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 on Form 10-Q of American Superconductor Corporation (the
Company) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Thomas M. Rosa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, 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/ Thomas M. Rosa     
|Thomas M. Rosa         
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|February 9, 2007
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 614 

Honoring the memory of the victims of the heinous attack at the Pulse 

nightclub on June 12, 2016. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2020 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the memory of the victims of the heinous attack 

at the Pulse nightclub on June 12, 2016. 

Whereas, on June 12, 2016, a gunman inspired by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria targeted the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, where he killed 49 innocent victims and wounded dozens more in a despicable attack; 

Whereas the attack at the Pulse nightclub was an attack on 

the LGBTQ community, the Hispanic community, the 

City of Orlando, the State of Florida, and the United 

States; 

Whereas the Orlando community continues to mourn the 

tragic loss of life, but has demonstrated remarkable 

strength, unity, and resilience in the aftermath of the 

horrendous event; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 614 ATS 

Whereas June 12 is designated as ‘‘Pulse Remembrance 

Day’’ in the State of Florida to honor the victims and 

survivors of the senseless attack; 

Whereas the people of the United States continue to pray for 

those affected by the tragedy; and 

Whereas June 12, 2020, marks 4 years since the lives of the 

49 innocent victims were tragically cut short by the 

senseless act of terrorism: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) commemorates the 49 victims killed in the 

3 attack at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on 

4 June 12, 2016, and offers heartfelt condolences to 

5 the families, loved ones, and friends of the victims; 

6 (2) honors the dozens of survivors of the attack 

7 and pledges continued resolve to stand against ter8 rorism and hate; and 

9 (3) expresses gratitude to the brave law en10 forcement and emergency medical personnel who re11 sponded to the attack. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
ooo IEo

{,

(l,

-oEfg

-ro -

r-6 0U

r 5

orooa

C.lFrO

dc;ocj

eouBqJosqv

z9'99t L

vv'vLvl

86'099t

rO

c! o

99'L6ZV

o

(s

; rloqeagq€*

f\ $c{N<.rtrlo's<2 .ri c!r-rr-rc?

o oooooooo

(uE

CU

-o

a F^ ;;;;;;;; ? ro .Y;_ 

g E E-a8fr8666 E E E E E g c g

I StsN 666doooql F E+i EEEEEEEE

rD U) X z EqE\rEEe

E z gB8S*E&E

$ FqEB dsP::eRB

x o @

K BE HEHH;EEE d crj -+ 5 ; .Q.e.e.9.9.9.9.9 - g E .. or'E a=-EE-aE6-a-a E^ff8 

{|! q) EEE=ssEsstsE

o)(n c (!

Yrr Q.(l)-O (D C )

="Zat <fl)oti tL

z9'99e t

vL'vLV'

86'099 L

g?

\LQ 2

.q 

'a

-f

-4. \)

9:o)

,! 

t

92.y

E4 F

E t\lc

C)

o

.9zcoc

.9fo

v, $ocuo

(It

(o

o- o

oNI fil V I

.\/) I

\)2

.-Y'dj

ci

?o$z

v,

:fo

0)fu

(U

.gsN

t.f)

0) oEo

-o

(go

.9

-c=9Q

C) zz

(L

at

tr

EoIo

t'| o

-I\Ts

l\/,

(r) o

CN

l-. $o

c\

CAooz

TL

ir) oo
EXHIBIT 32



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 Newcourt Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, McIvan A. Jarrett, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:



(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.



|                      |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: August 18, 2003 |  |  | 
|                      |  |  | 
|                      |  |  | 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Newcourt Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Newcourt Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

DAVID ROBINSON, : 

Petitioner, Case No. 3:18-cv-1 

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

WARDEN, London Correctional 

Institution, 

Respondent. : 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge 

Michael R. Merz (ECF No. 2), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), and 

noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Petitioner is DENIED any requested certificate of appealability and the Court hereby certifies to 

the United States Court of Appeals that an appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore 

should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. 

January 26, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

United States District Judge
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4546 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require certain institutions 

of higher education to commit to, and provide notice of, tuition levels 

for students. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2010 

Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mrs. MYRICK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

certain institutions of higher education to commit to, 

and provide notice of, tuition levels for students. 

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 ‘‘Truth in Tuition Act 

5 of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMMITMENT TO AND NOTICE OF TUITION LEVELS. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 487(a) of the Higher 

8 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended 

9 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4546 IH

1 ‘‘(30)(A) The institution will provide to each 

2 admitted student considering an undergraduate or 

3 graduate program— 

4 ‘‘(i) a multi-year tuition and fee schedule; 

5 or 

6 ‘‘(ii) a single-year tuition and fee schedule, 

7 and nonbinding, multi-year estimate of net 

8 costs after all financial aid is awarded, assum9 ing constant family and student income, assets, 

10 and relevant circumstances. 

