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 Collectible Concepts Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Paul S. Lipschutz, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Collectible Concepts Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Collectible Concepts Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: October 18, 2004                  By: /s/ PAUL S. LIPSCHUTZ
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Paul S. Lipschutz
                                           Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit ****32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

        I, Shaw Hong, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of OmniVisionTechnologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31,2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of OmniVision Technologies, Inc.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and will be retained byOmniVision Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

Dated: March 10, 2008

 
|       | By:        | **/s/  SHAW HONG**                                 |
|------------|------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|       |       | **Shaw  Hong**                                     |
|       |       | *Chief  Executive Officer, President and Director* |
| ** ** | ** ** | *(Principal  Executive Officer)*                   |

 

        I, Peter V. Leigh, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of OmniVisionTechnologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31,2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of OmniVision Technologies, Inc.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and will be retained byOmniVision Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

Dated: March 10, 2008

** **
|       | By:        | **/s/  PETER V. LEIGH**                         |
|------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|       |       | **Peter  V. Leigh**                             |
|       |       | *Chief  Financial Officer*                      |
| ** ** | ** ** | *(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

PHARMACOPEIA, INC.

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of Pharmacopeia, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period endedDecember 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, John J. Hanlon, Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ John J.  Hanlon                                    |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John J.  Hanlon                                        |
| Executive  Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

March 8, 2004

 

----
EXHIBIT 11

Micron Electronics, Inc.
Computation of Per Share Earnings
(Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                       For the quarter ended     For the nine months ended
                                       May 29,       May 30,         May 29,       May 30,
                                          1997          1996            1997          1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                  <C>           <C>             <C>           <C>
PRIMARY
Weighted average shares outstanding     95,490        91,590          93,647        91,480
Net effect of dilutive stock options       667           887             589           958
                                     ---------     ---------       ---------     ---------
Number of shares used in per share
 earnings                               96,157        92,477          94,236        92,438
                                     =========     =========       =========     =========
Net income                           $  19,656     $  14,075       $  72,307     $  18,134
                                     =========     =========       =========     =========
Per share earnings                   $    0.20     $    0.15       $    0.77     $    0.20
                                     =========     =========       =========     =========



FULLY DILUTED
Weighted average shares outstanding     95,490        91,590          93,647        91,480
Net effect of dilutive stock options       669         1,046             592           973
                                     ---------     ---------       ---------     ---------
Number of shares used in per share
 earnings                               96,159        92,636          94,239        92,453
                                     =========     =========       =========     =========
Net income                           $  19,656     $  14,075       $  72,307     $  18,134
                                     =========     =========       =========     =========
Per share earnings                   $    0.20     $    0.15       $    0.77     $    0.20
                                     =========     =========       =========     =========
</TABLE>
##### 



(i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) 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 operation of the
Partnership.
 March 24, 2006
    
    By
    
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz,President and Chief Executive Officer ofCronos Capital Corp.,General Partner of the Partnership/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas,Chief Financial Officer ofCronos Capital Corp,.General Partner of the Partnership
  
 *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as
required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said
Act.
fs1a10510ex10xiii_chinabct.htm


 



Exhibit 10.13


 







Liquid Capital Loan Agreement


 


Borrower (Party A): Guangxi Hefeng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.


Address: Donglan County, Third Development District


Legal Representative: Jin Hua Li


Address: Wuzhou, Guangxi


Creditor (Party B): Jin Hua Li







Due to its production and operation needs, Party A apply for a loan from Party B and Party B agrees to make a loan to Party A. To specify the parties’ rights and obligations and in accordance with Contract Law and other laws and regulations, Party A and Party B entered into this agreement after negotiation.







Article 1. The type of loan is Liquid Capital Loan.







Article 2. The usage of loan is to purchase raw materials.







Article 3. Loan amount is RMB 400,000. The term of the loan is 12 months, from 3/27/2006 to 3/26/2007.







Article 4. The loan interest is 0.68% per month. The interest shall be calculated daily from the date of withdrawal. The interest shall be paid monthly. The principle shall be paid on the expiry date of the loan.







Article 5. The source of the repayment fund shall be from the operation revenue.







Article 6. Rights and obligations of the parties:


 


1. Party A’s rights and obligations: (1) Withdraw and use the loan in accordance with this agreement. (2) Shall not repay the loan before the expiry date without Party B’s consent. (3) Voluntarily accept Party B’s investigation, study and monitor of the usage of the loan. (4) Repay the loan principle and interest in accordance with the terms in this agreement. (5) If Party A fails to repay the loan within the terms specified in this agreement, it shall be deemed Party A grants Party B an automatic loan extension.







2. Party B’s rights and obligations: (1) Party B has the right to demand Party A to repay the loan within any amount of time. (2) Party B has the right to demand Party A to provide any documents related to the loan. (3) Party B shall provide enough fund to Party A in accordance with the loan agreement.







Article 7 The agreement has two copies, each party holds one copy with equal legal effect.







Party A: Guangxi Hefeng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.


Legal Representative (Signature): /s/ Jin Hua Li







Party B: /s/ Jin Hua Li







Date: 3/27/2006
**EXHIBIT 32.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.**I, Michael J. Beach, Chief Financial Officer of Blackboard Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify,under the standards set forth in and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the“Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and2. The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: May 4, 2007    /s/ Michael J. Beach     Michael J. Beach  Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-54-6

Milahn M. Wright 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 399) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the superseding

indictment, and he is hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The

court will defer the decision of whether to accept the plea

agreement until the sentencing hearing.

