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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of M~Wave, Inc.
for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, I, Jeff Figlewicz, Acting Chief
Financial Officer of M~Wave, Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





(1) such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of M~Wave, Inc.








Dated:  November
      13, 2008
              /s/ Jeff FiglewiczJeff
      FiglewiczActing
      Chief Financial Officer
EX PARTE T.G.

1160155 (CR-15-0876)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Cert. denied.
Dara G. OSTANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3087

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 22, 2018

Dara G. Ostane, Wewahitchka, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

*ON MOTION FOR REHEARING*

PER CURIAM.

*1023In consideration of Dara Ostane's March 12, 2018 motion for rehearing, we grant the requested relief, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute this opinion in its stead.

Dara Ostane appeals the trial court's order granting in part and denying in part his "Motion for Resentencing in Compliance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida," filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. On appeal, Ostane argues that the trial court erred when it modified his sentence without holding a resentencing hearing. We agree and remand for resentencing.

In 2001, Ostane pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to thirty years in prison, which we affirmed on appeal. *See* *Ostane v. State*, 819 So.2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Ostane was seventeen years old at the time of the offense. Based on recent decisions, Ostane is entitled to receive "an opportunity for *early* release that is meaningful, based on a demonstration of maturity and rehabilitation, and during his or her natural life." *Johnson v. State*, 215 So.3d 1237 (Fla. 2017) ; *see* *also* *Graham v. Florida*, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010) ; *Morris v. State*, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S223 (Fla. May 10, 2018) ; *Kelsey v. State*, 206 So.3d 5 (Fla. 2016) ; *Katwaroo v. State*, 237 So.3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ; *Montgomery v. State*, 230 So.3d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; *Davis v. State*, 230 So.3d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; *Burrows v. State*, 219 So.3d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; *Tyson v. State*, 199 So.3d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

The trial court correctly held that Ostane was entitled to judicial review. However, the trial court erred when it held that Ostane was not entitled to resentencing. We have stated, "[I]t [is] error for the trial court to amend the sentence to provide for a review hearing without first conducting a resentencing hearing." *Katwaroo*, 237 So.3d at447 (citing *Davis*, 230 So.3d at 487) ; *see* *also* *Morris*, Fla. L. Weekly S223 ; *Kelsey*, 206 So.3d at 11. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the trial court to hold a resentencing hearing.

AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; and REMANDED.

TORPY, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 5, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald M. DiNella, the Chief Financial Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: May 8, 2009



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/ RONALD M. DINELLA                    
|Ronald M. DiNella Chief Financial
Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8237-8238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03101]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB802]


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of web conference.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Partial 
Coverage Fishery Monitoring Advisory Committee (PCFMAC) will meet March 
3, 2022.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 3, 2022, from 8 a.m. 
to 12 p.m. Alaska Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be a web conference. Join online through 
the link at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2793.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 W 
3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809. 
Instructions for attending the meeting are given under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION, below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Cleaver, Council staff; phone; 
(907) 271-2809 and email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#11627063703f727d7470677463517f7e70703f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e1d0f1c0f400d020b0f180b1c2e00010f0f40090118">[email protected]</span></a>. For technical support, 
please contact administrative Council staff, email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f896889e959bd6999c959196b896979999d69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cda3bdaba0aee3aca9a0a4a38da3a2acace3aaa2bb">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

Thursday, March 3, 2022

    The PCFMAC agenda will include (a) status update on the cost 
efficiencies analysis; (b) public comment; and (c) other issues and 
future scheduling. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest 
version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2793 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

[[Page 8238]]

Connection Information

    You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or 
smartphone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted 
online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2793.

Public Comment

    Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted 
electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2793.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 9, 2022.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-03101 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### Attorney General ofTexas '*>&* *-
February 4, 2015 Christopher A. Prine, Clerk 1st Court ofAppeals 301 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002 KEN PAXTON

Re: Herbert Foster Nash 0M1-00906-CR

Dear Mr. Prine: 

### This letteris to requestthe above referencedappealfiles. Inorderto adequately respond to the above petitioners' complaints, I need the entire appellate files in each cause, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Statement offacts for the trial, pre-trial and post-trial hearing! 

