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 U.S. Energy Initiatives Corporation
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Michelle Hamilton, Chief 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
      U.S. Energy Initiatives Corporation and will be retained by U.S. Energy
      Initiatives Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.






November
                  19, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Michelle
              HamiltonMichelle
                HamiltonChief
                Financial Officer
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 17, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 5 4 2 5

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 0 5 3 3

- C V

- C A P

- 1

B L U E C R O S S A N D B L U E S H I E L D A S S O C I A T I O N ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l a n t ,

v e r s u s

W I L L I A M J O S E P H C O X ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l e e

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 )

B e f o r e B A R K E T T , M A R T I N a n d H I L L , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

A p p e l l a n t B l u e C r o s s a n d B l u e S h i e l d A s s o c i a t i o n ( “ B C B S A ” ) a s k s t h i s

C o u r t , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t o v a c a t e t h eS e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f A p p e l l e e W i l l i a m

J o s e p h C o x
. B e c a u s e o f t h e e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e , w e V A C A T E 1

t h e J u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 1 0 6

. S e e U

. S

. B a n c o r p M o r t g

. C o

. v
.
B o n n e r M a l l P ’ s h i p , 5 1 3 U

. S

. 1 8 , 2 9 ( 1 9 9 4 )

. T h u s , w e D I S M I S S t h e a p p e a l a s

m o o t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e p a r t i e s ’ s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t

.

Unexpected de velopments make it unlikely that full counseling would be ava ilable to 1 the cour t if liti g ation continues in this case. The possible prec lusive eff ect if the case rema ins is undesirable under the se circ umstances.
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

DAVID R. GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:17-cv-718

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

*CORRECTED* DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 15) 

AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings and, on December 27, 2018, submitted a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 15). No objections were filed. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its

entirety. Accordingly: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED; 

2. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for 

further proceedings, pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/6/2019 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Charles Shelby,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:17cv551

Warden, Noble

Correctional Institution, Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Respondent.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the 

Magistrate Judge on July 6, 2018 (Doc. 11). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file 

objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. 

Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report 

and Recommendation have been filed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) of 

the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by 

the Magistrate Judge, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE because 

Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on his claims. This matter is TERMINATED from 

this Court's active docket.
2

Any request for certificate of appealability or request to certify an appeal would 

not be taken in good faith and would be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett

United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 99-2496 (PLF)

)

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

ORDER #127 – REMAND: CHANGE OF COURTROOM

On June 13, 2022, the Court set a hearing to consider and approve the parties’ 

jointly proposed consent order to govern the corrective-statements remedy at the point of sale 

(the “Proposed Point-of-Sale Consent Order”). See Minute Order (June 13, 2022); see also

Order #125–Remand (“Order #125”) [Dkt. No. 6503] (setting forth the procedures for the 

“Point-of-Sale Settlement Hearing”).1

 The Court will conduct the Point-of-Sale Settlement 

Hearing on July 28, 2022, beginning at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time); and the hearing will 

continue if necessary on July 29, 2022, beginning at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). The 

Court now informs the parties and other interested persons that the hearing location has changed. 

The Point-of-Sale Settlement Hearing will not take place in the Ceremonial Courtroom. Instead, 

1 The parties are the United States and the Public Health Intervenors (collectively,

“plaintiffs”); Philip Morris USA Inc., Altria Group, Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 

(individually, as successor in interest to Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, and as 

successor to Lorillard Tobacco Company) (collectively, “defendants”); and ITG Brands, LLC, 

Commonwealth Brands, Inc., and Commonwealth-Altadis, Inc. (collectively, the “remedies 

parties”). Defendants and the Remedies Parties are collectively referred to as the 

“manufacturers.”
2 

it will be held in Courtroom 30 of the William B. Bryant Annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman 

Courthouse at 333 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. All other procedures 

set forth in the Court’s July 21, 2022 order shall remain in full force and effect. See Order #126–

Remand: Procedures for Settlement Hearing [Dkt. No. 6511]. Due to the change of courtroom, 

however, those participating virtually will now be able to view exhibits and demonstratives 

displayed in court. 

SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: July 27, 2022 

/s/
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                  FIELDS AIRCRAFT SPARES, INC.
                                STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE



                                         For the year ended January 1, 1999                For the year ended December 31, 1997
                                  Income             Shares          Per-share         Income            Shares          Per-share
                                (Numerator)       (Denominator)        Amount        (Numerator)      (Denominator)       Amount
                                -----------       -------------        ------        -----------      -------------       ------
<S>                            <C>                 <C>               <C>            <C>                <C>                <C>
Income from operations         $ (1,950,000)                                        $  (147,000)                             

Common shares outstanding                            2,483,781                                          2,079,571             

Effect of weighted averages                           (110,872)                                          (303,325)             
                               ------------         ---------                        -----------        ---------                  
Basic earnings per share       $ (1,950,000)         2,372,909        $  (0.82)     $  (147,000)        1,776,246         $ (0.08)
                                                                      ========                                            =======
Dilutive securities                                  1,060,131                                          1,032,028             

Effect of weighted averages                                                                                                     
  of dilutive securities                               23,315                                            (462,895)             

Interest on convertible                                                                                                 
  securities                        170,000                                                                                      
                               ------------         ---------                        -----------        ---------                 
Diluted earnings per share     $ (1,780,000)        3,456,355         $  (0.51)      $  (147,000)       2,345,379         $ (0.06)
                               ============         =========         ========       ===========        =========         ======= 
</TABLE>
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 2 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 3 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 4 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 5 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 6 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 7 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 8 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 9 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 10 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 11 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 12 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 13 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 14 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 15 of 16
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 87 Filed 09/04/2003 Page 16 of 16
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1801-10

EX PARTE MIGUEL MARTINEZ, Appellant

ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS

EL PASO COUNTY

Per curiam. Cochran, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Price, J., joined.

The appellant filed an Article 11.072 application for habeas corpus relief. The trial court 1

signed an order denying the application on June 11, 2010, but the order was not filed with the

clerk until July 19, 2010. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on August 18, 2010. In an

unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because

the notice of appeal was untimely filed.2

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072.

1

Ex parte Martinez, No. 08-10-00258-CR, 2010 WL 3904496 (Tex. App.–El Paso Oct. 6, 2010) (mem.

2

op., not designated for publication).
Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2(a)(1) requires that a defendant file notice of appeal

within 30 days after the trial court “enters an appealable order.” For the purposes of the appellate

timetable, a trial court “enters” an order when it signs the order. The appellant’s notice of appeal

3

was filed more than 30 days after the trial court entered its order, and is thus untimely.

We affirm the Court of Appeals. The appellant’s appeal is dismissed without prejudice to

his ability to file future 11.072 writ applications in this matter.

Delivered: June 29, 2011

DO NOT PUBLISH

State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398, 401-02 (Tex. Cr. App. 1991).

3
Exhibit 32





Certification


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of LCA-Vision Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to
such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Dated:  March
      13, 2009
                /s/ Steven C. Straus
                
                Name:  Steven
      C. StrausTitle:
      Chief Executive OfficerDated:  March
      13, 2009
                /s/ Michael J. Celebrezze
                
                Name:  Michael
      J. CelebrezzeTitle:
      Senior Vice President/Finance,Chief
      Financial Officer &
Treasurer
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Financial Media Group, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,
Albert Aimers, Chief Executive Officer and Manu Ohri, Chief 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
Financial Media Group, Inc. and will be retained by Financial Media Group, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
   Date:  April
      17, 2009
                By:
                /s/ ALBERT
      AIMERSAlbert
      Aimers
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
  Date:  April
      17, 2009
                By:
                /s/ MANU
      OHRIManu
      Ohri
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL HARRISON,

Plaintiff,
v. . Case No. 3:17-cv-75
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES, et JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
al.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS (DOC. #22); CASE TO
REMAIN TERMINATED ON DOCKET

Given the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed on November 30, 2018, Doc.
#24, which encompasses the issues of “costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees,” the
Court OVERRULES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, Doc.

#22. The captioned case shall remain terminated on the Court’s docket.

