alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EXHIBIT 99.2

# 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 Iomega Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Werner T. Heid, 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:

(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/Werner T. Heid

Werner T. Heid
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002
# C_2014168EN.01000201.xml

| 5.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/2

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2014/C 168/02)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuance of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : France

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : 70th anniversary of the Normandy landings of 6 June 1944

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : In the coin’s central field the word D-DAY is written in such a way as to depict a landing craft and a tank gun barrel. The years 1944-2014 appear above the tank gun, with the inscription ‘70e anniversaire du débarquement’ (70th anniversary of the landings) further down. The distinctive footprints left by the boots worn by American, British and Canadian troops are gradually disappearing in the sand, washed away by a wave. The words of a poem by Verlaine used as a code for the start of the landings are engraved on the wave: ‘Les sanglots longs des violons de l’automne blessent mon coeur d’une langueur monotone’ (the long sobs of the violins of autumn wound my heart with a monotonous languor).

Description of the design

e

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  : 3 million

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : June 2014

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1, for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 July 29, 2014

d0721

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2014

148244

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148244

COA: 316807

Marquette CC: 12-050513-FH

USAMAH CARSWELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

People v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073) is pending on appeal before this Court and that 

the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to 

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in 

that case.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Matter of J. C. C., a Juvenile,

 Appellant.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-16-00306-CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 1300999)

O R D E R

In order to protect the identity of the minor child who is the subject of this appeal, the Court 

has determined on its own motion that it is necessary to identify Appellant by her initials, J. C. C.,

in all papers submitted to the Court, including letters, motions, and briefs. See TEX.R.APP.P.

9.8(c). Additionally, the parties are required to identify a minor’s parent or other family member 

by initials or an alias as required by Rule 9.8(c). All documents must be redacted accordingly. 

The Court will likewise use initials to identify Appellant and family members in correspondence, 

orders, and in its opinion and judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3586

___________

Reginald Morgan, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Johnny Ford; Missouri Department of *

Mental Health; Dr. Dorn Schuffman; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Laurent Javois; Dr. Keith Schafer, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 1, 2009

Filed: May 5, 2009

___________

Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Morgan appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review, see Ramlet v. E.F.

Johnson Co., 507 F.3d 1149, 1152 (8th Cir. 2007), we find no basis for reversal, and

we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
March 2 1,2007 

Facility Name: 

Attn: OwnerIOperator 

Facility Address 

RE: Request for Air Quality Permit Information 

Dear RP 

The Gila River Indian Community Council, approved the GRIC Air Quality Management 

Program Plan on December 6,2006. The GlUC Air Quality Management Program Plan requires 

that sources of air pollution that meet or exceed the thresholds in Part TI, Permit Requirements, 

Subsection 2.1(C) of the Plan submit a complete permit application within one hundred twenty 

(120) days of receiving notice from the Director that a permit application is required. This letter 

serves as formal written notice that is required to submit a complete permit 

application. A Complete Permit Application is defined in Part 11, Permit Requirements, 

Subsection 3.1(B). Non-Title V Permit Application Forms and the GlUC Air Quality 

Management Program Plan are attached. 

GRIC Air Quality personnel are available upon request to assist with completion of permit 

application forms. If you have any questions please contact Daniel Blair or Willard Antone 111 at 

(520) 562-2234. 

Sincerely, 

Margaret Cook, 

Director, GlUC Department of Environmental Quality
' J I \ -

j 

I 

\ 

) 

. 

I 

I 

~ ' i \ . \ 

,\ 

:/ 

I 

• 

A I I 

RE~ID: A56942 

1 

" -~-~«!'-·'-~ - .. l - .. ·~·7 ..... ~ •l·~ 

J ~ ... -- l ,_ I OP/~~~ J ·-~- 5 

....... 

/ 

. . 

, .. .._.... raal .....__ ____ __, ~ •mo I 

IUUIC!a lapmeae l>i»lmatS.o •otion 

Ira wotioa With ti. IUi• ot 81g1n blnorlu )l'e,an4 

-

~ 

at 'tbl o.c. • c:.a. on the Varl4 Var u ac$in'111a, •1*to1ticlall¥ 

. I 

iD oormeauon Vltb tbe vo~ oa 41plo-.Uc -4 omrc1&1 asgmt, 

w are lack'ns om ot 'tb8 o.c. • c.a. laiator1aal ~ ctowata, 

mwll', ".Ja;amae Dipl.Gatlo lecrUon. • Vaul4 70" 'M goo4 •noa'&b to 

lJaclu1re u to ti. aw.UabU1"1' ot a cow ot tbe llUailll ac\loll to 

1lb1oh ntcuce s.a mdet 

~ I 

I 

I 

I 

,. ·' 

" ,I 

., 

•! 

