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



Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended April 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Peter S. Teshima, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify for the purposes of
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



| | (i) |  | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the year ended April 2, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/    PETER S.
TESHIMAPeter S. Teshima Corporate Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial OfficerApril 4, 2007




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 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 32.1   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with this Quarter Report of CHINA NORTHERN MEDICAL DEVICE, INC.  (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jinzhao Wu, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.Such Quarter Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, 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 such Quarter Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CHINA NORTHERN MEDICAL DEVICE, INC.  Date:   May 11, 2009/s/Jinzhao WuJinzhao Wu
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION
      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.
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    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; andd.
    
    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
  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: July 11, 2008/s/ George ZippelGeorge Zippel
President and Chief Executive Officer
 245
RE: Docket Number 2023 - CA - 0247 Tom C. Miller Versus - - COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA Jose Gustavo Erazo, Gabisa Insurance Companyand 

### Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 19th Judicial District Court Case #: 665938 East Baton Rouge Parish 

### On Application for Rehearing filed on 10/04/2023 by National General InsuranceCompany, etal Rehearing 

## 17e -

w? ' eof



# OCT 19 2423 44. Mitchell R. Theriot
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128665 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128665 

 COA: 260555 

Grand Traverse CC: 04-009623-FC 

JERRY LYN KRUEGER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2005 order 

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

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1024 

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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
Exhibit 10.9


                   DECORIZE, INC. 1999 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
                          INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION NOTICE

Optionee:
Grant Date:
Share Granted:
Stock Option Price:
Late Date to Exercise:


We are pleased to inform you that the Stock Option Committee of the Board has
granted you an option to purchase Decorize, Inc. common stock. Your grant has
been made under the Company's 1999 Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), which
together with the terms contained in this Notice and Incentive Stock Option
Agreement ("Agreement"), sets forth the terms and conditions of your grant, and
is incorporated herein by reference: A copy of the Agreement is attached. Please
review it carefully.

Vesting:

Subject to the terms of the Plan, shares vest according to the following vesting
schudule:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>            <C>                <C>                 <C>                  <C>
                Shares Vesting    Vesting in Period   Vesting Subject to   Last Date to
Date of Vest    Over the Period         Occurs        Special Conditions     Exercise
------------    ---------------   -----------------   ------------------   -------------

</TABLE>

Exercise:

You may exercise this Option, in whole or in part, to purchase a whole number of
vested shares at any time; by follwing the exercise procedure set up by the
Compay. All exercises must take place before the Last Date to Exercise, or such
earlier date as is set in out in the Plan follwing your death, disability or
your ceasing to be a employee. The number of shares you may purchase as of any
date cannot exceed that total number of shares vested by that date; less any
shares you have previously acquired by exercicsing this Option.

Employment Requirements:

The Plan sets out the terms and conditions that govern this grant in the event
of your termination of employment, death or disability in the event of your
termination of employment; all futher vesting of shares under this grant stops,
and all unvested shares are cancelled. As set out in the Plan, you will have 3
months after your employment ceases or is suspended to exercise your vested
options, and in the event of your death or total disability you or your estate
will have a period of 12 months to exercisee any vested options.

Taxes, Withholding Disposition of Stock:

This Option is intended to be an Incentive Stock Option, as defined under
Section 422(b) of the Internal Revenue Code: In the event that the Company
determines that any federal, state, local or foreign tax or withholding payment
is required relating to the exercise or sale of shares arising from this grant;
the Company shall have the right to require such payments from you, or withhold
such amounts from other payments due to you from the Company.

You agree to notify the Company when you sell or otherwise transfer or dispose
of the shares acquired by exercising this Option.

Special Conditions:
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 402 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 402

        For the relief of Alfredo Tolentino of Honolulu, Hawaii.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 10, 1999

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        For the relief of Alfredo Tolentino of Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
section 8337(b) of title 5, United States Code, Alfredo Tolentino of 
Honolulu, Hawaii may file an application no later than 60 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act with the Office of Personnel 
Management for a claim of disability retirement under such section.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84943-84944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24620]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 24, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby

[[Page 84944]]

gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
397 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-103, K2025-101.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24620 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00085-CR

Isaac GARZA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CR12210

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice 

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 17, 2023

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by both appellant 

and his attorney. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss this appeal. 

See id.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### AUSTIN v. STATE.

No. 18822.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 17, 1937.

Early & Johnson and J. Edward Johnson, of McCartney, McCartney & Johnson, all of Brownwood, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The conviction is for a misdemeanor; the punishment, a fine of $500 and confinement in jail for 6 months.

The complaint and information charged appellant with possessing beer for the purpose of sale, it being averred that said liquor contained alcohol in excess of 4 per centum by weight. Again, there were allegations showing that an election had been held in Brown county, in which it was alleged the liquor was possessed, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors.

Armed with a search warrant issued upon an affidavit showing that appellant was manufacturing and selling intoxicating liquor in his place of business, a deputy sheriff went to said place of business, and, according to his testimony, discovered 28 cans of beer in appellant’s ice box. An analysis of some of the beer disclosed that its alcoholic content was more than 4 per cent, by weight.