. a
{ 4 a .
Date: December 3, 2018 ne

WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 Amendment No.1 to the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Acorn Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Barth, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.



|/s/ MICHAEL BARTH       | 
|----------------------- | 
|Michael Barth           | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 
|February 3, 2016        |
The best E-story never toldAir quality improvement inTexas-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%30%1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Percent ChangeComparison of the Percent Change in Eight-Hour Ozone and Growth Areasin the DFW Area1997-2007Eight-Hour Ozone Design ValuePopulationVehicle Miles TraveledPopulation Corrected Ozone Design Value*Source: Population - Estimated based on data fromUS Census Bureau and Texas State Data Center, August 2008VMT - Texas Transportation Institute, August 2008Ozone - EPA Air Quality System Data, Februrary 10, 2009Air Quality Highlights in 2000•7 NA or NNA areas for 9 NAAQS•Many HGB 1-hr Ozone peaks above 225ppb beginning in Jan.-Feb.•Serious inter, intra-state and internationaltransport of pollutants•Strategy concentrated on reducing NOxemissions•No clear path to achieve attainment•Conducted >$20M air quality study in2000 (follow up study in 2005)Achievements•All areas, except HGB and DFW are inattainment ( 85 ppb Ozone standard)•El Paso is monitoring attainment for PM, COand Ozone NAAQS•DFW attained the 1-hr Ozone std in 2006•Few 1-hr Ozone exceedances in HGB withhighest in the 150-160 ppb range . Noexceedances in Winter and SpringHGBDFWKey factorscontributing to success•2000 and 2005 air quality studies•Permitting of grandfathered sources (withmajor emission reductions)•TERP and LIRAP incentive programsaccelerated introduction of cleaner vehiclesand equipment•Targeted reductions of Highly Reactive VOCs•TX-developed and EPA-approved EarlyAction Compacts as incentive for NNAKey factorscontributing to success•Reduction (about 80%) in volume of releasesfrom episodic emissions•Implementation of real-time EnvironmentalMonitoring Rapid Response System•Introduction and extensive use of InfraRedcamera to make VOC emissions visible andimplementation of “Find it and Fix it” policy•Cooperation
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4431 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 500 percent 

excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on 

corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2010 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose 

a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to 

political committees and on corporate expenditures on 

political advocacy campaigns. 

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 ‘‘Business Should Mind 

5 Its Own Business Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4431 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCISE TAX ON CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

2 POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND ON COR3 PORATE EXPENDITURES ON POLITICAL AD4 VOCACY CAMPAIGNS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 36 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to certain other excise taxes) 

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub8 chapter: 

9 ‘‘Subchapter E—Certain Corporate Political 

10 Activities 

‘‘Sec. 4491. Corporate contributions to political committees and corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. 

11 ‘‘SEC. 4491. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL 

12 COMMITTEES AND CORPORATE EXPENDI13 TURES ON POLITICAL ADVOCACY CAM14 PAIGNS. 

15 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a corporation, 

16 there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 500 percent of the 

17 aggregate of the following amounts: 

18 ‘‘(1) The amount of contributions (as defined in 

19 section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

20 1971) made during the taxable year. 

21 ‘‘(2) The amount paid for an electioneering 

22 communication described in section 304(f)(3) of 

23 such Act. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4431 IH

1 ‘‘(b) CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS DISREGARDED.— 

2 For purposes of this section, any court determination that 

3 such Act does not apply to one or more corporations shall 

4 be disregarded.’’. 

5 (b) DENIAL OF INCOME TAX DEDUCTION.—Sub6 section (a) of section 275 of such Code is amended by in7 serting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(7) Taxes imposed by section 4491 (relating to 

9 corporate contributions to political committees and 

10 corporate expenditures on political advocacy cam11 paigns).’’. 

12 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sub13 chapters for chapter 36 of such Code is amended by add14 ing at the end the following new item: 

‘‘SUBCHAPTER E. CERTAIN CORPORATE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.’’. 

15 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to amounts paid after the date of 

17 the enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after 

18 such date. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS