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 NB Manufacturing, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Derold L. Kelley, Secretary/Treasurer and Director 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), as applicable, 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.

Date:    November 7, 2007
                                           /s/ Derold L. Kelley
                                           --------------------
                                           Derold L. Kelley
                                           Secretary/Treasurer and Director
# C_2023340EN.01000401.xml

| 27.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11035 – STENA / MIDSONA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 340/04)

On 14 March 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11035. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11035. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|          |   |                        |
|---------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|          |   |                        |   |
| June 24, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Samuel Wolf        |   |
|          |   | Samuel Wolf                 |   |
|          |   | Principal Executive Officer |   |
|          |   |                        |   |
#### Sherman MATLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 20820.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1939.

Wm. E. Davenport, of San Angelo, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for burglary, punishment being two years in the penitentiary.

Since perfecting his appeal appellant has filed his affidavit advising that he does not desire to prosecute his appeal, and at his request same is dismissed.
#### BIRCHER v. STATE.

No. 14769.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1932.

Gentry & Gray, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for forgery; punishment being assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condition, nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A2481. ROBERT CAMPBELL v. HARRY J. ALTMAN, II.

Robert Campbell was convicted of hijacking a motor vehicle and other crimes,

and we affirmed his convictions on appeal.Campbell v. State, 314 Ga. App. 299 (724

SE2d 24) (2012). In January 2019, Campbell submitted a pro se petition for a writ of

mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on a pending motion in his

criminal case. The trial court dismissed the petition, and Campbell then filed the

instant direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

While judgments and orders granting or refusing to grant mandamus relief are

generally directly appealable, see OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (7), under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, any appeal in a civil case that was initiated by a prisoner must come by

discretionary application. See OCGA § 42-12-8; Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489,

490 (480 SE2d 24) (1997). Because Campbell was incarcerated when he filed this

action, he was required to file an application for discretionary appeal to seek an

appeal of the trial court’s order. “[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals

procedure is jurisdictional.” Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d

265) (1991). 

August 05, 2019
Campbell’s failure to follow the required appellate procedure deprives us of

jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/05/2019
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification****of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer**


**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 Shelby Acquisition IV, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      James R. Kerr, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/
                James R. KerrJames
                R. Kerr
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              March
                11, 2008
No. 72-6304.

#### Williams *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Gallagher et al., Appellants.

(No. 28884

Decided December 17, 1941.)

*Mr. Frank T. Cullitan,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Neil W. McGill,*for appellee.

*Mr. Martin A. McCormack*and *Mr. Maxwell J. Gruber,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John V. Winfield, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Portsmouth Square,
Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 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 annual report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

    a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

    c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

    a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

    b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: October 7, 2004                         /s/ John V. Winfield
                                              ---------------------------
                                              John V. Winfield, President
                                              and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Ronald L. Blake, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Rewards Network 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: February 26, 2010 |  |  |  | /S/ RONALD L. BLAKE                  
|                        |  |  |  | Ronald L. Blake                      
|                        |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2651

LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE;

MAYOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND; COMMISSIONER

BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARYLAND; COMMISSIONER HOWARD COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARYLAND; FIRE CHIEF HOWARD COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, MARYLAND; DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; PRESTIGE MOTORS,

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; COUNTY EXECUTIVE, HOWARD

COUNTY, MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-3747-S)

Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wilder

v. United States Federal Protective Serv., No. CA-97-3747-S (D. Md.

Nov. 21, 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
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We    hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements    on Form S-3 (No. 333-92225) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-50849, 333-15189, 333-15259,    333-38713, 333-38881, 333-42683, 333-68147, 333-82679, 333-82677, 333-91771,    333-91951, 333-91955, 333-35080, 333-51644, 333-51648, 333-73980, 333-74252,    333-74254, 333-101542, 333-101844, 333-101846, 333-102063, 333-120084, 333-120085,    and 333-120087) of Applera Corporation of our report dated August 23, 2006    relating to the consolidated financial statements, management’s assessment    of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the    effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears    in the Annual Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated by reference    in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation    by reference of our report dated August 23, 2006 relating to the financialstatement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP       |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Stamford, ConnecticutAugust 23, 2006 |   |   |   |
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Charles Thompson Slay, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Forza Environmental
      Building Products, Inc. for the period ended November 30, 2011 (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 Forza Environmental Building Products,
  Inc..                                                                 

Dated: January 14, 2011

| | /s/
      Charles Thompson Slay                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| | Charles Thompson Slay                                           
| | President, Chief Operating Officer, Secretary
      and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                                   
| | Forza Environmental Building Products, Inc.                     

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 Forza
Environmental Building Products, Inc. and will be retained by Forza
Environmental Building Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
EXHIBIT 25


                                   EXHIBIT 25

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                   CONCERNING
                              FORM 10-K FISCAL 1998


         Each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints JOHN
R. HELMEN his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place, and stead, in
any and all capacities to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1998, and any or all amendments to such Annual Report on
other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he
might or could do in person, ratifying and confirming all that said
attorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue thereof.

Signature                                                 Date
---------                                                 ----

/s/John R. Helmen, Chief Executive Officer,
President and Director (Principal executive officer)      March 12, 1999


/s/Leslie A. Willig                                       March 12, 1999
Leslie A. Willig, Chairman

/s/Curtis R. Jackels                                      March 12, 1999
Curtis R. Jackels, Vice President - Finance
and Treasurer (principal financial and principal
accounting officer)

/s/George A. Kiproff                                      March 12, 1999
George A. Kiproff, Director

/s/James R. Loomis                                        March 12, 1999
James R. Loomis, Director

/s/Thomas J. Cassady                                      March 12, 1999
Thomas J. Cassady, Director


                                       31
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report April 23, 2007
 Grant Prideco, Inc.
  Delaware
(State of Incorporation)
    
    001-15423
(Commission File No.)
    
    76-0312499
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 400 N. Sam Houston Pkwy. East, Suite 900
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    77060
(Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code: (281) 878-8000
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02. Results of Operations and Financial Condition
  Item 9.01. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.
 (c) Exhibits.
  SIGNATURE
  Grant Prideco, Inc.Date:  April 24, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Philip A. ChoycePhilip A. ChoyceVice President and General Counsel
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6903

GLENDA MAY DEAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia

Parole Board,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-683-3)

Submitted: August 12, 1997 Decided: August 27, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glenda May Deal, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Glenda Deal appeals the district court's order dismissing her

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). Deal's case was referred

to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Deal that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation

could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon

the recommendation. Despite this warning, Deal failed to object to

the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Deal has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

AFFIRMED