alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Pacific Continental Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Hal M. Brown, Chief Executive Officer, and Michael A. Reynolds, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:





(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/ Hal M. Brown
/s/ Michael A. ReynoldsHal M. Brown
Michael A. ReynoldsChief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer





Dated:  March 11, 2011
Order entered April 4, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01383-CV

PMC CHASE, LLP AND STEVE TURNBOW, Appellants

V.

BRANCH STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-01773-E

ORDER

Before the Court are appellants’ second motion for extension of time to file brief and 

appellee’s response in opposition. We GRANT the extension motion and ORDER the brief 

received March 13, 2019 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Mikecal SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1614

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Mikecal Simmons, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Lisa Michelle LYONS

1160142 (2150480)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Cert. denied.
EXHIBIT 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


          In connection with the Annual Report of International  Wireless,  Inc.
     (the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2002 as
     filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"),  I,  Michael  Dewar,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
     certify,  pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.ss.  1350,  as  added  by  ss.  906 of the
     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     A.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     B.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.





                                          By: /s/ Michael Dewar
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Michael Dewar
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          June 9, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

         The undersigned, Brion Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of Aros
Corporation (the "Company"), has executed this certification in connection with
the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2002 (the
"Report"). The undersigned hereby certifies 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.



         Date: September 9, 2002                   /s/ Brion Umidi
               -----------------                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name: Brion Umidi
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
SFL PROPERTY HOLDING LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-0214

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 20, 2017

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
TATE, Charles E., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HANDYMAN HOME REPAIR, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0629

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 07, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit
      23.1**








[ROTHSTEIN
      KASS LETTERHEAD]











CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
      Tasker Products Corp. on Form S-8 (Registration Statement Nos. 333-135903 and
      333-121054) of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph relating
      to
      the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, dated March 31, 2008,
      relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Tasker Products Corp. and
      Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated
      statements of operations, stockholders’ equity(deficit), and cash flows for each
      of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007.




/s/
      Rothstein, Kass & Company, P.C.





Roseland,
      New Jersey


March
      31,
      2008
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

N O . 09

- 23

- 00251

- CR

__________________

IN RE DEVIN T. MCGHEE

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F 21

- 38631

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator, Devin T. McGhee , asks

this Court to compel the trial court to hold an examining trial. See Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Ann. art. 16.01 ( “The accused in any felony case shall have the right to an

examining trial before indictment in the county having jurisdiction of the

offense [.]” ). We deny mandamus relief. 1

1 Relator failed to certify that he served a copy of the mandamus petition on the Respondent and the Real Party in Interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We use Rule 2, however, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.2 “[T] he return of an indictment terminates any right to an examining trial.” See

State ex rel. Holmes v. Salinas , 784 S.W.2d 421, 42 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (orig.

proceeding)

. McGhee states that he was indicted on October 20, 2021. Thus, the trial

court does not have a ministerial duty to conduct an examining trial

.

Relator failed to establish a right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny

the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 2 2 , 2023 Opinion Delivered August 23 , 2023

Do Not P ublish

Before Golemon , C.J., Johnson and Wright , JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6128 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt certain employees 

engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding services from maximum hours requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. MOORE of Utah (for himself and Ms. PETTERSEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt 

certain employees engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding services from maximum hours requirements. 

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 ‘‘Outdoor Recreational 

5 Outfitting and Guiding Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6128 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN EMPLOY2 EES ENGAGED IN OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL 

3 OUTFITTING OR GUIDING SERVICES. 

4 Section 13(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 

5 U.S.C. 213(b)) is amended by inserting after paragraph 

6 (3) the following: 

7 ‘‘(4) any employee principally engaged in out8 door recreational outfitting or guiding services and 

9 employed by an employer principally engaged in the 

10 business of providing such outfitting or guiding serv11 ices that— 

12 ‘‘(A) does not operate for more than seven 

13 months in any calendar year; or 

14 ‘‘(B) had average receipts for any six 

15 months of the preceding calendar year that 

were not more than 331 16 ⁄3 per centum of its av17 erage receipts for the other six months of such 

18 year; or’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Ariba, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert M. Calderoni, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James W. Frankola, as Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, each hereby certifies, 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/ Robert M. CalderoniRobert M. Calderoni Chief Executive Officer


Date: November 26, 2007



/s/ James W. FrankolaJames W. Frankola Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 26, 2007
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3223

___________________________

Bobby Earl Jefferson, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Tom Roy; Chris Pawelk; Roy Witte; John R. King; Bruce Reiser; Jeff Lonsky;

Steven Hammer; Carol Krippner; Reena Solheid; Alice Remillard; Anthony

Forchas; Arthur Dana Dickson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: August 4, 2020

Filed: August 14, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Minnesota inmate Bobby Jefferson appeals the

district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment based on his failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments on

appeal, we conclude the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. See

Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing de novo grant of

summary judgment); see also King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th

Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting an inmate

must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit). Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now

deceased.

