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  The undersigned, Barry Hollander, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director of Techs Loanstar, Inc., hereby certifies, 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/A of Techs Loanstar, Inc. for the period ended January 31, 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 Techs Loanstar, Inc.  Dated: June 16, 2011  /s/ Barry Hollander
Name: Barry Hollander
Title: Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)  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 Techs Loanstar, Inc. and will be retained by Techs Loanstar, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6398

DAVID A. SUMRALL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00-

378-MJG)

Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David A. Sumrall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

February 15, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on February 16, 2000. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

David A. Sumrall appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999). 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 on the reasoning of the

district court. See Sumrall v. Maryland, No. CA-00-378-MJG (D. Md.

Feb. 16, 2000).* 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
The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) is doubling the power of its proton beam, from 1.4 to 

2.8 megawatts, through the Proton Power Upgrade (PPU) project. The upgrade, planned 

for completion in 2025, will enable new types of scientific discoveries that are essential to 

sustaining US leadership in industrial, military, national security, consumer, and other sectors 

vital to our nation’s economy.

Benefits of the Proton Power Upgrade

• Accelerate the pace of scientific discovery across a wide range of materials 

and technologies

• Enable novel neutron experiments in more extreme environments using smaller samples

• Leverage existing ORNL facilities and capabilities for maximum cost-effectiveness

• Power the Second Target Station to provide the world’s brightest “cold” neutrons, 

enabling studies of more complex materials

Proton Power Upgrade: 

Twice the Power to Enable 

Unique Neutron Science

Neutrons: An Essential Research Tool

for Technology, Industry, and More

ORNL has pioneered neutron research since 1944. Today, the Laboratory operates the 

SNS (the most intense accelerator-based pulsed neutron source in the world) and the 

High Flux Isotope Reactor (a reactor-based neutron source that provides the brightest 

continuous neutron beams for research in the United States). With their unique 

properties, neutrons have helped improve many technologies, including computers, cell 

phones, transportation, batteries, medical devices, energy production, cancer treatments, 

and airport shipping and security.

neutrons.ornl.gov/ppu

Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by 

UT-Battelle LLC for the US Department of Energy

2.8 MW

Doubles the power of

the existing

proton beam 

Delivers

more 

Neutrons in shorter 

pulses to permit more

and faster

experiments

Enables 

Building the 

future Second 

Target Station 

40% 

More power to the 

existing First Target

Station

January 2022

CONTACT:

Neutron Sciences 

Directorate

neutrons.ornl.gov,

865-574-0558

One Bethel Valley Road, 

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
#                                                     Agustin  Abarca Gimenez                                            

### 

## Contact

abarcagimena@ornl.gov
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 Sears Canada Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the 52-week period ended January 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald Boire, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:  March 13, 2015


/s/ Ronald BoireRonald BoirePresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
73 7-6 0 0/ -70 0/ -8 0 0/ -9 0 0 AI R P LAN E F L I G H T M AN U AL

