alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-K of Dectron Internationale (the "Company") for the year ended January 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ness Lakdawala, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Mauro Parissi, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.



|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By:     /s/ Ness Lakdawala
------------------
Name:   Ness Lakdawala
Title:  Chief Executive Officer and President

Date: May 91, 2006



By:     /s/ Mauro Parissi
-----------------
Name:   Mauro Parissi
Title:  Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 19, 2006





This certification accompanies the 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 the Company for purposes of ss. 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NATIONAL DIAGNOSTICS, INC. FOR THE 3 MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          72,874
<SECURITIES>                                 1,800,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,076,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                   735,755
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,374,035
<PP&E>                                       9,981,296
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,925,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,945,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,988,043
<BONDS>                                      4,191,769
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,164
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,176,831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,945,807
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,612,347
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,497,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,257,362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               128,014
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             188,528
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (458,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (458,895)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (458,895)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.17)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 781 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 781

 To amend section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, to revise the 
consent exception to the prohibition on the interception of oral, wire, 
     or electronic communications that is applicable to telephone 
                            communications.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 13, 1999

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, to revise the 
consent exception to the prohibition on the interception of oral, wire, 
     or electronic communications that is applicable to telephone 
                            communications.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Telephone Privacy Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF CONSENT EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION ON INTERCEPTION OF 
              ORAL, WIRE, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS APPLICABLE TO 
              TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS.

