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 LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Sean B. OConnor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                         
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2007 |  | /s/ Sean B. OConnor                    
|                   |  | Sean B. OConnor Chief Financial Officer

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.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief ExecutiveOfficer**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Knoll, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending September 30,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), Andrew B. Cogan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

b.              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

November 9, 2010

 

 
| /s/ Andrew B. Cogan     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| **Andrew B. Cogan**     |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

1

----
#### AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO v. WARE.

No. 1769-7416.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

Dec. 7, 1938.

Johnson & Rogers and Nat L. Hardy, all of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error.

G. Woodson Morris, of San Antonio, for defendant in error.

SMEDLEY, Commissioner.

The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a judgment of district court in favor of defendant in error Ware against plaintiff in error Aetna Casualty & Surety Company for $3712.25 as compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq., for total permanent incapacity caused by injury suffered in the course of his employment. Tex.Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 981.- The suit was brought by defendant in error to set aside the final decision of the Industrial Accident Board denying him compensation for the injury.

The several assignments of error in the application for writ of error present but one question, that of the jurisdiction of the district court, the contention made being that “defendant in error Joe Ware failed to discharge the burden of proof showing the jurisdictional requisites which would give the district court jurisdiction of his appeal from the award of the Industrial Accident Board, in that the only proof of any claim filed with the Industrial Accident Board made by the -defendant in error Joe Ware wholly failed to allege any amount of money claimed as compensation by the said Joe Ware, and wholly failed to allege any facts from which any amount of compensation could be calculated.” The assignments of error are overruled for the reasons given and on the authorities cited in the opinion in Booth v. Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, Tex.Com.App., 123 S.W.2d 322, this day decided.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FENGM IN C A O, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73996 Age n c y No. A087-431-483 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Fe ngm in C a o, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED JUN 26 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

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

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a pply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a d

ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nations c re ate d

by the REAL ID Ac t. S

hre s tha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nation ba se d on om i ssions in C a o’ s a sy lum a pplic ation a

nd writte n sta

te m e nt a nd inc o nsiste nc i e s in his te stim ony re ga rding a polic e be at ing, a

re quire m e nt to report to the polic e onc e a

m onth, going into hiding, a nd a pply ing for a

m arria ge pe rm i t. Se e Zamanov

v . Holde r , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th C ir. 2011) (omi tte d inc i de nts of arre st a nd m i s tre at

m e nt supporte d a dve rse c re dibility finding); Shre

stha , 590 F.3d at 1048 (totality

of the c i rc um sta

nc e s supporte d a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination). In the a bse nc e of c re d i ble te stim ony , C a o’ s a s y l um an d withholding of re

m ova l c la im s fa il. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). B e c a use C a o’ s C AT c la im

is ba se d on the sa m e te s tim ony the B IA found not c re d ible , and the re c ord doe s not othe rwise c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t it is m ore like ly tha n not he will betorture d if re turne d to C hina , his C AT c la i m a l so fa ils. Se e id. at 1156-57. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 9 9 6 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Alston, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J., at trial and sentence), rendered February 22, 1989, convicting defendant, after non-jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of from *AVi*to 9 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested and charged in a one-count indictment with the sale on May 24, 1988 of three jumbo vials of cocaine to an apprehended buyer in front of 203 West 145th Street, Manhattan. This was observed by officers from an observation post, and the contraband was recovered.

Defendant contends on appeal that he was denied due process because the People failed to prove the case against him beyond a reasonable doubt, and that his conviction was based upon incredible police testimony and, thus, was against the weight of evidence.

There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the observing officer’s testimony that the apprehended buyer placed the three jumbo vials of cocaine in her "left” pocket significantly conflicts with the arresting officer’s testimony that he recovered the three jumbo vials of cocaine in the described buyer’s "right” pocket, the location radioed to him by the observation officer. This discrepancy could easily be attributed by the finder of fact to perspective, and certainly does not give rise to a reasonable doubt. Additionally, defendant’s argument that the arresting officer’s testimony should have been discredited entirely because of defendant’s testimonial claim that the officer held a preconceived bias against defendant is unsupported by defendant’s clearly self-serving and inconsistent testimony regarding alleged previous encounters between defendant and the arresting officer.

The record reveals ample evidentiary support, given appropriate weight by the trial court, for the conclusion that the *305People proved defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Carro, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
[Cite as Wade v. O'Leary, 2022-Ohio-4830.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} On November 18, 2022, a Special Master issued a Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) in this public-records case. The Special Master recommends 

dismissal of a motion to dismiss filed by Respondent. (R&R, 3.) The Special Master 

states: “Upon consideration of the pleadings and attachments the Special Master 

recommends the court DENY requester’s claim for production of records. It is

recommended that costs be assessed to requester.” (R&R, 6.)

{¶2} Neither party has timely objected to the Report and Recommendation, as 

permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely 

objects to a special master’s report and recommendation, then this Court is required to 

“promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it 

determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report 

and recommendation.”

{¶3} Upon review, the Court determines that there is no error of law or other defect 

evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation. The Court adopts the Report 

and Recommendation. In accordance with the Special Master’s recommendations, the

E. ROBERTA WADE

 Requester

 v. 

MAYOR THOMAS M. O’LEARY, CITY 

OF GALION

 Respondent

Case No. 2022-00607PQ

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

JUDGMENT ENTRY
Case No. 2022-00607PQ -2- ENTRY

Court denies Respondent’s motion to dismiss, denies Requester’s claim for production of 

records, and assesses court costs to Requester. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties 

notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN

Judge

Filed December 13, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/9/23
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00298

- CR

K EVIN D ANE N ORRIS

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On App eal from the 297th District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1799027 )

July 18, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Bassel

( nf p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment . It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
AUXILIO, INC.

                    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 Auxilio, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Joseph Flynn, Principal 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/ Joseph Flynn
---------------------------------------
Joseph Flynn
Principal Executive Officer
September 17, 2004

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Auxilio, Inc. and will be retained by
Auxilio, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
    /s/ Thomas F. AugustThomas F. AugustPresident & Chief Executive OfficerNovember 7, 2005
 
 th
 /s/ Lana MannLana MannNovember 7, 2005
 
 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 the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1156

To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to the interest

of the debtor as a tenant under the rental of residential real property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 1993

Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana, Mr. BARTLETT of

Maryland, Mr. HUGHES, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr. SOLOMON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect

to the interest of the debtor as a tenant under the

rental of residential real property.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTOMATIC STAY.

4 Section 362(b) of title 11, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (12), (13), and

7 (14) as paragraphs (13), (14), and (15), respec8 tively, and
2

•HR 1156 IH

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (11) the fol2 lowing:

3 ‘‘(12) under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection

4 (a) of this section, of any action to evict the debtor

5 from residential real estate occupied by the debtor

6 as a tenant under a rental arrangement;’’.

7 SEC. 2. PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE.

8 Section 541(b) of title 11, United States Code, is

9 amended—

10 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the

11 end,

12 (2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period at

13 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’, and

14 (3) by adding at the end the following:

15 ‘‘(3) any interest of the debtor as tenant under

16 the rental of residential real property that has termi17 nated before the commencement of the case.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 23.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-131955, 333-124746, 333-42520and 333-89961) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-134161, 333-102758, 333-88846, 333-67578,333-52700 and 333-65401) of PetroQuest Energy, Inc., of our reports dated March5, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of PetroQuestEnergy, Inc., PetroQuest Energy, Inc. management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of PetroQuestEnergy, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPNew Orleans, Louisiana
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 227 (Friday, November 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29977]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[(NM-930-1310-01); (NMNM 28813)]


New Mexico: Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Lease

    Under the provisions of Public Law 97-451, a petition for 
reinstatement of oil and gas lease NMNM 28813 for lands in Rio Arriba 
County, New Mexico, was timely filed and was accompanied by all 
required rentals and royalties accruing from May 1, 2000, the date of 
termination.
    No valid lease has been issued affecting the lands. The lessee has 
agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $5.00 
per acre or fraction thereof and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The 
lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and has reimbursed 
the Bureau of Land Management for the cost of the Federal Register 
notice.
    The Lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the 
lease as set out in sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act 
of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing 
to reinstate the lease effective May 1, 2000, subject to the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above.
    For further information contact: Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico 
State Office, (505) 438-7586.

