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 Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rob-Roy J. Graham, 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/ ROB-ROY J. GRAHAM  
|Rob-Roy J. Graham      
|Chief Financial Officer
|Date: May 6, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stevie P. Robinson, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 586]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered December 7, 2000, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the County Court properly denied his motion to suppress his inculpatory statements to law enforcement officials. The credible evidence adduced at the *Huntley*hearing *(see People v Huntley,*15 NY2d 72 [1965]) established that the defendant’s oral and written state*509ments were made after the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his constitutional rights, and his videotaped statement was taken after he again waived his rights *(see People v Jackson,*308 AD2d 549 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 540 [2003]; *People v Hunter,*265 AD2d 503 [1999]).

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7749]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Gauguin and Polynesia: An Elusive Paradise''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Gauguin and Polynesia: An Elusive 
Paradise,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, WA, from on or about February 9, 2012, 
until on or about April 29, 2012, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: December 28, 2011.
Lee Satterfield,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-33747 Filed 1-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BLANCA MARTINEZ,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00266-CR

Appeal from the

 County Court at Law No. 2

of El Paso, Texas 

(TC# 20190C03394)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until April 15, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Justo Fernandez-Gonzalez, the Appellant’s attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before April 15, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
```
<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-32.2
<SEQUENCE>5
<FILENAME>hybridexhbit321-093004.txt
<DESCRIPTION>CERTIFICATION OF CFO PER SECTION 906
<TEXT>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                 Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350

      The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 of Hybrid Fuel Systems, Inc.(the "Company")
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                            /s/  Mark Clancy
                                            ---------------------------------
                                                 Mark Clancy
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 November 15, 2004

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

</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             990
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,859
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   110
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     21,602
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             775
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               775
<LOANS>                                         84,636
<ALLOWANCE>                                        648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,422
<DEPOSITS>                                      73,297
<SHORT-TERM>                                    24,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                882
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,693
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              229
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 115,422
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,688
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,572
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,260
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,325
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,706
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,554
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      187
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (9)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,148
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,730
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,016
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,016
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.83
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.92
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       647
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   472
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       44
<RECOVERIES>                                        33
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  648
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               648
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              7


</TABLE>
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2

 

Amendment to the Employment Agreement of Mark Goldwasser

 

This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement between National Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Mark Goldwasser (the “Executive”), as dated as of July 1, 2008, as amended as of November 23, 2009, as modified on November 23, 2009 and amended on June 20, 2013 including the Annexes thereto, and as amended on the date hereof (the “Agreement”), is entered into and effective on the 1st day of October, 2015.

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

 

1.     The Term of the Agreement shall end on March 31, 2016. 

 

2.     The Term of the Agreement shall be extended for successive 30 day periods (“Additional Period”) after March 31, 2016 unless one of the parties to the Agreement, at least five days prior to the end of the then current Additional Period, advises the other party that he or it, as the case may be, no longer wishes to extend the Term of the Agreement. 

 

3.     For the avoidance of doubt, this Amendment shall not entitle the Executive to claim any breach by the Company of any provisions of the Agreement, including without limitation, not extending or renewing the Agreement on substantially the same terms.

 

4.     If the Agreement terminates or ends or is not extended for any reason other than the termination by the Executive prior to March 31, 2016 without Good Reason, the Executive shall be entitled to a payment of $400,000 payable pro rata over a twelve month period beginning on the date the Agreement so terminates, ends or is not extended. Payments shall be made in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices.

 

Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth below.

 

	
 
	
NATIONAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
/s/ Robert B. Fagenson
	
 

	
 
	
By: Robert B. Fagenson
	
 

	
 
	
Its: Chief Executive Officer
	
 

	 	Date: October 1, 2015	 
	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Mark Goldwasser	 
	 	By: Mark Goldwasser	 
	 	Date: October 1, 2015
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ami Trauber, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, following due inquiry, I believe 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 result of operations of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Star Gas Partners, L.P. and will be retained by Star Gas Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                                     |  |                 |  |                                                                                     
|----------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  |  |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY By: STAR GAS LLC (General Partner)
|                  |  |  | 
|December 14, 2004 |  |  |  | By:                                                                                 |  | /s/ Ami Trauber
|                  |  |  |  |                                                                                     |  |                 |  | Ami Trauber Chief Financial Officer Star Gas Partners, L.P. Star Gas Finance Company
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

TED MARCUM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHERIFF DAVE DUCHAK, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:17-cv-00437

District Judge Walter H. Rice

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

ORDER

Defendant Sheriff Dave Duchak has filed a Motion to Strike (Doc. #112) seeking 

an Order striking pro se Plaintiff Ted Marcum’s Response to Discovery (Doc. #110). 

Defendant contends that an Order striking Plaintiff’s Response is warranted under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(A).

Rule 5(d)(1)(A) provides that initial disclosure (under Rule 26(a)(1) or (2)) and 

certain discovery requests and responses “must not be filed until they are used in the 

proceeding or the court orders filing ....” This includes, in part, answers to 

interrogatories, responses to requests for documents, and responses to requests for 

admission. Id. 

Plaintiff violated Rule 5(d)(1)(A) by filing many documents in response to 

Defendant’s discovery requests. Rule 5(d)(1)(A), however, does not mandate striking 

improperly filed discovery responses. Plaintiff’s discovery materials, moreover, work no 

prejudice upon Defendant’s ability to litigate his case especially because the presence of 

Case: 3:17-cv-00437-WHR-SLO Doc #: 121 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1490
2

Plaintiff’s responses in the record do not relieve him of his obligations to answer 

Defendant’s interrogatories and respond to Defendant’s requests for production of 

documents as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b) and 34(b), respectfully.

Accordingly, Defendant Sheriff Dave Duchak’s Motion to Strike (Doc. #112) is 

denied.

June 10, 2020 s/Sharon L. Ovington

Sharon L. Ovington

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 3:17-cv-00437-WHR-SLO Doc #: 121 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1491
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

DIONNE REID
FOR CHILD “D.M..,” Case Number: 1:17-cv-552

Plaintiff,

Barrett, J.

vs. Litkovitz, M.J.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, REPORT AND

Defendant. RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion for remand of this case for
further administrative proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and to enter
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. (Doc. 14). Pursuant to the parties”
agreement, upon remand the Appeals Council will vacate all findings in the Administrative Law
Judge’s decision, and the Commissioner will conduct further proceedings and develop the
administrative record as necessary to determine whether Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning

of the Social Security Act.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT the parties’ joint motion for remand
(Doc. 14) be GRANTED; this case be REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security

for further administrative proceedings; and the Clerk of Court enter a separate judgment as

Linen L. awe =

United States Magistrate Judge

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

DIONNE REID
FOR CHILD “D.M.,” Case Number: 1:17-cv-552
Plaintiff,
Barrett, J.
vs. Litkovitz, M.J.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING THE FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO R&R

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4425 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2–116th Street in North Troy, New York, 

as the ‘‘Martin G. ‘Marty’ Mahar Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4425 EH

1 SECTION 1. MARTIN G. ‘‘MARTY’’ MAHAR POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 2–116th Street in North Troy, 

4 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Martin 

5 G. ‘Marty’ Mahar Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Martin G. ‘Marty’ 

10 Mahar Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 22, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4425 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostMahar Post Office’’. Troy, New York, as the ‘‘Martin G. ‘Marty’ al Service located at 2–116th Street in North
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23
- 10130 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Jonathan Eugene Howard,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22
- CR
- 270 - 1

**______________ ________________**  Before **Wiener, Stewart,** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jonathan Eugene Howard 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). Howard has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the re levant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 29, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10130 Document: 00516914952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2023No. 23
- 10130

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further respo nsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-10130 Document: 00516914952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2023