-2-
Page 1 of 2 1 022 Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, WY 82001

April 2, 2014 US Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M -30 West Building ground floor, Room W1 2- 140 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Regarding Docket Number FAA-2008-0930: Great Lakes Aviation is petitioning for an extension of Exem ption No. 9758 B . Th is exem ption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations , allows Great Lakes to substitute a qualified and authorized check airm an in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is com pleting the initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. **PUBLIC INTEREST**  **AND SA FETY**  Great Lakes feels that there h ave been no changes in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting of the original exem ption. **QUA LIFICA** **TION OF**  **OPERA TING**  **EXPERIENCE OBSERVERS.**  Great Lakes Aviation proposes that the process for qual ifying operating observers under this exemption remain unchanged. **PRA CTICES**  **AND PROCEDURES**  **FOR CONDUCT**  **OF OBSERVA** **TIONS.** Great Lakes Aviation proposes that the practices and procedures for conduct of observations under this exemption remain unchanged.Page 2 of 2

**CONDITIONS A ND LIMITA** **TIONS.** Great Lakes Aviation proposes that the conditions and limitations associated with this exemption remain unchanged. **SUMMA RY, FOR PUBLICA** **TION IN THE FEDERA L REGISTER** : 1. The rule from which exemption is sought: § 121.434(c)(1)(i i) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
. 2. A brief description of the nature of the exemption sought: This exemption would allow Great Lakes Aviation to continue substituting a qualified and authorized line check airman or aircrew program design ee for an FAA inspector, to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. **CLOSING NOTES** : Because this requested exe mption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Great Lakes Aviation, we ask that consideration be given to not publishing a summary of this petition in the Federal Register. Great Lakes Aviation further proposes that th e extension of this exemption be granted by October 31, 201 4 , prior to expiration of the current exemption
. I f there are any questions or concerns , we may be contacted as follows
. Thankyou for your assistance in this matter! Joseph F. Linnebur Director of Operations, Great Lakes Aviation office 307.432.7210 jlinnebur@flygreatlakes.com David C. Hoffmeister Director of Training , Great Lakes Aviation office 307.432.7250 dhoffmeister@flygreatlakes.com fax 307.432.7251
EX PARTE Barry VAN WHITTON

1160371 (CR-15-0333)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
Daniel MEANA, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., as trustee, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-2191

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Dennis A. Donet, P.A., and Dennis A. Donet, for appellant.

Pearson Bitman LLP, and Allison Morat (Maitland), for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and LINDSEY, JJ.

*CONFESSION OF ERROR*

PER CURIAM.

Based upon Appellee's concession of error solely as to the issue that a hearing was required before entry of final judgment, we dismiss the appeal and remand with instructions to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure rendered on September 28, 2017 and to conduct a hearing consistent with our holding in *Chiu v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.*, 43 Florida Law Weekly D672, 242 So.3d 461, 2018 WL 1516829 (Fla. 3d DCA March 28, 2018) (finding that the trial court committed fundamental error in entering final summary judgment before conducting a hearing on Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51025

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MAGDALENO SOLORIO-SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-01-CR-824-ALL-DB 

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

April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Magdaleno Solorio-Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He

contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). Solorio-Sanchez complains that his sentence was

improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on

his prior removal following an aggravated felony conviction. He

argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process
No. 01-51025 

-2-

Clause. Alternatively, Solorio-Sanchez contends that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He

argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Solorio-Sanchez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 99.12

                            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 Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 5, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec. 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/  David  B.  Pomeroy  III

David  B.  Pomeroy  III
Chief  Executive  Officer
November  13,  2002


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-05-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-05-1998
<CASH>                                          15,575
<SECURITIES>                                    33,242
<RECEIVABLES>                                      928
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,248
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,809
<PP&E>                                          76,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,426)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,486
<SALES>                                         12,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,814
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (738)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (252)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (486)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (486)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
Richard Manuel ALVARADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3533

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2018

Frank J. Bankowitz, of Law Office of Frank J. Bankowitz, Orlando, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**Holden v. State*, 90 So.3d 902, 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("[W]e note that a defendant who has pled no contest may not preserve as an issue the trial court's failure to suppress a confession, absent a stipulation by the State that the issue is dispositive of the case.") (citing *Brown v. State*, 376 So.2d 382, 385 (Fla. 1979) ) ).

PALMER, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Arturo VALENZUELA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-4325

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 5, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*