### 2. Transcripts (trial court); 3. Appellatebriefs, appellant's and appellee's initial andresponsive or supplementary; 

### 4. Opinion(s) ofthe 1st Court ofAppeals; 5. Motion rehearing, ifany, and responsive pleadings thereto, ifany; 6. Petition for Discretionary Review! 7. Briefs filed in connection with Petition for Discretionary Review; and 

### 8. Opinions or orders of the Court of Criminal Appeals issued Response to the Petition for Discretionary Review.

l'OSTOll-ICIr: BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TkKAS 78711-2548 TI-1.: (5 12) 463-21 00 WWW.OAG.STATK.TX.US An llqtfd!limpUymetlt Oppnihtiiily limploya- • I'lluteri onRe<y:/eri I'uperChristopher Prine, Clerk 1st Court ofAppeals Page Two
These records are needed and therefore you may send them to my attention at 

### the address listed below. Ifyou should have any questions, feel free to call (512)463-3321. 

### Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter.

NELDA T. GARCIA Administrative Assistant IV Office ofthe Attorney General Criminal Appeals Division William P. Clements Bldg.

- 8th Floor 300 W. 15th Street Austin, Texas 78701POST OHI'ICE BOX (2548 AUSTIN TEXAS- 78711-2548

ReturnServices Requested OFFICIAL BUSINESS STATE OF TEXAS PENALTf FOR PRIVATE USE

JESSE RQDRIGUEZ 1ST COURT OF APPEALS 301 FANNIN STREET HOUSTON TX 77002 2066: 

### neoposfi* FiRST-ct^ss mail 

# S^^l$000..482

ZiP "S7u"l ilsiia 0-! Ill 2203075

>TM.t_5 X- ~5 MiVl«1i»*»li*'»"MiMn\i'"i""-iiMin»p1»iiv»\ii"h»"viiH,i 

# 6s a
EXHIBIT 10.1


                                                                  Chronimed Inc.

Memo                                              CONFIDENTIAL

To:         STEVE CREES                           FOR RECIPIENT ONLY

From:       MAURY TAYLOR

CC:

Date:       MAY 17, 1999

Re:         RETENTION INCENTIVE

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


AS YOU KNOW, THE COMPANY HAS ANNOUNCED THAT IT HAS ENGAGED A FINANCIAL SERVICES
FIRM TO SEEK STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES TO TAKE THE BUSINESS FORWARD AND GROW THE
COMPANY MOST EFFECTIVELY. THE END PRODUCT OF THIS MAY INCLUDE A TRANSACTION
WHICH RESULTS IN A MERGER, ACQUISITION OR SALE OF ALL OR PART OF THE COMPANY. IF
SUCH A TRANSACTION IS TO BE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED, THE COMPANY BELIEVES IT IS
NECESSARY TO RETAIN CERTAIN KEY PERSONNEL DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN NOW AND THE
CLOSING OF SUCH A TRANSACTION. YOU HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN A KEY
EMPLOYEE RETENTION ARRANGEMENT, IF YOU SO AGREE. THE REST OF THIS MEMO EXPLAINS
THIS INCENTIVE PLAN, AND ITS CONDITIONS.
TO QUALIFY FOR THE INCENTIVE, YOU MUST REMAIN EMPLOYED UNTIL THE EARLIER OF A
TRANSACTION CLOSING OR DECEMBER 31,1999. HOWEVER, IF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS
ACCEPTED A LETTER OF INTENT BY DECEMBER 31, 1999, BUT A TRANSACTION HAS NOT YET
CLOSED, THE COMPANY MAY EXTEND THE DATE YOU MUST REMAIN EMPLOYED TO THE EARLIER
OF THE ACTUAL DATE OF CLOSING OR MARCH 31, 2000. PAYMENT OF THE INCENTIVE WILL
BE 30 DAYS FOLLOWING DATE OF VESTING (THE DATE YOU ARE FULLY QUALIFIED AND
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE INCENTIVE). YOU AGREE THAT IF YOU INITIATE A TERMINATION
OF EMPLOYMENT PRIOR TO BEING FULLY VESTED IN THIS INCENTIVE PLAN, OR IF YOU ARE
TERMINATED BY THE COMPANY FOR CAUSE, YOU WILL FORFEIT ALL RIGHTS TO THE
INCENTIVE.
THE INCENTIVE IS IN THE FORM OF A ONE TIME CASH BONUS, BEFORE TAXES AND
DEDUCTIONS OF: $30,000.00 (THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS)

<PAGE>


YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL ONE TIME BONUS ARRANGEMENT. BY AGREEING TO
ACCEPT THIS INCENTIVE ARRANGEMENT, YOU AGREE THAT YOU WILL KEEP THE EXISTENCE
AND THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT CONFIDENTIAL, AND YOU WILL NOT SHARE IT WITH ANY
OTHER PERSON EXCEPT YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND/OR FINANCIAL ADVISOR. THOSE
INDIVIDUALS ALSO MUST KEEP THIS CONFIDENTIAL. BREACH OF THIS CONFIDENTIALITY
PROVISION WILL RESULT IN FORFEITURE OF INCENTIVE. THIS CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
WILL REMAIN INTACT AS LONG AS YOU REMAIN EMPLOYED WITH CHRONIMED.
YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THIS IS SOLELY AN INCENTIVE AGREEMENT. IT
DOES NOT CHANGE THE STATUS OF ANY OTHER ASPECTS OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
WITH CHRONIMED, AND IS NOT AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.
PLEASE SIGN THIS MEMO AS AN INDICATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND
KEEP A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS.
I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THIS INCENTIVE PLAN. I AGREE TO ACCEPT
ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS.


/S/ STEVEN A. CREES                   /S/ SHAWN FEATHERSTON VP HUMAN RESOURCES
---------------------                 ---------------------
SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYEE                 COMPANY - NAME/TITLE
---------------------                 --------------------


5/20/99
--------------------
DATE
----
#### Willie JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Robert SMITH; Michael Greene, Administrative Remedy Coordinator; Michael Carvajal; Harrell Watts, National Inmate Appeals Administrator; Darrell Endsley; Donnie Golden, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-40040 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 30, 2017

*160Willie Jefferson, Pro Se

Robert Austin Wells, Esq,, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie Jefferson, federal prisoner # 15721-018, is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.G. § 1915(g) because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, he has brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. *See Jefferson v. Ofodile,*No. 1:99-CV-2916 (N.D. Ga. May 18, 2000); *Jefferson v. Ofodile,*No. 00-12844 (11th Cir. Dec. 18, 2000); and *Jefferson v. Castro,*No. 06-11838 (11th Cir. Aug. 17, 2006). Jefferson has not demonstrated that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g). Thus, the district court improvidently granted Jefferson leave to proceed IFP on appeal.

Accordingly, Jefferson’s IFP status is decertified, and the appeal is dismissed. Jefferson has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.

IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 12

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
            COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                          AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                             (Dollars in Thousands)


                                                             Six Months Ended
                                                                 June 30,
                                                           ---------------------
                                                             1998         1997
                                                           ---------------------
Income before income taxes and preferred
dividends                                                  $134,626     $107,361
Add fixed charges:
 Interest expense                                           225,559      199,055
 One-third rentals                                            1,777        1,341
                                                           --------     --------
   Total combined fixed charges                             227,336      200,396
                                                           --------     --------
Income as adjusted                                         $361,962     $307,757
                                                           --------     --------
Ratio of income to fixed charges                               1.59         1.54
                                                           ========     ========