    Dated: November 6, 2000.
Lourdes B. Ortiz,
Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. 00-29977 Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
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 Orion  Acquisition  Corp. II (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (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 to the best of 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 operation of the Company.

August 23, 2004                   By: /s/ Christopher A. Marlett
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                          Christopher A. Marlett
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                         NORTHSTAR COMPUTER FORMS, INC.
                  1994 EMPLOYEE'S INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN
                                          
     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 is effective as of October 1, 1997 and amends the 
Northstar Computer Forms, Inc. (the "Company") 1994 Employee's Incentive 
Stock Option Plan (the "Plan").

     WHEREAS the Company adopted the Plan in 1994 to incentivize employees of 
the Company and its subsidiaries through the grant of stock options; and

     WHEREAS the Plan originally provided that the maximum number of shares 
of Common Stock issuable thereunder would be 200,000 shares, substantially 
all of which are reserved for issuance pursuant to outstanding options; and

     WHEREAS the Company desires to increase the maximum number of shares 
issuable under the Plan to 400,000 shares as provided in this Amendment.

     NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to resolution of the Board of Directors of the 
Company, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

     1.   INCREASE IN NUMBER OF SHARES.  The maximum number of shares of 
Common Stock which may be issued pursuant to the Plan is hereby increased 
from 200,000 shares to 400,000 shares.

     2.   SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT.  This Amendment is subject to 
the approval of the shareholders of the Company at the next Annual Meeting of 
the Shareholders of the Company.  In the event shareholder approval of this 
Amendment is not obtained at such meeting, then this Amendment shall be of no 
force or effect.

     3.   GRANTS OF OPTIONS.  The Committee charged with administering the 
Plan shall have the authority, subject to shareholder approval as provided in 
paragraph 2 above, to grant awards of stock options and other rights under 
the Plan effective immediately.

     4.   GOVERNING LAW.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed 
in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Amendment is adopted effective as of the day and 
year first above written.

                              NORTHSTAR COMPUTER FORMS, INC.

                              /s/ Mary Ann Morin
                              ---------------------------------------
                              MARY ANN MORIN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00015-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.E.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 76th District Court

Titus County, Texas

Trial Court No. 37,180

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

ORDER

Court reporter Cresta LeFevre recorded the trial court proceedings in cause number 06-

15-00015-CV, styled In the Interest of L.E.S., a Child, trial court cause number 37,180 in the 

76th Judicial District Court of Titus County, Texas. The reporter’s record in this accelerated 

appeal of a parental rights termination order was due on March 2, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

35.1(b). LeFevre has not filed the record and has not filed a motion for extension of time in 

which to file the record. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establish that “trial and appellate courts are 

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). 

The Rules further instruct that an “appellate court may enter any order necessary to ensure the 

timely filing of the appellate record.” Id. In furtherance of our responsibilities established by the 

Rules, we find we must take steps to ensure that the record in this case is filed in a reasonable 

amount of time.

Therefore, we hereby order LaFevre to file the reporter’s record in cause number 06-15-

00015-CV, styled In the Interest of L.E.S., a Child, trial court cause number 37,180 in the 76th 

Judicial District Court of Titus County, Texas

The record is to be received by this Court no later than Monday, March 23, 2015. If the 

reporter’s record is not received by March 23, we warn LeFerve that we may begin contempt 

proceedings and order her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of this Court 

for failing to obey its order.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: March 12, 2015