I' 

-- " . I 

, ' "" 111 1' • I ,_ 

~ ,J ,i 1' I .,. 

~ ""• · .. ' 

~- .,........:..,.....-'...,.'.,,..• ......... '-"-"~'"""'""=-:.......,....,,....-.....,..-.....,...""'"""",..,,....,......_~~...,......,,,..,,....,.....,...--........:..-........,,~~""'="",..,., t .. " ..... • ' 

~. ~ fl, --~P.l!!!~~m-..................................................................................................... "'"'e~~~~~==~~~~~·-~-
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZEFERINO ARAIZA FLORES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73371

Agency No. A076-361-033

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Zeferino Araiza Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

FILED

MAR 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73371

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321

F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Araiza

Flores’ motion to reopen, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.

2006), we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the

evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening, see Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037,

1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is

“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

Araiza Flores’ contention that the BIA abused its discretion under

Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), is without

merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF I.K. AND E.K., 

CHILDREN,

 

 Appellant,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00055-CV

Appeal from the

383rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2019DCM7783)

O R D E R

The notice of appeal was filed April 1, 2022. On April 14, 2022, we initially abated the 

appeal for the trial court to hold a hearing regarding notice of the judgment. The appeal was 

reinstated on June 20, 2022. 

On June 22, 2022, the Appellant notified the Court his trial counsel no longer represented 

him. Appellant’s current counsel made her first appearance on July 18, 2022. The reporter’s record 

was filed on September 1, 2022. On September 20, 2022, Appellant’s counsel filed her first motion 

for extension based on the fact the record was incomplete and required supplementation. The Court 

granted that extension. On October 18, 2022, Appellant’s counsel requested a second extension 

due to the record still not being complete. The Court granted the second motion. On November 

28, 2022, Appellant’s counsel requested an order of abatement until the supplemental record was 
filed. That motion for abatement was granted. On December 19, 2022, the case was reinstated, 

giving Appellant until January 2, 2022 to file the brief.

Appellant’s counsel has filed her third motion for extension requesting she be given until 

February 1, 2023 to submit the brief. The Court will grant a seven-day extension to 

January 9, 2023. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE THE BRIEF WILL BE 

CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41139

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUSTAVO LEON-FERRER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1837-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gustavo LeonFerrer has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Leon-Ferrer has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41139 Document: 00513767923 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
No. 15-41139

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-41139 Document: 00513767923 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6973

ZEONTRAY CALVIN WOODARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:16-cv-00814-CMH-MSN)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zeontray Calvin Woodard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Zeontray Calvin Woodard seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Woodard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Hall, Appellant, vs. Gilman, Assignee, Respondent.

*May 18*— *June 20, 1895.*

*Appeal: Extension of time by consent: Jurisdiction.*

The time within which an appeal may be taken from an order, as limited by sec. 8042, R. S., cannot be extended by consent of the parties.

.Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: D. H. Johnson, Circuit Judge.

*Dismissed.*

The Reliance Wire *&*Iron Works made an assignment for the benefit of its creditors to *J. H. Gilmcm,*the respondent. Previous to the assignment, it had borrowed money of the Commercial Bank. The appellant, *F. A.*Hall, indorsed its notes, and deposited his personal securities as collateral to his indorsement. The bank recovered judgment against *Hall,*which is unpaid. *Hall*filed a claim against the assignor, in the assignment matter, in the nature of a contingent claim, based on his liability as an indorser. Motion to strike out and expunge from the record such claim was *456granted.- The order was made on. the 9th day of June, 1894.. A copy of the order, with written notice of its entry, was served on the appellant on June 11, 1894. The notice of appeal from the order was served July 25,1894. There was a stipulation between the attorneys of the respective parties-to extend the time for serving the notice of appeal

*Geo. E. Sutherland,*for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by *BwrTce, Robinson <& Geiger,*and oral argument by *N. 8. Robinson.*

Newman, J.