Appellant did not testify, and introduced no witnesses.

Appellant timely and properly objected to the testimony of the officer touching the result of the search. The objection should have been sustained. In Link Greenway and Bonnie Greenway v. State, 101 S.W.(2d) 569, 570, delivered February 3, 1937, this court used language as follows: “The only authority for the issuance of search warrants which is left, after the repeal of said chapter 7, supra, is found in title 6 of our C.C.P. (articles 304-332), article 305 of which lays down five instances in which a search warrant may be issued, none of which can be construed to authorize a search warrant to search any place upon any such ground as that in such place any liquor violation exists or is being conducted. Whether the omission, from the present liquor law of this State, .of provisions authorizing searches and seizures in proper *384cases of alleged violations of the liquor law was intended or not, is a matter upon which this court has no information; but the result is the same in either case. The search warrant and the disclosures resulting from its execution were improperly before the jury in the case at bar. There was proper objection and exception.”

At the time of the search herein there was no statute in effect authorizing a search warrant to search for intoxicating liquor.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  Re: Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2012-C6, Commercial
  Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-C6 (the "Transaction"),
  issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1,
  2012 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), executed in connection
  with the Transaction (capitalized terms used but not defined herein have
  the meanings set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement).

  I, Steven Stern, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K of Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2012-C6
    (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do 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;

  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
     fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
     material respects; and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
     have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

    * U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee
    * Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer, certificate
      administrator and custodian
    * Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association,
      as special servicer
    * Situs Holdings, LLC, as trust advisor
    * CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., a servicing
      function participant
    * National Tax Search, LLC, a servicing function participant


Date:   April 14, 2014


By /s/ Steven Stern
   Name:  Steven Stern
   Title: President
Exhibit 32.1  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 Clear Skies Solar, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Ezra J. Green, the Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of Clear Skies Solar, Inc. and Arthur L. Goldberg, the Chief Financial Officer of Clear Skies Solar, Inc., each certifies 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.  By:/s/ Ezra J. GreenName:Ezra J. GreenTitle:Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated:August 13, 2010By:/s/ Arthur L. GoldbergName:Arthur L. GoldbergTitle:Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated:August 13 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1











CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Affordable Green Homes International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael P. Vahl, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Affordable Green Homes International, Inc.





Dated: November 15, 2010





AFFORDBLE GREEN HOMES INTERNATIONAL, INC.





By:   /s/ Michael P. Vahl



Chief Executive Officer
August 21, 1975 

The Honorable Walter M. Holcombe Opinion No. H- 671 

County Attorney 

P. 0. Box 749 Re: Whether a justice of 

Pecos. Texas 79772 the peace may hold court 

in another precinct in 

Dear Mr. Holcombe: his county. 

You have asked: 

May a justice of the peace of one precinct 

travel into another precinct in the same 

county and try criminal cases at the request 

of the justice of the peace in said other 

precinqt? 

Section 19 of article 5 of the Texas Constitution defines the jurisdiction 

of Justice of the Peace Courts and further provides that the Legislature 

may confer “such other jurisdiction, criminal and civil, as may be provided by law, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law. . . .I’ 

Article 2377, V. T. C. S., reads: 

Whenever there is a vacancy or the justice 

in any precinct shall be absent, or unable or 

unwilling to perform the duties of his office, the 

nearest justice in the county may temporarily 

perform the duties of the office. 

Prior to 1967 this provision was construed to permit another justice 

in the county to perform the duties of an absent or unwilling justice of the 

peace, but only if the substituted performance of such duties was accomplished 

at hits own office and within his own precinct. Stewart V. Smallwood, 102 S. W. 

159 (Tex. Civ. App. --1907, no writ); Attorney General Opinion C-112 (1963). 

p. 2926 
The Honorable Walter M. Holcombe, page 2 

However, in 1967, the Legislature of Texas exercised the prerogative 

extended by section 19. article 5. Texas Constitution and “provided . . . 

[and] prescribed by law” b y the passage of article 2393a. V. T. C. S., that: 

A justice may hold court for any other justice 

whose precinct is in the same county; and the 

justices of a county may exchange benches whenever 

they deem it expedient. 

This statutory authorization for one justice to hold court for another 

and for justices to exchange benches is consistent with the power of 

district judges to “hold court for . . . any other district judge” and to 

exchange benches “whenever they deem it expedient. ” V. T. C.S., 

art. 1916, enacted in 1846 and constitutionally-sanctioned by a multitude 

of judicial decisions, the latest being Floyd V. State, 488 S. W. 2d 830 

(Tex. Grim. App. 1972) and Peach V. State, 498 S. W. 2d 192 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1973). 

Accordingly, one justice of the peace of a county may hold court for 

a second justice of the same county at the request of the second justice 

and within the precinct of the second justice. 

SUMMARY 

A justice of the peace may hold court for any 

other justice whose precinct is in the same county. 

He may hold court in his own precinct or in the 

precinct of the second justice. 

ery truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2927
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
§ 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Pacific Asia Petroleum, 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,
Stephen F. Groth, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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) 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/
Stephen F.
Groth


Stephen
F. Groth


Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer


November
9, 2009