C o d e 4 0 0 1 FAA APPROVED 

### 03-14-13D631A001 Section 1 Page 14A M I S C E L L A N E O U S L I M I T A T I O N S ( Th e f o l l o w i n g CAB I N AL T I TUD E WARN I NG TAK E O F F B R I E F I NG s e c t i o n i s n o t app l i c a b l e i f CAB I N AL T I TUD E a nd TAK E O F F C ONF I G l i gh t s a r e i n s t a l l e d a nd a c t i va t e d a s ma nd a t e d by AD 2 0 1 3
- 0 2
- 0 5 . ) CAB I N AL T I TUD E WARN I NG TAK E O F F B R I E F I NG ( r e qu i r e d by AD 2 0 0 8
- 2 3
- 0 7 ) W i t h t h e CAB I N AL T I TUD E a nd TAK E O F F C ONF I G l i gh t s n o t i n s t a l l e d , o r i n s t a l l e d bu t n o t a c t i va t e d : A s p a r t o f t h e T a k e o f f B r i e f i n g b e f o r e e n g i n e s t a r t f o r t h e f i r s t f l i gh t o f t h e d ay o r f o l l o w i n g a ny c h a n g e o f e i t h e r f l i gh t c r e w memb e r , t h e p i l o t
- i n - c omma nd w i l l e n s u r e t h e C a b i n A l t i t ud e W a r n i n g i nd i c a t i o n s a nd p r o c e du r e s a r e b r i e f e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o c e du r e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e N o rma l P r o c e du r e s S e c t i o n o f t h i s ma nu a l . C O L D S OAK E D F U E L F R O S T Th e c e r t i f i e d p e r f o rma n c e d a t a i n t h i s AF M i s n o t a f f e c t e d i f c o l d s o a k e d f u e l f r o s t d o e s n o t e x c e e d t h e l i m i t s s p e c i f i e d b e l o w . Th i s f i nd i n g d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e o p e r a t i o n a l app r o va l t o c o ndu c t t a k e o f f s w i t h c o l d s o a k e d f u e l f r o s t o n t h e w i ng s a nd w i l l r e qu i r e t h e o p e r a t o r t o o b t a i n a n e x emp t i o n f r om t h e FAA o r may r e qu i r e a n e qu i va l e n t e x emp t i o n f r om a f o r e i g n r e g u l a t o ry a u t h o r i t y . T a k e o f f i s n o t p e rm i t t e d i f : 1 . Th e c o l d s o a k e d f u e l f r o s t e x c e e d s 1 / 8 i n c h ( 3 m m ) i n t h i c kn e s s o n t h e l o w e r w i n g t a nk s u r f a c e s . 2 . Th e r e i s c o l d s o a k e d f u e l f r o s t o n t h e upp e r w i ng t a nk s u r f a c e s :

( a ) Th a t e x c e e d s 1 / 1 6 i n c h ( 1 . 5 m m ) o r ( b ) Th a t i s n o t o f s i m i l a r e x t e n t o n b o t h w i ng s o r ( c ) Th a t i s b e y o nd t h e o u t e r e d g e o f t h e b l a c k l i n e s d e f i n i n g t h e c o l d s o a k e d f u e l f r o s t a r e a ( i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h B o e i n g S e r v i c e B u l l e t i n 7 3 7
- 1 1
- 1 1 2 5 , o r t h e p r o du c t i o n e qu i va l e n t ) . 3 . Th e r e i s c o l d s o a k e d f u e l f r o s t o n t h e upp e r w i ng t a nk s u r f a c e s :

( a ) And t h e amb i e n t a i r t emp e r a t u r e i s b e l o w f r e e z i ng ( 0 o C , 3 2 o F ) o r ( b ) Th e r e i s p r e c i p i t a t i o n o r v i s i b l e mo i s t u r e ( r a i n , s n o w , d r i z z l e , o r f o g w i t h l e s s t h a n 1 m i l e v i s i b i l i t y ) .
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

p0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138860 

MARK FENTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138860 

 COA: 279673 

Wayne CC: 06-626263-NF 

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the 

completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of WhiteHorse Finance, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward J. Giordano, as Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge 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. /s/ Edward J. Giordano Name: Edward J. Giordano Title:  Interim Chief Financial Officer Date: March 14, 2019
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO . 09
- 1 4
- 00 012
- C R



### ____________________

IN RE JOHN D. FAILS J R .

_______________________________________________________ ______________ Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a petition for writ of mandamus, John D . Fails complains that he filed an application for writ of habeas corpus with the convicting court on October 7, 20 13, but he has not received a copy of the State’s response to his application. Fails states that he filed a motion to vacate his sentence on December 12, 2013. He argues that he is entitled to have his sentence vacated and to have the indictment dismissed with prejudice as a remedy for a due process violation because the State failed to send him a copy of its response and the district clerk failed to forward his habeas petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals. He asks this Court to vacate his sentence and dismiss the indictment.2 The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to grant post

conviction relief. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeal s , 802 S.W.3d 241, 2 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991 )

. After a post

- conviction habeas proceeding commences , the defendant’s complain t s about the convicting court’s handling of the habeas petition must be presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Padieu v. Court of Appea ls of Tex., Fifth Dist. , 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) ; In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist. 2001, orig. proceeding) (“Should an applicant find it necessary to complain about an action or inaction of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.”)