The time within which an appeal from an order may be taken is limited to thirty days from the date of the service of a copy of the order, with -a written notice-of its entry. R. S. sec. 3042. Jurisdiction can be conferred upon this court only by an appeal taken within the time and in the manner provided b'y law. Jurisdiction upon appeal is jurisdiction of subject matter. It is conferred by compliance with the law regulating appeals, and cannot be conferred by consent. So, the time within which an appeal is authorized cannot be extended by consent of the parties; nor has the court power to enlarge the time for taking an appeal. R. S. sec. 2831; *Herrick v. Racine W. & D. Co.*43 Wis. 93; *Palmer v. Peterson,*46 Wis. 401. No doubt the time Avithin Avhich an appeal may be taken from an order is, in a certain sense, Avithin the power of the party in Avhose favor the order is. He has an option when, or whether, he will set the statute to running by service of the notice. But, having exercised his option, and the time having once commenced to run, he has no further power over it. The law then determines it. The time is determined absolutely by the service of the notice. *Leadbetter v. Laird,*45 Wis. 522; *Sambs v. Stein,*53 Wis. 569.

*By the*GovM.— The appeal is dismissed.
OCS1&()-Jl4.7-8ig.C. 10 

Patct Board. WAR DEPARTMENT 

• 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER 

WASHINGTON September l, 1936 • 

•J'.11).RAIOOK lORz Kr. •. .!r'. fried.lam. 

l. The Signal Corpa Patent Boar<l at its ••eting ~u;:ust 28, 1956, 

decidea to wi tllhold final actioo on the following cases pending a 

aearch or pa\ct records to det@I'l\1.ae the noTl!'lty of such inTmtions: 

~· An intmtion by Colonel J. 0 • .lfauborgne anc1 ~r. f,. F. Friec'l;;ian 

of a .,at• of encipher1Bi aatter electrically tranMi tted by facd•ile 

or telephoto ••1n.•. 

~· .An inYentioo by M.r. •· r. Friedllan of a system Md app~rtttu• 

for aicipherin.; and deciptterini: telephoto transai tted •e9sa;~ee, 

lket.ch•s, photoiiraphs, docuaents, etc. 

~~ It. is requested that these inventio11s bf? treated a• 

COAfid111 tial u11t1l such ti•• as tl:ds ini'ol'llation •ar be s.scertM.in"d. 

Louia B. Bender, 

Lieut. Col., Signal Corp::;. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 07-22-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

COHFIDD~TIAQ 

--
# C_2014270EN.01000101.xml

| 19.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 August 2014

2014/C 270/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3388 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4556 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80215 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1542 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2114 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2205 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,882 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,89 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1805 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4399 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8918 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4362 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4593 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3765 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5755 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6656 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 362,35 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,1087 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2372 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6250 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 643,29 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2232 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,423 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,1435 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,670 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0283 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4670 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,4881 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3388

JPY

Japanese yen

137,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4556

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80215

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1542

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2114

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2205

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,882

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,89

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1805

RON

Romanian leu

4,4399

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8918

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4362

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4593

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3765

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5755

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6656

KRW

South Korean won

1 362,35

ZAR

South African rand

14,1087

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2372

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6250

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 643,29

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2232

PHP

Philippine peso

58,423

RUB

Russian rouble

48,1435

THB

Thai baht

42,670

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0283

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4670

INR

Indian rupee

81,4881

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND 

No.54

 September Term, 2016

 

STATE OF MARYLAND 

 v.

 GRASON E. LAPOLE 

 

 

Barbera, C.J.

Greene 

 Adkins 

McDonald 

Watts 

Hotten 

Getty,

JJ. 

 PER CURIAM ORDER 

Filed: November 22, 2016 
STATE OF MARYLAND * IN THE 

 * COURT OF APPEALS 

v. * OF MARYLAND 

* No. 54

GRASON E. LAPOLE * September Term, 2016

 PER CURIAM ORDER 

 

The petition for writ of certiorari in the above-entitled 

case having been granted and a motion for reconsideration having 

been filed thereafter, it is this 22nd day of November, 2016,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the motion 

for reconsideration be, and it is hereby, granted, and it is 

further 

ORDERED that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, 

dismissed with costs, the petition having been improvidently 

granted. 

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

 Chief Judge
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In connection with the Annual Report of Emergent Group Inc. (the “registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, William M. McKay, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.








March 23, 2010/s/
William M. McKayWilliam M. McKayChief Financial Officer