Preferred stock dividends on a pre-tax basis               $  3,152     $  3,514
Total combined fixed charges and preferred
stock dividends                                            $230,488     $203,910
                                                           --------     --------
Ratio of income to combined fixed charges
and preferred stock dividends                                  1.57         1.51
                                                           ========     ========
Jonathan F. BERNS, Appellant, v. Lauren FRIEDER, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1946

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                      OPTION CARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (In thousands, except per share data)
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED          NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                           SEPTEMBER 30,               SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                          1998        1997            1998        1997
                                                        --------     -------        --------     -------
<S>                                                     <C>          <C>            <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)                                       $  (356)     $   453        $   (76)     $ 1,809
                                                        ========     =======        ========     =======
Average shares outstanding                               10,847       10,600         10,827       10,517

Weighted average shares issued                              135           60             53          116
                                                        --------     -------        --------     -------
Weighted average common shares outstanding               10,982       10,698         10,880       10,633

Net effect of dilutive stock options based on
   treasury stock method                                      -           78              -          148
                                                        --------     -------        --------     -------
Weighted average common and
   common equivalent shares                              10,982       10,776          10,880      10,781
                                                        ========     =======        ========     =======
Net income (loss) per common
   shares outstanding (basic)                           $ (0.03)     $  0.04        $ (0.01)     $  0.17
                                                        ========     =======        ========     =======
Net income (loss) per common and
   common equivalent shares (diluted)                   $ (0.03)     $  0.04        $ (0.01)     $  0.17
                                                        ========     =======        ========     =======
</TABLE>

                                      13
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Ariba, Inc.:

   We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-61064, 333-73458, 333-81773, 333-89119, 333-95665, 333-33544, and
333-46820) on Form S-8 of Ariba, Inc. of our report dated October 19, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Ariba, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of September 30, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2001, and the
related financial statement schedule which report appears in the September 30,
2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Ariba, Inc.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
December 31, 2001
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41126 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 30, 2017

*163Marisa J. Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney,’ U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bruce Edward Anton, Sorrels, Udashen *&*Anton, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Oscar Figueroa appeals his conviction and sentence for attempting to entice, a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b). He argues that the district court abused its discretion and violated his right to a fair trial by requiring him to be escorted into the courtroom by two bailiffs in front of the jury panel for purely logistical reasons with no safety justification. He contends that his case is analogous to the case of a defendant forced to wear shackles or prison clothing to trial and is inherently prejudicial, mandating reversal.

Figueroa’s argument is unpersuasive. The Supreme Court has held that noticeable use of security personnel in a courtroom during trial is not an inherently prejudicial practice, which, like shackling, is permissible only when justified by an essential state interest. *See Holbrook v. Flynn,*475 U.S. 560, 568-72, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986). In that case, the Court upheld the district court’s use of four uniformed and armed state troopers and other officers seated in the first row of the spectator section behind the defendant throughout trial as not inherently prejudicial because the officers were “unlikely to be taken as a sign of anything other than a normal official concern for the safety and order of the proceedings.” *Id.*at 571, 106 S.Ct. 1340, In the instant case, the fact that Figueroa was brought into the courtroom followed by two officers, who it appears were neither uniformed nor armed, on a single occasion at the beginning of the proceedings was likewise not inherently prejudicial as the jurors were unlikely to assume anything other than that the officers’ presence was reflective of the normal official concern for the safety and order of the proceedings. *See id.*at 571-72, 106 S.Ct. 1340. Furthermore, Figueroa cannot show any actual prejudice resulting from the procedure given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. *See id.*at 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT
23.1











Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











The Board
of Directors


Natural
Gas Services Group, Inc.


Midland,
Texas





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-147311, No. 333-110954, No. 333-160068, No. 333-160063 and No.
333-153874) and the registration statements (No. 333-119502, No. 333-122687 and
No. 333-161346) on Form S-3, of Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. of our report
dated March 4, 2010, relating to our audits of the financial statements and
internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Natural Gas Services Group, Inc for the year ended December 31,
2009.








/s/ HEIN & ASSOCIATES
LLP





Dallas,
Texas


March 4,
2010