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 Your Digital Memories, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Alan Sacks, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 the operation of the Company.


                                     /s/ Alan Sacks
                                     ---------------------------------------
                                     Alan Sacks
                                     Principal Financial Officer
                                     April 11, 2008

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Craig J. Cerny, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Harrington West FinancialGroup, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
Date: March 25, 2005     /s/ Craig J. Cerny   Craig J. Cerny, Chief Executive Officer
125
EX-10.4



 EXHIBIT 10.4 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE
MGM MIRAGE 
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN II 

WHEREAS, Section 11.2 of the MGM MIRAGE Deferred Compensation Plan II (the “Plan”) provides that the Plan may
be amended in whole or in part by the Board of Directors of MGM MIRAGE (the “Board”), provided that no amendment or modification shall decrease or restrict the value of a Participant’s vested account balance in existence at the time
of such amendment or modification; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board has approved and authorized this Amendment No. 1 to the
Plan (this “Amendment”). 
 NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of October 28, 2008, the Plan is hereby amended as
follows: 
 1. Section 3.6 of the Plan shall be amended to add the following sentence at the end thereof: 

Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no Annual Company Matching Amounts shall be credited to the account of any
Participant with respect to any Plan Year commencing on or after January 1, 2009; provided, however, that a Participant shall continue to vest in Annual Company Matching Amounts credited prior to such date in accordance with Section 3.7 of
the Plan. 
 2. Article 11 of the Plan shall be amended to add the following new Section 11.5: 

Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Committee, in its sole discretion and to the extent it deems appropriate,
may permit Participants to make changes to existing payment elections prior to December 31, 2008 or such earlier date as the Committee may specify. Any election changes made pursuant to this Section 11.5 may not defer into later years
amounts that would have been payable in 2008 or cause payment of amounts payable in later years to be accelerated into 2008. Elections under this section 11.5 shall comply in all respects with the provisions of Internal Revenue Service Notice
2007-86 and other applicable Internal Revenue Service and Treasury guidance. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is
executed by a duly authorized officer as of the date set forth below. 
  

									
	By:	  	 /s/ John McManus
	  		  	Date:	  	Dec. 3, 2008
					
	Its:	  	Asst. Secretary
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 2173

MARCUS SMITH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. LOWES COMPANIES, INC. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:21

- cv - 00034

- RJC

- SCR )

Submitted : March 12, 2024 Decided: March 14, 2024

Before GREGORY , RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Marcus Smith , Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Manos , Frederick Thomas Smith , SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP , Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2173 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Marcus Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Smith’s complaint for failure to timely exhaust
administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Smith v. Lowes Cos. , No. 3:21

- cv 000034

- RJC

- SCR (W.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2023) . 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

* To the extent Smith seeks to supplement the record on appeal, we decline to consider evidence that was not presented to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a); United States v. Redd , 85 F.4th 153, 168 n.13 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he proper setting for developing the record is in the district court, not this Court in the first instance.”). USCA4 Appeal: 23-2173 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                        Consent of Independent Auditors


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-51496) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option Plan of
Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings, Ltd. of our report dated February 12, 2001,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Scottish Annuity & Life
Holdings, Ltd. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000.


/s/ Ernst & Young

Ernst & Young
George Town, Grand Cayman
British West Indies
March 27, 2001
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 24.1




                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

              KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, on behalf of
Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings, Ltd., a Cayman Islands company (the
"Company"), hereby constitutes and appoints Michael C. French, Peter W.
Presperin, Robert L. Estep and Christopher A. Butner, and each of them, the true
and lawful attorney or attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for the Company, to sign on behalf of the Company and on behalf
of the undersigned in his or her capacity as an officer and/or a director of the
Company, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 1998, and to sign any or all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with
all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, to or with
the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, granting unto
said attorney or attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others,
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 in order to
effectuate the same as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned
might or could in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney
or attorneys-in-fact, or any of them or their substitute or substitutes, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Power of Attorney as of
March 22, 1999.



   /s/ Sam Wyly              /s/ Michael Austin         /s/ R. Duke Buchan III
----------------------      ----------------------      -----------------------
      Sam Wyly                 Michael Austin             R. Duke Buchan III

/s/ Robert M. Chmely        /s/ Michael C. French        /s/ David S. Matthews
----------------------      ----------------------      -----------------------
  Robert M. Chmely            Michael C. French            David S. Matthews

  /s/ Howard Shapiro       /s/ Charles J. Wyly, Jr.      /s/ Peter W. Presperin
----------------------      ----------------------      -----------------------
   Howard Shapiro           Charles J. Wyly, Jr.          Peter W. Presperin
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 Pretium Packaging, L.L.C. and Pretium Finance, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Robert A. Robison, the Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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), 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 Companies.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: December 19, 2011



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ Robert A. Robison  
| |  | Robert A. Robison      
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                     5
       
<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                       Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                         Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                               396,073
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      4,405,771
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (284,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          300,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1,810,868
<PP&E>                                             2,481,659
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (551,869)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    27,170,435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             13,139,858
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                              55,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                        11,123,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      27,170,435
<SALES>                                            3,816,531
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   3,816,531
<CGS>                                             (2,586,076)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     (2,586,076)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (2,589,768)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (100,639)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (1,436,935)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,436,935)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,436,935)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### State, Respondent, vs. Raines, Appellant.

*February 20*

February *27, 1948.*

*239
      *Frederick F. Hillyer saA Lowell T. Thronson,*both of Madison, for the appellant.

*The Attorney General William A. Plats,*assistant attorney general, and *Edwin M. Wilkie,*district attorney of Dane county, for.the respondent.

Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted in the circuit court for Dane county of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed from the judgment and sentence of the court to the supreme court. The plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground the same was not allowed by one of the justices of the supreme court. The applicable statutory provisions are as follows : Sec. 358.11, Stats. 1947, provides: *“ . , .*but no writ of error upon a judgment of conviction for an offense punishable by imprisonment for life shall issue unless allowed by one of the justices of the supreme court upon notice given to the attorney general.” This provision is to be found in the statutes of 1849, ch. 104, sec. 7, and has been continued with immaterial modifications to the present time. Ch. 333, Laws of 1927, provides: “Tn all cases in which a writ of error is authorized b}^ law to be issued by the supreme court to review any judgment or order in a criminal case, the party entitled to obtain such writ, in lieu thereof, may take an appeal from such judgment or order to the supreme court to obtain such review, by serving notice of appeal and procuring return to be made in the manner provided by law in civil cases.” This provision was incorporated in and is now a part of sec. 358.13, Stats.

The state argues that by inference no appeal can be taken in a case where the defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment ■unless the appeal is allowed by a justice of the supreme court, *240as in the case of a writ of error. This contention cannot be sustained. Sec. 358.13, Stats., provides how the appeal maybe taken, that is by serving a notice of appeal and procuring.a return to be made in the manner provided by law in civil cases. To hold that an appeal cannot be taken unless the appeal is allowed by a justice of this court would amount to an amendment of the statute.

At common law and under the constitution (sec. 21, art. I), a writ of error is a writ of right and may not be prohibited. There may have been some reason for requiring the allowance of a writ of error in capital cases under the practice at common law but it appears to serve no purpose at the present time, nor does any instance appear in this state where an application for a writ of error has ever been denied. See 4 C. J. S., Appeal and Error, secs. 9 to 16, inclusive, for a discussion of the uses of a writ of error under modern practice.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, without costs.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1100

ELLIS S. FRISON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PRESTIGE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION; PRESTIGE MORTGAGE CORPORATION; STERLING BANK, FSB; MARAGARETTEN & COMPANY, INCORPORATED;CHEMICAL MORTGAGE COMPANY; CHEMICAL RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY; CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-744-A) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellis S. Frison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Zelnick, SZABO, ZELNICK & ERICKSON, P.C., Woodbridge, Virginia; Be rnard Joseph DiMuro, DIMURO, GINSBERG & LIEBERMAN, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia; Traci Helene Mundy, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.* In its final order dismissing the action, the district court also denied Appellant's supplemental claims for trespass and to add his wife as a party, and his motion for a temporary injunction. Appellant also appeals the district court's revised order entered on November 21, 1996, the previous order entered November 13, which was revised, and a prior order entered August 26, 1996. Like the final order, we affirm the November 13 and 21 orders on the reasoning of the district court. We deny relief on the August 26 order because we find no reversible error in the claims dismissed by the district court and because Appellant was granted leave to and did file an amended complaint.
2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's final order dismissing his civil action and related orders. * We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Frison v. Prestige Financial Servs. Corp. , No. CA-96-744-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 1996; Nov. 13 & 21, 1996; Jan. 10, 1997). We deny the "motion for declaratory judgment and restitution" and 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                          CORGENIX MEDICAL CORPORATION

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                         -------------------
                                                        1998            1997
                                                        ----            ----
<S>                                                   <C>              <C>

Weighted average shares ....................           6,343            4,920
                                                      ------           ------
Total shares used for per share calculations           6,343            4,920

Net loss ...................................            (593)            (823)

Net income per common share ................          $ (.09)          $ (.17)

</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3115

To extend the term of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical

Park Commission.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. ROBB) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To extend the term of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

National Historical Park Commission.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HIS4 TORICAL PARK COMMISSION.

5 Section 6(g) of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal De6 velopment Act (16 U.S.C. 410y–4(g)) is amended by strik7 ing ‘‘thirty’’ and inserting ‘‘40’’.

Æ
Order entered September 16, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00438-CR

JAMES EMBRY MAY II, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 005-84903-10

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On August 27, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to 

pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is not indigent and is represented by retained counsel Melvyn 

Carson Bruder; and (3) Mr. Bruder requested until September 27, 2013 to file appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2013. No 

further extensions will be granted. If appellant’s brief is not filed by the date specified, we will, 

without further notice, submit the appeal without briefs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4).

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

Melvyn Carson Bruder and the Collin County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE