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

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Open Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth
J. Saunders, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (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: March 15, 2006                /s/ KENNETH J. SAUNDERS
                            --------------------------------------------

                                        Kenneth J. Saunders
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
                                              Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00159

- CV

In re David O ’ Connor

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Relator D a vid O ’ Connor has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion

for emer gency s tay

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1, 52.10(a). We grant the motion and temporarily

stay the portion of the trial court ’ s order concerning the award of attorney ’ s fees pending further

order of this Court. See id . 52.10(b). The Court orders the real party in i nterest to file a re sponse

to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before April 19 , 20 21.

It is ordered on April 9 , 2021

.

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Rawlings, Also Known as Michael Rolands, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered October 30, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeter*267mínate prison term of from 3 Vi to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

In this prosecution for the burglary of a restaurant, the only issue raised concerns the court’s charge to the jury with respect to the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Aside from a possible failure to properly preserve the precise point made on appeal we have held that a change defining a reasonable doubt as a doubt for which a juror can "give a reason” is not erroneous *(People v Santiago,*164 AD2d 824).

In any event, there was overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2


                        CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT
                        --------------------------------

I, Mitchell  Gerstein,  Chief Financial  Officer of Synergy  Brands,  Inc. ("the
Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended
              December  31,  2007  ("the   Report")   fully  complies  with  the
              requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange
              Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  March 28, 2008


                                             /s/ Mitchell Gerstein
                                             ----------------------
                                                 Mitchell Gerstein
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHAUNCIL-DANIELLE, §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§

 Civil No. 3:22-CV-2176-L-BN

KENNETH S. HARTER, et al., §

§

§

 Defendants. §

ORDER

The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 

(“Report”) (Doc. 7) was entered on October 6, 2022, recommending that the Petition for Injunction

(“Petition”) (Doc. 3) filed by pro se Plaintiff Chauncil-Danielle (“Plaintiff”), who does not provide 

a last name, be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the Petition, Plaintiff sought 

injunctive relief for an alleged trespass by Defendants. Plaintiff did not file objections to the 

Report, and the time to do so has passed. The court notes that on the day the Report was entered,

Plaintiff filed by mail a Notice that appears to question the Defendants’ authority to retain legal 

counsel. Doc. 8. The court determines that the Notice is not an objection to the Report but rather a 

continued assertion of Plaintiff’s claims that does not cure the subject matter deficiencies identified 

in the Report. 

Having considered the Petition, Report, file, Plaintiff’s Notice, and record in this case, the 

court determines that the magistrate judge’s finding and conclusions in the Report are correct, and 

accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case 3:22-cv-02176-L-BN Document 9 Filed 10/25/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 25
Order – Page 2

The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good 

faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the 

court incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th 

Cir. 1997). Based on the magistrate judge’s Report, the court concludes that any appeal of this 

action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would therefore be frivolous. Howard v. 

King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this 

certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. 

P. 24(a)(5).

It is so ordered this 25th day of October, 2022.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-02176-L-BN Document 9 Filed 10/25/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 26
EXHIBIT 31.2 CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER CERTIFICATION I, Jack Braverman, certify that: 1.
I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Trimol Group,          Inc.  2.
Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any          untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact          necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances          under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to          the period covered by this quarterly report;  3.
Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial          information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all          material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and          cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in          this quarterly report;  4.
The
registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for          establishing
and maintaining          disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant, and we have:  a)
designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that          material information
relating to the registrant, including its          consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those          entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report          is being prepared;  b)
evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and          procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this          quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); and  c)
presented
in this quarterly report our conclusions about the          effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our          evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;  5.
The
registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based          on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the          audit committee of
registrants Board of Directors (or persons          performing the equivalent function):  a)
all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of          internal controls which
could adversely affect the          registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report          financial data and have identified for the registrants
         auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b)
any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management          or other employees who
have a significant role in the          registrants internal controls; and  6.
The
registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this          quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in          internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect          internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation,          including any corrective actions with
regard to significant          deficiencies and material weaknesses.  November 12, 2004
        By /s/ Jack Braverman

Chief Financial Officer  20
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          16,254
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               420,255
<PP&E>                                           6,929
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 442,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          330,801
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,951
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   442,180
<SALES>                                         79,663
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,663
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,570
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,496
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,074
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
        

</TABLE>
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 — Degussa v Commission

(Case T-279/02) (1)

(Competition - Article 81 EC - Cartels - Methionine market - Unique and continuous nature of the infringement - Fine - Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 - Presumption of innocence)

(2006/C 131/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Degussa AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Bechtold, M. Karl and C. Steinle, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and W. Mölls, agents, assisted by H.-J. Freund, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and S. Marquardt, agents)

Re:

Primarily, an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/674/EC of 2 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case C.37.519 — Methionine) (OJ 2003 L 255, p.1) and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by this decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002

----
# National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month, 2000

Driving is an integral part of American culture and daily living; but it is also a privilege that carries great responsibility. To protect ourselves and others, we must always be safe, sober, and drug-free behind the wheel.

As a Nation, we have made steady progress in reducing alcohol-related deaths through stronger laws, tougher enforcement, and increased public awareness. Last year, alcohol-related traffic fatalities reached a historic low. But even one death is still one too many; that is why I was pleased to sign into law this October a nationwide impaired-driving standard of .08 blood alcohol content (BAC). Once all 50 States set their BAC limits to .08, we can save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of injuries each year on America's streets and highways.

There are other measures we are taking to reduce the incidence of drunk driving. Last December, the Department of Transportation unveiled the “You Drink and Drive. You Lose.” campaign, an effort to promote greater public awareness of the dangers of impaired driving. In just 1 year, hundreds of communities and law enforcement agencies have joined the campaign, helping to reach nearly 100 million Americans with this simple but lifesaving message.

In memory of the thousands of victims who have lost their lives to alcohol- and drug-impaired drivers, I ask all motorists to participate in “National Lights On for Life Day” on December 15, 2000, by driving with their vehicle headlights illuminated. By doing so, we will call attention to this devastating national problem and remind others on the road of their responsibility to drive sober and drug-free.

                        NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 2000 as National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month. I urge all Americans to acknowledge the dangers of impaired driving, to make the right choice by designating a sober driver, to prevent impaired family members and friends from getting behind the wheel, and to help teach our young drivers the importance of alcohol- and drug-free driving. I also call on all State, county, and local leaders to make safety a top priority and to work together to make our Nation's transportation system the safest it can be.                              ( print page 76914)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fifth.

[FR Doc. 00-31353

Billing code 3195-01-P
#### COLEMAN v. STATE.

No. 14857.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 10, 1932.

Art Schlofman, of Dalhart, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol; punishment, a fine of $100.

There is complaint by bill of exception of the fact that the state was allowed to prove by a witness that another person had told him that appellant had a six-shooter. This was clearly hearsay. It may have brought about this conviction. We cannot say it was upon an immaterial matter, because upon the record much doubt existed as to whether the thing carried by appellant was a pistol or otherwise.

The state introduced one witness; appellant, none. The state witness was an officer of long experience. He said he. had never handled a gun such as the one taken from appellant in his life. Describing it, he said it had a 12-inch barrel and a pistol grip handle, the whole measuring 17 inches in length. He exhibited the shell which he took from the weapon, and said that it was a shotgun shell; *325that it was a .410. On cross-examination he was asked but one question, and, replying, stated that he had sworn in another matter that this was a “Handy shot gun,” and that this was what the weapon was called.

Since the case must be reversed for the admission of the hearsay testimony, we go no further than to express serious doubt as to whether this weapon can be held to be a pistol under the testimony before the court. It shoots a shotgun shell; it is called a “Handy shot gun,” and, in the absence of some testimony that it is a pistol, we would feel inclined to hold the judgment without support in the testimony. Perhaps upon another trial this point may be clarified.

The judgment will be reversed, and th& cause remanded.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)

I, C. Patrick Machado, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
Form 10-Q/A of Medivation, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date: March 24, 2014



|       |  |                                                   
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------
|       |  | /s/ C. Patrick Machado                            
|Name:  |  | C. Patrick Machado                                
|Title: |  | Chief Business Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
Order entered November 13, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00961
- CV THE CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V. WILLIAM CLINTON FREE MAN, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 16
- 00805
- C



### O RDER Before the Court is appellee’s November 12, 2018 unopposed mo t ion for enlargement of time to file brief. Appellee seeks an extension of twenty days from the date a supplement a l clerk’s record he requested November 5, 2018 is filed.
We GRANT the motion and ORDER as follows. We ORDER Dallas C ounty Clerk John F. Warren to file, no later than November 26, 2018, the supplemental record requested by appellee November 5 th

. We further ORDER appellee to file his brief no later than December 17, 2018.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Mr. Warren and the parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
#### POWELL v. LAKE et al.

No. 12685.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

April 2, 1938.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1938.

S. W. Pratt, of Commerce, for appellant.

Mayo W. Neyland, of Greenville, for ap-pellees.

YOUNG, Justice.

Appellant’s motion at this time to file statement of facts and transcript shows good cause, had the facts therein been presented to us in a motion for extension of time, filed within the sixty-day period fixed by article 1839, R.S., as amended Acts 1933 43d Leg. c. 67, p. 142, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1839;' or within the fifteen-day grace period thereafter. The final order herein overruling motion for new trial, from which appeal is taken, was dated November 26, 1937. No motion for extension having been made by appellant during the statutory time, we have lost jurisdiction to permit filing of the record, or to entertain a motion to such effect. The Supreme Court has definitely held that, where the record on appeal is not filed in the Court of Civil Appeals within the time allowed by law, and no motion for extension is filed within that period or within the fifteen days thereafter, the right of appeal is lost; and when appel-lees make a' showing that appellant has perfected bis appeal in accordance with law, thereafter failing to file transcript of the record in this court, within the required time, or a motion for extension during the seventy-five days mentioned, the right to an affirmance on certificate becomes absolute. Jarrell v. Farmers’ & Merchants’ State Bond Bank, 128 Tex. 332, 99 S.W.2d 281.

Appellant’s motion is.therefore overruled, and that of appellees to affirm on certificate is sustained.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1710

JESSICA LYNNE REAVIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant , JERRY O’NEIL , Appellant,

v. PAUL GAMMON; SHARON GAMMON; DIESEL ENGINE & EQUIPMENT REPAIR; JOHN DOES 1

- 20 , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Danville

. Thomas T. Cullen , District Judge. ( 4:21

- cv - 00006

- TTC )

Submitted : February 21 , 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ , Circuit Judge s , and MOTZ , Senior Circuit Judge

.

A ffirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jessica Lynne Reavis; Jerry O’Neil, Appellants Pro Se. Clinton Wes Verity, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN , Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1710 Doc: 42 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1710 Doc: 42 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Jessica Lynne Reavis and Jerry O’Neil (collectively, Appellants) appeal the district court’s orders denying their motions to substitute pa rties and to reconsider. We have
reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err . We therefore affirm
the district court’s order s. Reavis v. Gammon , No. 4:21

- cv - 00006

- T T C (W.D. Va. Apr. 27 & May 25, 2021). We also deny all pending motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-1710 Doc: 42 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chester D. Parker, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By consenting to the excusal of a sworn juror during jury selection, defendant failed to preserve any issue for review concerning the removal of the juror (CPL 470.05 [2]). In our view, defendant’s interests were adequately protected by the presence of defendant’s counsel at the bench conference concerning the removal of the sworn juror *(see, People v Darby,*75 NY2d 449). The testimony of the victim’s *918neighbor concerning her observation of defendant in the victim’s yard four days prior to the attack on the victim was probative on the issue of identity *(see, People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 241-242). Finally, defendant failed to preserve for review his argument that the court’s instruction on reasonable doubt was erroneous *(see, People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467, 471), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—rape, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.