11 ‘‘(B) Multi-year schedules and estimates re12 quired by subparagraph (A)— 

13 ‘‘(i) may include a percentage or dollar in14 crease or decrease of any size the institution 

15 deems appropriate from one year to the next; 

16 and 

17 ‘‘(ii) shall indicate, on a year-by-year basis, 

18 costs for the normal duration of the relevant 

19 student’s undergraduate or graduate program. 

20 ‘‘(C) Institutions that elect a single-year tuition 

21 and fee schedule under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall 

22 include with each multi-year estimate the average 

23 deviation, in percentage terms, between previous 

24 year estimates and actual net costs for students at 

25 their institution. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4546 IH

1 ‘‘(D) The Secretary shall waive the require2 ments of subparagraph (A), and of the commitment 

3 made thereunder, if the institution demonstrates to 

4 the Secretary that the requirements of subparagraph 

5 (A) are not practicable because of the occurrence of 

6 one or more events causing the institution severe 

7 economic distress, dramatic reduction of State or 

8 Federal aid, or any other circumstance the Secretary 

9 deems valid.’’. 

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

11 subsection (a) shall be effective on the date that is 120 

12 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT NO. 99
--------------


                            Cook Associates, LLP
                         Certified Public Accounts
                    Members Division For CPA Firms AICPA
                          And The Virginia Society
                        Of Certified Public Accounts

                             Originating Office

                                P.O. Box 580
                            Richlands, Virginia


                        INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT


To the Board of Directors
Bank of Tazewell County
Tazewell, Virginia


     We  have audited the accompanying  balance sheets of  Bank of Tazewell
County as  of December  31, 1995  and 1994, and  the related  statements of
income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for  the years then
ended.  These  financial statements  are the responsibility  of the  Bank's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.

     We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require  that we plan and perform the  audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement.   An audit includes  examining, on a  test basis,
evidence  supporting   the  amounts   and  disclosures  in   the  financial
statements.  An  audit also  includes assessing  the accounting  principles
used  and significant estimates made  by management, as  well as evaluating
the  overall financial statement presentation.   We believe  that our audit
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

     In  our opinion, the  financial statements  referred to  above present
fairly,  in  all  material respects,  the  financial  position  of Bank  of
Tazewell County as of  December 31, 1995 and  1994, and the results  of its
operations and its cash flows  for the years then ended in  conformity with
generally accounting principles.

     As  discussed in Note  1 and 11  to the financial  statements, Bank of
Tazewell County adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No.'s 114  and 118, "Accounting by Creditors  for Impairment of a
Loan" as of January 1, 1995.


February 27, 1996                              Cook Associates, LLP

                                      -109-<PAGE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Subjex Corporation does
      hereby certify that:





(a)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Subjex Corporation for the month ended March
      31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of Subjex
      Corporation





Date: August 14, 2007
            
            By:
            /s/  Andrew
                D. HyderAndrew
                D. HyderPresident
                & Chief Executive Officer










**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 06 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(SUBSECTION
        (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
        CODE)**
 
 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 Subjex Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (the
        "Company"), does certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company
        on
        Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that: (1) the 10-QSB Report
        fully
        complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the 10-QSB Report
        fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of
        the Company.
 
 By:
                /s/  Andrew
                    HyderAndrew 
                    Hyder, CEO (acting CFO)August
                    14, 2007
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

|                              |                                                                     |                             |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                              |                                                                     |
|                         |                                                                |                        |
| *January                17, 2006* |                                                                     | */s/              Albert Aimers* |
|                              | *Albert                Aimers**Chief                  Executive Officer* |
|                              |                                                                     |

|                                |                                                                           |                                 |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                                |                                                                           |
|                           |                                                                      |                            |
| *January                  17, 2006* |                                                                           | **/s/                Javan Khazali** |
|                                | **Javan                Khazali****Chief                    Financial Officer** |
|                                |                                                                           |

----
#### O’Green v Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry,

No. 90986;

Court of Appeals No. 132654.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 16

- 00055

- CV

MARK LITTLE, Appellant

V. THE SWAN ASBESTOS AND SILICA SETTLEMENT TRUST, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 196th District Court