Date: January 2, 2019 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4256 

To amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 to 

allow specified energy property grants to real estate investment trusts 

without regard to the ratable share income limitations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2009 

Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr. HELLER, Ms. BERKLEY, and Mr. NUNES) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax 

Act of 2009 to allow specified energy property grants 

to real estate investment trusts without regard to the 

ratable share income limitations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sustainable Property 

5 Grants Act of 2009’’. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4256 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REIT RATABLE SHARE LIMITA2 TION FOR ARRA GRANTS WITH RESPECT TO 

3 SPECIFIED ENERGY PROPERTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 1603 of 

5 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 

6 is amended by inserting after ‘‘Code of 1986’’ the fol7 lowing: ‘‘, except that subsection (d)(1) thereof shall not 

8 apply in the case of a real estate investment trust (as de9 fined in section 856 of such Code)’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to grants made after the date of 

12 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT
<CIK> 0000853566
<NAME> BOSTON CAPITAL TAX CREDIT FUND II LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,293,464
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,293,464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,039
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,422,996)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,397,957)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeal s
San Antonio, Texas

October 27, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00675

- CV

Tom RETZLAFF

, Appellant

v.

Philip R. KLEIN , Klein Investigations & Consulting and James W. Landess, Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 17145 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On October 25, 2016, appellant filed an affidavit accompanied by a proposed clerk’s record and reporter’s record . Appellant cites Rule 28.1(e) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which permits the appellate court to “hear an accelerated appeal on the original papers forwarded by the trial court or on sworn and uncontroverted copies of those papers.” T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 28.1(e). Rule 28.1(e), however, only addresses the use of such papers “ in lieu of the

clerk’s reco rd. ” Id

. In addition, although the appellant has sworn to the copies provided, it is unclear whether the appellee w ill controvert the copies provided. It is therefore ORDERED that appellee file a written response to the proposed clerk’s record filed by appellant no later than ten days from the date of this order. Because Rule 28.1(e) does not authorize the use of sworn copies of a reporter’s record, t he proposed reporter’s record is STRICKEN. The current deadline for the court reporter ’ s to file the repo rter’s record ’ s is October 27, 2016.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHE REOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of October, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Opinion filed November 13, 2008

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11-08-00232-CR

__________

 DARRELL DEE FOREMAN, Appellant

V.

 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 266th District Court

 Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR12987

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Darrell Dee Foreman, upon his plea of guilty, of unlawful possession of

a firearm, found the enhancement allegation to be true, and assessed his punishment at confinement

for twenty years. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported

by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable

law and states that she has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant

with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response
2

to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173

(Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record,

and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise

appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant

that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 66. Black v. State,

217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.). 

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

November 13, 2008

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
Case: 1:17-cv-00582-SJD Doc #: 5 Filed: 10/30/17 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 42
Case: 1:17-cv-00582-SJD Doc #: 5 Filed: 10/30/17 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 43
Case: 1:17-cv-00582-SJD Doc #: 5 Filed: 10/30/17 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 44
Case: 1:17-cv-00582-SJD Doc #: 5 Filed: 10/30/17 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 45
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEREX UTILITIES, INC. d/b/a TEREX

SERVICES, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

ROBERT FONDREN, JR. ET UX,

TERESA FONDREN, and DWAYNE

PROETEL,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00131

- CV

Appeal from the

166th Judicial District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2019

- CI

- 12737)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the agreed motion to dismiss the appeal, which

indicates the parties have settled the ir disp ute in the underlying litigation, and concludes the motion

should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We further

order e ach party to bear their own costs of this appeal pursuant to their agreement and joint motion

.

This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
1

The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. MELLOY, Chief Judge, United States

District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 96-1766

___________

Keith Freisinger, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. * ___________

 Submitted: December 18, 1996

 Filed: December 26, 1996 ___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1990, a jury found Keith Freisinger guilty of one count of

possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and four counts of

carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. We

affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, United States v.

Freisinger, 937 F.2d 383 (8th Cir. 1991), and later affirmed the

denial of his initial § 2255 motion, Freisinger v. United States,

No. 92-2479, 1993 WL 40836 (8th Cir. Feb. 19, 1993) (per curiam).

In 1995, Freisinger filed the instant § 2255 motion. The district

court1 summarily denied the motion, and we again affirm. 

Freisinger first argues that his conviction in federal court

violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because his property was

previously forfeited in Iowa state civil proceedings. This claim
-2-

is foreclosed by United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2147-49

(1996), and United States v. Quinn, 95 F.3d 8 (8th Cir. 1996). He

next argues that his firearm conviction was unlawful in light of

Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995). However, his

reliance on Bailey is misplaced because he was convicted of

"carrying" a firearm. See United States v. Willis, 89 F.3d 1371,

1378-79 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 273 (1996). He next

argues that his constitutional rights were violated when a urine

sample was taken while he was in custody. The district court

properly denied that claim as an abuse of the writ. See United

States v. Fallon, 992 F.2d 212, 213 (8th Cir. 1993) (McCleskey

standard applies to second § 2255 motion); Cornman v. Armontrout,

959 F.2d 727, 729 (8th Cir. 1992) (pro se status and lack of legal

knowledge do not constitute "cause"). 

Finally, Freisinger argues for the first time on appeal that

this court erred on direct appeal when we construed 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c) as permitting multiple firearm charges during a single

drug-trafficking offense. See Freisinger, 937 F.2d at 388-90.

That issue is not properly before us.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 99.4


                           TREASURY INTERNATIONAL INC.
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In Connection with the Annual report of Treasury International, Inc.(the
"Company") on Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended January
31,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Kristina Sickels, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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/ Kristina Sickels                                       July 29, 2003
-----------------------                                    ------------------
Kristina Sickels                                           Date
Chief Financial Officer
Treasury International, Inc.