alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Sunrise Energy Services, Inc. a Delaware
corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), Konstantin Tsirulnikov, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of
his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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  result of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

|                     | 
|-------------------- | 
|                     | 
|Date: March 31, 2006 | 
|                     | 
|                     | 
|                     | 

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SEREYRATH VAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 6 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### LEONARD BROS. v. NEWTON.

No. 1661—6797.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

Feb. 3, 1937.

Cantey, Hanger & McMahon and J. A Gooch, all of Fort Worth, for plaintiff ir, error.

W. M. Short and James E. Whitmore both of Fort Worth, for defendant in error.

TAYLOR, Commissioner.

Defendant in error has filed a motion praying that the order granting the application for writ of error be set aside and the application dismissed, for the reason that it appears the court was without jurisdiction to grant the writ.

It is pointed out in the motion that it does not appear from the application that the matter therein complained of by defendant in error was* complained of in a motion for rehearing filed in the Court of Civil Appeals, or even. that such motion was filed.

It is essential to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review a case of- this character for the application for the wrii of error to show that a motion for re hearing was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals presenting the points on which the writ is asked. Knodel v. Equitable Life *224Ins. Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 221 S.W. 941; Employers’ Cas. Co. v. Roland (Tex.Com.App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 568; Blackmon v. Trail (Tex.Com.App.) 12 S.W.(2d) 967. See also in this connection City National Bank in Childress v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 124 Tex. 456, 78 S.W.(2d) 576 and Grayce Oil Co. et al. v. Peterson et al. (Tex.Sup.) 98 S.W.(2d) 781.

Upon a re-examination of the application for the writ we find it lacking in essential grounds of jurisdiction as pointed out in the motion. It is void of allegations of any grounds, showing this court has authority to hear the case.

The writ was inadvertently granted. The order granting same is set aside and the application dismissed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7166

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JING PING LI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-92-188-2, CA-96-1208-2)

Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: July 9, 1998

Before WIDENER and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Robert Sebok, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jing Ping Li seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Li, Nos. CR-92-188-2; CA-96-1208-2

(E.D. Va. July 29, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
PROMISSORY NOTE


$200,000.00                                                  Englewood, Colorado

                                                           Date:  August 6, 1999

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  the undersigned John Kane ("Maker") promises to pay to
the order of ICG Telecom Group,  Inc., its successors or assigns  ("Holder") the
principal sum of Two Hundred  Thousand and 00/100  Dollars  ($200,000.00).  Such
amount  shall be payable  immediately  on demand to the Holder at 161  Inverness
Drive West, Englewood,  Colorado 80112, or at such other place as the Holder may
designate from time to time in writing,  in lawful money of the United States of
America.

     This Note shall not bear  interest on the  principal  hereof.  However,  if
payment of this Note is not made when due, the principal  shall accrue  interest
at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum until paid.

     This Note shall be binding upon the Maker,  his  personal  representatives,
heirs, successors and assigns.

     Maker  agrees to pay to the  Holder  upon  demand,  all costs and  expenses
(including attorneys' fees) incurred by the Holder in collection and enforcement
of this Note.

     The terms and  provisions of this Note shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Colorado


                                                     MAKER:

                                                     /s/ John Kane
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     John Kane
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2507 

To require short-term limited duration insurance issuers to renew or continue 

in force such coverage at the option of the enrollees. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2018 

Mr. BARRASSO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require short-term limited duration insurance issuers to 

renew or continue in force such coverage at the option 

of the enrollees. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Choices in 

5 Health Care Coverage Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SHORT-TERM LIMITED DURATION INSURANCE. 

7 (a) DEFINITION.—Section 2791(b) of the Public 

8 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–91(b)) is amended 

9 by adding at the end the following: 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2507 IS

1 ‘‘(6) SHORT-TERM LIMITED DURATION INSUR2 ANCE.—The term ‘short-term limited duration insur3 ance’ means health insurance coverage provided pur4 suant to a contract with a health insurance issuer 

5 that has an expiration date specified in the contract 

6 (not taking into account any extensions that may be 

7 elected by the policyholder with or without the 

8 issuer’s consent) that is less than 12 months after 

9 the original effective date of the contract.’’. 

10 (b) GUARANTEED RENEWABILITY.—Section 2703 of 

11 the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–2) is 

12 amended— 

13 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘or offers 

14 short-term limited duration insurance’’ after ‘‘group 

15 market’’; and 

16 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(f) APPLICATION TO SHORT-TERM LIMITED DURA18 TION INSURANCE.— 

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In applying this section in 

20 the case of short-term limited duration insurance— 

21 ‘‘(A) a reference to ‘health insurance cov22 erage’ with respect to such coverage offered in 

23 the individual market shall be deemed to in24 clude short-term limited duration insurance; 

25 and 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2507 IS

1 ‘‘(B) a reference to ‘health insurance 

2 issuer’ with respect to health insurance cov3 erage offered in the individual market shall be 

4 deemed to include an issuer of short-term lim5 ited duration insurance. 

6 ‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR SHORT-TERM LIMITED

7 DURATION INSURANCE.—In the case of short-term 

8 limited duration insurance, at the time of application 

9 for enrollment in such insurance coverage, an indi10 vidual may decline renewability of such coverage in 

11 accordance with this section, and the contract be12 tween such individual and the health insurance 

13 issuer shall specify whether the individual opted for 

14 renewability or no renewability.’’. 

15 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub16 sections (a) and (b) shall apply with respect to contracts 

17 for short-term limited duration insurance that take effect 

18 on or after May 1, 2018. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ICT Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vincent A. Paccapaniccia, Executive Vice President, Corporate Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |  |  |                                                                        
|---------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 |  | 
|November 5, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Vincent A. Paccapaniccia                                           
|                 |  |  |  | Vincent A. Paccapaniccia                                               
|                 |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate Finance and Chief Financial Officer
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2617 

To recognize the National Aviation Cadet Museum of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2018 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mr. COTTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To recognize the National Aviation Cadet Museum of the 

United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Aviation 

5 Cadet Museum of the United States Recognition Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) in 1994, former aviation cadet and Air 

9 Force First Lieutenant Errol Severe founded the 

10 Aviation Cadet Museum; 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2617 IS

1 (2) from 1917 to 1965, the flying cadet and 

2 succeeding aviation cadet programs served as the 

3 primary production source for nearly 500,000 joint4 service pilots, navigators, and bombardiers; 

5 (3) the bravery, courage, dedication, and her6 oism of aviators and supporting ground crews from 

7 the Army Air Corps and the Army Air Forces were 

8 critical factors in defeating the enemies of the 

9 United States during World War I and World War 

10 II; 

11 (4) the Aviation Cadet Museum in Eureka 

12 Springs, Arkansas, is the only museum in the 

13 United States that exists exclusively to preserve and 

14 promote an understanding of the role of aviation ca15 dets in the 20th century; and 

16 (5) the Aviation Cadet Museum is dedicated 

17 to— 

18 (A) celebrating the spirit of the United 

19 States; and 

20 (B) recognizing the teamwork, collabora21 tion, patriotism, and courage of the individuals 

22 who trained for and fought in, and the individ23 uals on the homefront who mobilized and sup24 ported, the national aviation effort. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2617 IS

1 SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL AVIATION CADET MU2 SEUM OF THE UNITED STATES. 

3 (a) RECOGNITION.—The Aviation Cadet Museum in 

4 Eureka Springs, Arkansas, is recognized as the National 

5 Aviation Cadet Museum of the United States. 

6 (b) EFFECT OF RECOGNITION.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The national museum recog8 nized by subsection (a) is not a unit of the National 

9 Park System. 

10 (2) USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—The recognition 

11 of the national museum by subsection (a) shall not 

12 require Federal funds to be expended for any pur13 pose related to the national museum. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-262-001]


Florida Power Corporation; Notice of Filing

December 1, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 27, 2000, Florida Power Corporation 
(Florida Power or Company), tendered for filing two amended executed 
Interconnection and Operating Agreements (Interconnection Agreements): 
One with Shady Hills Power Company, LLC (Shady Hills) and one with 
Reliant Energy Osceola, LLC (Reliant-Osceola). These two amended 
Interconnection Agreements will replace the ones originally filed by 
Florida Power in the above-referenced docket number on October 30, 
2000. The Company is filing these amended versions to comply with the 
Company's pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) with respect 
to the establishment of an independent escrow account for disputed 
amounts and the interest rate on unpaid balances. The Company has also 
included additional cost of service data for each Interconnection 
Agreement.
    The Company requests the same effective dates originally requested: 
October 1, 2000 for the Shady Hills Interconnection Agreement, and 
November 1, 2000 for the Reliant-Osceola Interconnection Agreement.
    Copies of the filing were served on the Florida Public Service 
Commission and on the official service list in this docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before December 18, 2000. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-31279 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection
with the Quarterly Report of ICT Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John J. Brennan, Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|               |  |                                                
|-------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|August 1, 2005 |  | /s/ John J. Brennan                            
|               |  | John J. Brennan                                
|               |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 253 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare 

outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CASEY, and Mr. HELLER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal 

the Medicare outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Access to 

5 Rehabilitation Services Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OUTPATIENT THERAPY CAP REPEAL. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833 of the Social Secu8 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(l)) is amended by striking sub9 section (g). 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 253 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

2 1842(t)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

3 1395u(t)(2)) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘(2) Each request’’ and all that 

5 follows through ‘‘1833(a)(8)(B),’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘(2)(A) Each request for payment, or bill submitted, 

7 for therapy services described in subparagraph (B)’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(B) The following therapy services are described in 

12 this subparagraph: 

13 ‘‘(i) Physical therapy services of the type de14 scribed in section 1861(p) and speech-language pa15 thology services of the type described in such section 

16 through the application of section 1861(ll)(2), in17 cluding services described in section 1833(a)(8)(B), 

18 and physical therapy services and speech-language 

19 pathology services of such type which are furnished 

20 by a physician or as incident to physicians’ services. 

21 ‘‘(ii) Occupational therapy services of the type 

22 that are described in section 1861(p), including serv23 ices described in section 1833(a)(8)(B), through the 

24 operation of section 1861(g) and of such type which 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 253 IS

1 are furnished by a physician or as incident to physi2 cians’ services.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
#### LEWTER v. STATE.

No. 17547.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 24, 1935.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1935.

Levi Pressly and John Morison, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for robbery; punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.

The record is here without any statement of facts or bills of exception. All matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant undertakes to excuse himself for failure to have statement of facts in the record by affidavits attached to his motion for rehearing. It appears to be an effort to put himself in position to invoke the rule demanding a reversal where appellant has been deprived of a statement of facts without fault on his part. The substance of the affidavits is that appellant paid the court reporter to prepare the statement of facts, which was delivered by the reporter to the attorney who had been employed by a friend to represent appellant, and that said attorney lost or mislaid the statement of facts. Such showing does not bring appellant within the rule sought to be invoked. Before a judgment will be reversed because of an absence of a statement of facts, it must be made to appear that appellant has been deprived thereof without fault or negligence of himself or *his counsel.*Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. 305, § 597; Texas Jurisprudence, vol. 4, p. 450, §§ 312, 313, 314. Cases are cited under the texts in both authorities referred to. See, also, Clampitt v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 148, 256 S. W. 272; Vickers v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 609, 236 S. W. 483. It appears from the showing here made that appellant used proper diligence to secure preparation of the statement of facts, and it is to be regretted that through the carelessness or negligence of his attorney he is deprived of the benefit thereof. This court could scarcely be expected to commit itself to the proposition that a judgment of conviction should be reversed because of the absence of a statement of facts occurring under the circumstances here shown.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.