    Paragraph (d) of section 2511(2) of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ``unless such communication'' and all that 
follows and inserting ``unless--
            ``(i) such communication is intercepted for the purpose of 
        committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the 
        Constutition or laws of the United States or of any State; or
            ``(ii) in the case of a telephone communication, any other 
        party to such communication has not given prior consent to such 
        interception.''.
                                 <all>
```
(929 P.2d 820)

No. 75,661

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Ross R. Cranston, *Appellant,*and Christie A. Cranston, *Appellee.*

Opinion filed January 10, 1997.

*Ronald S. Shalz,*of Colby, for appellant.

*Richard Blackwell,*of Salina, for appellee.

Before Brazil, C.J., Pierron and Royse, JJ.

Royse, J.:

This appeal arises out of a district court decision modifying child support. Ross R. Cranston argues the district court committed error by using one worksheet rather than two to compute his child support obligation.

Ross and Christie Cranston obtained a divorce in 1992. At that time, Christie received residential custody of all five of the parties’ minor children. Ross was ordered to pay $1,750 per month in child support. That obligation was later reduced to $1,580 per month.

After the parties’ oldest daughter began to reside with Ross, he filed a motion to modify the custody order and asked for a further reduction in child support. The district court granted Ross’ motion. The district court modified Ross’ child support obligation to $1,100 per month, using computations on one child support worksheet.

Ross argues the Kansas Child Support Guidelines require the district court to compute child support using two child support worksheets in a divided custody situation. We agree.

The Kansas Child Support Guidelines provide in relevant part:

> “For Divided Custody, if each parent has residential custody of one or more children, *a worksheet should be prepared for each family unit*using the Child Support Schedule which corresponds with the total number of children of the parties living in each family unit. . . . *Upon completion of the two worksheets,*the lower Net Parental Child Support Obligation is subtracted from the higher *351amount. The difference is the amount of child support the party having the higher obligation will pay to the party with the lower obligation.” (Emphasis added.) 1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 89-90.

See *In re Marriage of Hansen,*18 Kan. App. 2d 712, 716, 858 P.2d 1240 (1993).

The district courts must follow the guidelines when determining child support. 1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 84; *In re Marriage of Schletzbaum,*15 Kan. App. 2d 504, Syl. ¶ 1, 809 P.2d 1251 (1991). Failure to do so is reversible error, absent findings by the district court justifying its deviation. *In re Marriage of Schwien,*17 Kan. App. 2d 498, Syl. ¶ 5, 839 P.2d 541 (1992).

The district court erred because it failed to prepare two worksheets as required by the guidelines and did not provide any rationale for completing only one worksheet to determine Ross’ support obligation.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Enacted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Cream Minerals Ltd. (the Company) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the Report).



I, Frank A. Lang, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(i)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. 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/ Frank A. Lang

Frank A. Lang

President and Chief Executive Officer



September 27, 2007
##### 



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 Mitcham Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended April 30 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Pugh, Vice President & Chief 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:  (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/ Michael A. Pugh
Michael A. Pugh
Executive Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer
June 13, 2005
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10971

JOSEPH OYE OGUNTODU ,
P etitioner

- Appellant

v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:13

- CV

- 114

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joseph Oye Oguntodu, Texas prisoner # 1728590, moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of relief, which he requested in a submission styled as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court construed the petition as raising only § 2254 claims arising out of Oguntodu ’s prison disciplinary conviction in case numbe r 20130024805 and
denied it on the basis that Oguntodu did not have a liberty interest at stake.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 14, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10971 Document: 00512561851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2014No. 13

- 10971

Oguntodu has not shown error in the district court’s decision that his disciplinary punishment did not implicate a protected liberty interest. Instead, give n the benefit of liberal construction, he argues that the district court failed to consider his claim that prison officials filed the disciplinary complaint in retaliation for his complaints against another officer. We construe Oguntodu ’s request for a COA as both a request for a COA to appeal the denial of his § 2254 claims and an appeal of the dismissal of his civil rights claims. The label attached to a prisoner’s pro se pleading is not controlling; rather, courts must look to the cont ent of the pleading. United States v. Santora , 711 F.2d 41, 42 n.1 (5th Cir. 1983). Oguntodu ’s retaliation claim is potentially cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court, however, did
not address whether Oguntodu stated cognizable claims und er § 1983. See Serio v. Member of La. St ate . Bd. of Pardons , 821 F.2d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir. 1987). Oguntodu ’s request for a COA to appeal the dismissal of his § 2254 claims and his motion for the appointment of counsel are DENIED. The district court’s di smissal of Oguntodu ’s civil rights claims is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for the district court to consider whether Oguntodu has alleged any civil rights claims cognizable under § 1983.

2 Case: 13-10971 Document: 00512561851 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2014
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41457

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEODEGARIO ORTIZ-ZACARIAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-681-ALL

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Leodegario Ortiz-Zacarias appeals his conviction and

sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following

deportation. Ortiz argues that the magistrate judge was without

jurisdiction or authority to conduct his rearraignment hearing

because the district court did not formally refer the case to the

magistrate judge.

Ortiz did not object in the district court to the magistrate

judge’s exercise of authority. He waived his right to raise the
No. 01-41457

-2-

procedural defect in his guilty plea proceeding as a basis for

relief. United States v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 253, 257 (5th

Cir. 2002).

Ortiz also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional

because they are treated as sentencing factors rather than as

elements of the offense.

Ortiz acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but

asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his

argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied 531 U.S. 1201 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2024)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 87761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25777]



[[Page 87759]]

Vol. 89

Monday,

No. 213

November 4, 2024

Part III





The President





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



Notice of November 1, 2024--Continuation of the National Emergency With 
Respect to Iran


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 213 / Monday, November 4, 2024 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 87761]]

                Notice of November 1, 2024

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to Iran

                On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the 
                President declared a national emergency with respect to 
                Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
                Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and took related 
                steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat 
                to the national security, foreign policy, and economy 
                of the United States constituted by the situation in 
                Iran.

                Our relations with Iran have not yet normalized, and 
                the process of implementing the agreements with Iran, 
                dated January 19, 1981, is ongoing. For this reason, 
                the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, 
                and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that 
                emergency, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 
                2024. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of 
                the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am 
                continuing for 1 year the national emergency with 
                respect to Iran declared in Executive Order 12170.

                The emergency declared by Executive Order 12170 is 
                distinct from the emergency declared in Executive Order 
                12957 on March 15, 1995. This renewal, therefore, is 
                distinct from the emergency renewal of March 12, 2024.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    November 1, 2024.

[FR Doc. 2024-25777
Filed 11-1-24; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3395-F4-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CINDY NADELBACH and BARRY NADELBACH, as Co

- Personal Representatives of the Estate of JOSHUA NADELBACH , Appellant s ,

v.

WELLINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC; MATTHEW

ROMANELLI, D.O.; BERRY PIERRE, D.O.; HERBERT DANIEL DANOWIT, M.D.; STEPHEN MALUTICH, D.O.; and ACCOUNTABLE TEACHING SERVICES, LLC
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 2022

- 2989

[ January 18, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Cou rt for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Paige Gillman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2020

- CA

- 010179

- XXXX

- MB

.

Marshall E. Rosenbach of the Law Offices of Marshall E. Rosenbach, North Palm Beach, for appellants.

Alexandra Hershorn, Jeffrey Blos tein and Jay Cohen of Cohen, Blostein & Ayala, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Wellington Regional Medical Center, LLC.

Jason M. Azzarone, Jeffrey M. Goodis, and Patrick D. Wier of La Cava, Jacobson & Goodis, P.A., Tampa, for appellees Matthew Romanel li, D.O., and Stephen Malutich, D.O.

Dinah S. Stein and Sharon R. Vosseller of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., Miami, and James L. White, III, of White & Russell, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellees Herbert Daniel Danowit, M.D., and
Accountab le Teaching Services, LLC.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, C IKLIN and G ERBER
, JJ., concur.2 * * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1629

ROBERT L. MANGUS,

Petitioner,

versus

ELKAY MINING COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(95-2266-BLA, 92-620-BLA)

Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Mangus, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON

& KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Christian P. Barber, Jill M.

Otte, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision

and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black

lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.

1996). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision

is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Mangus v.

Elkay Mining Co., Nos. 95-2266-BLA; 92-620-BLA (B.R.B. Mar. 28,

1996). 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
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 158 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              APPOINTMENTS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the President pro 
tempore, pursuant to Public Law 99-498, as amended by Public Law 110-
315, appoints the following individual to the Advisory Committee on 
Student Financial Assistance: Norman Bedford of Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the Minority Leader, 
pursuant to Public Law 110-183, announces the appointment of the 
following individual as a member of the Commission on the Abolition of 
the Transatlantic Slave Trade: Rainier Spencer of Nevada.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```