, 169. 174. The Court may see and know by calculation, on the return of both the writs, how much was to be levied by the first.

*S.*Chase, in reply.

Where there are two executions, and both are in part executed, the Court will quash the last, for though a man may issue two executions, he must execute but one.

*The Court*determined, that the issuing of two executions upon the same judgment, to the same County, was. irregular, and therefore quashed the attachment.