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 83004

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mark Little filed a notice of appeal in the 196 th Judicial District Court of Hunt County on August 10, 2016, and in the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas on August 11, 2016. Hunt County lies in two different appellate districts. T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.201(f), (g) (West Supp. 2016). Litigants from Hunt County may choose to file a notice of appeal in either the Fifth or the Sixth Court of Appeals. See Miles v. Ford Motor Co. , 914 S.W.2d 135, 137 n.4 (Tex. 1995). Notwithstanding the fact th at he personally filed h is notice in the Fifth Court of Appeals, Little failed to indicate on the face of the notice whether he desired to prosecute the appeal in the Fifth or the Sixth Court of Appeals. Consequently, the Hunt County District Clerk’s Office forwarded
Little’s no tice to the Sixth Court of Appeals on August 12, 2016. As a result, Little’s appeal is now pending in both the Fifth and the Sixth Courts of Appeals. Under such circumstances, the appellate court with dominant jurisdiction is the court in
which the notice of appeal was first filed. Id. at 138; Capehart v. State , 257 S.W.3d 814, 815 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, no pet.). In this case, then, the Fifth Court of Appeals is the court with dominant jurisdiction. Pending before this Court is Little’s motion to vo luntarily dismiss his appeal in this Court. Because the Fifth Court of Appeals is the court with dominant jurisdiction and because Little has expressed his desire to proceed with his appeal in that court, his motion is well taken. Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a )(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is granted. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).3

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal

.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice
Date Submitted: October 18 , 2016 Date Decided: October 19 , 2016
#### Herman Pistorius v. Saginaw County Supervisors.

*Circuit court commissioners’ fees.*

Act 214 of 1879 fixing the fees of a circuit court commissioner in criminal examinations applies where he takes the evidence in person. Where it is done by a stenographer the board of supervisors are the’ final judges of proper compensation.

Mandamus. Submitted

June 19.

Denied June 20.

*W. 8. Tennant*for the writ.

*Fra/nk E. Emeriek*against.

Per Curiam.

A majority of the Court are of the opinion that the statute of 1879, prescribing the fees of circuit court commissioners on criminal examinations, refers to cases where the evidence is taken by the officer in person, and does not apply to cases where the service is mainly vicarious. Here the commissioner did not take the evidence in person, but employed a stenographer to do it. What should be paid for what was done was therefore not dependant on the tariff of rates in the fee bill, but ivas such amount as would be a reasonable recompense, and of this the board of supervisors had the lawful right to judge, and their decision is controlling.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 32

                         Certification of CEO and CFO
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Air Canada (the "Registrant") on Form
40-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert A. Milton, as
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and M. R. Peterson,
as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his
knowledge, 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
Registrant.


   /s/ Robert A. Milton
----------------------------------
By:     Robert A. Milton
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
May 19, 2004


  /s/ M.R. Peterson
---------------------------------
By:     M. R. Peterson
Title:  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
May 19, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of
section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### DONALDSON v. NESBIT.

Action for perpetual injunction against trespass by Sydney T. Donaldson against Mitchell Nesbitt, Faith Johnson, Max Sind'ab, Cain Rutledge, James Greer. Saul Carr, Peter Carr, Sam Carr, and D. H. Smith, heard on Circuit with the preceding case of Alston *v.*Limehouse. From orders of Judges Gage and Gary therein set out, the defendants appeal.

*571*Messrs. Smith, Lee & Frost*and *Walter Hazard,*for appellants,

adopt argument used in preceding case.

*Messrs. Bryan & Bryan,*contra,

cite: *Defendants not entitled to jury trial as matter of right:*'Code, 274; 53 S. C., 130; 54 S. C., 430; 29 S. €., 447; 58 S. C., 459152 S. C., 461; 29 S. C., 26; 58 S. C., 459. *Plaintiffs have title to land in question and right to injunction:*22 S. C., 74, 494; 33 S. C., 187; 2 N. & McC., 400; Rev. Stat., 1873, 1874; 42 S. C., 138; Rev. Stat., 1835-1845. *Acts of the State recognizing private rights in these waters:*21 Stat., 180; 22 Stat., 222; 23 Stat., 451; 23 Stat., 450; 33 S. C., 187. *As to right of fishing:*153 U. S., 1. *Temporary injunction is a remedy of right:*42 S. C., 141; 27 S. C., 414; 38 S. €., 145; 54 S. C., 430; 2 Hill Oh., 619; 42 S. C., 97; 3 Strob., 504; 27 N. J. R., 389; 35 S. E. R., 375. *This order of reference is not appealable:*29 S. C., 26; 33 S. C., 389; 58 S. C., 459; 53 S. C., 129; 52 S. C., 461. *This order granting temporary injunction is not appealable:*42 S. C., 101; 51 S. C., 433; 54 S. C., 457; 49 S. C., 325; 48 S. C., 315; 29 S. C., 1; 58 S. C., 21; 25 S. C., 41; 47 S. C., 97; 56 S. C, 540.

June 22, 1901.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

The facts of this case are similar to those in the case of Charles Pringle Alston *et al.,*plaintiffs, respondents, *v.*J. F. Limehouse *et al.,*defendants, appellants, in which the opinion has just been filed, and as the principles therein stated are applicable to this case, it is only-necessary to announce the judgment of this Court, which is that the appeals from the orders of Judge Gage be dismissed, and that the order of Judge Gary be reversed.