. Fails has not shown that the trial court failed to act on a matter over which we have jurisdiction. See Padieu , 392 S.W.3d at 11 7

- 1 8. We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION D ISMISS ED

.

PER CURIAM Opinion Delivered February 12, 2014 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson , JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3624 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent fraudulent joinder. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 

Mr. BUCK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent fraudulent 

joinder. 

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 ‘‘Fraudulent Joinder 

5 Prevention Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF FRAUDULENT JOINDER. 

7 Section 1447(c) of title 28, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘A motion 

9 for remand, and any opposition thereto, may include affi10 davit or other evidence showing a plausible claim for relief 

11 against each nondiverse defendant, or the lack thereof, or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3624 IH

1 indicating a good faith intention to prosecute the action 

2 against each nondiverse defendant or to seek a joint judg3 ment, or the lack of such a good faith intent. The district 

4 court shall deny a motion to remand if it finds that the 

5 complaint does not state a plausible claim for relief 

6 against a nondiverse defendant under applicable State law 

7 or there is no good faith intention to prosecute the action 

8 against a nondiverse defendant or to seek a joint judg9 ment.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Marc Kilbride, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CenterPoint Energy Transition BondCompany, LLC;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially 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 recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: May 11, 2007                                                    /s/ Marc Kilbride   Marc Kilbride   Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
[No. 24601-5-II.

Division Two.

October 27, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Rodney A. Davies, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 98-1-01284-4, George L. Wood, J., entered March 22, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Hunt, A.C.J., and Houghton, J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6577

JAMES ALBERT TAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, in the Circuit for Calvert County, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA01-50-S) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Albert Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Albert Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000), which the district court construed as a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Taylor’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 16, 2001. Taylor’s notice of appeal was filed on March 27, 2001. Because Taylor failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### SHEPHERD v. STATE.

No. 18446.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1936.

C. D. Little, of Baytown, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of the offense of robbery, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for life.

By bill of exception No. 1 appellant complains of the action of the trial court in permitting the state on cross-examination of the witness Z. M. Shye to question him with reference to testimony which he gave before the grand jury and to read to the jury a transcribed copy thereof for the purpose of showing a variance as to the time he saw the appellant in Bay-town.' There is but very little variance in the testimony given upon this trial and that given before the grand jury. This bill is in question and answer form, without a certificate from the trial court that it was necessary that the same be in such form. Hence it cannot be considered by this court. See Monday v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 44, 60 S.W.(2d) 435. However, if the bill had -been in narrative form it would not have disclosed any reversible error.

By bill of exception No. 2 appellant complains of the court’s action in overruling his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence relating to his insanity; and in support of said motion he attachés an affidavit of his father which was sworn to before his, appellant’s attorney. No other testimony seems to have been offered either as to his insanity or the diligence, if ■ any, which he and his attorney exercised to discover said evidence. The motion was contested by the state. This court has held that an attorney'for a defendant, who is also a notary public, is not authorized to take an affidavit to be used in the case in which he *439represents the defendant. See Garza v. State, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 476, 145 S.W. 590; Hogan v. State, 66 Tex.Cr.R. 498, 147 S. W. 871; Cuellar v. State, 69 Tex.Cr.R. 155, 154 S.W. 228; Peters v. State, *69*Tex.Cr.R. 561, 155 S.W. 212; Gordon v. State, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 285, 162 S.W. 522; Ex parte Turner, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 682, 2 S.W.(2d) 845.

It is well established by the decisions of this court that a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is largely confided to the discretion of the trial court; and the disposition there made, of it will not be disturbed on appeal unless it be apparent that the trial court abused his discretion to the prejudice of the 'appellant. See Burns v. State, 12 Tex.App. 269. We have reviewed the testimony as it appears in this record and reached the conclusion that it is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00258-CR

EX PARTE Luis Miguel Ramirez PEREZ

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10366CR

Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court denying 

appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED. This court’s May 4, 2022 stay is 

LIFTED.

SIGNED February 22, 2023.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice