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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 4, 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: November 6, 2009





|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ RONALD M. DINELLA                    
|Ronald M. DiNella Chief Financial Officer
First Union Mortgage Corporation
NC1087
201 South College Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28244-1087
704 374-6787


(LOGO) FIRST UNION

MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1999, First Union Mortgage Corporation
has complied in all material respects with the minimum  servicing  standards set
forth  in  the  Mortgage  Bankers   Association  of  America's   Uniform  Single
Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for the year ended December
31, 1999,  First Union  Mortgage  Corporation  had in effect a fidelity bond and
errors and  omissions  policy in the  amount of $200  million  and $20  million,
respectively.

Debra M. Warren, President / Chief Executive Officer
February 11, 2000
Date

Debbie Craig, Senior Vice President / Chief Financial Officer
February 11, 2000
Date

Karin Patrick, Senior Vice President / Director of Servicing
February 11, 2000
Date

Joesph F. DeDomincis, Vice President / Operational and Credit Risk Manager
February 11, 2000
Date
Harris SHAPIRO, Appellant, v. SPL HOLDINGS, LLC, Central Communities, LLC, Florida Real Estate Value Fund, LP, Florida Real Estate Value Fund Manager, LLC, And 13th Floor Manager, LLC, Appellees.

No. 4D17-3354

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 7, 2018]

Robert Pasin of Law Office of Robert Pasin, Coral Springs, for appellant.

Lara O'Donnell Grillo and Etan Mark of Mark Migdal & Hayden, Miami, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Conner and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santos Cornelio GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41647 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Santos Cornelio Gonzales, Pro Se

*149Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Santos Cornelio Gonzales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Gonzales has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*6th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### Sumit KUMAR, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60803 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Pardeep S. Grewal, Esq., Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner

James Adelbert Hurley, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before KING, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit-Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sumit Kumar, a native and citizen of India, failed to appear at his December 13, 2010, removal hearing and was ordered removed from the United States in absen-tia. Six years later, Kumar moved to reopen his removal proceedings and to rescind the in absentia removal order. The Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that the motion was untimely and that neither equitable tolling nor changed country conditions warranted reopening the proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed and dismissed Kumar’s ensuing appeal, Kumar now petitions this court for review of the BIA’s order.

Kumar argues that the BIA misunderstood his argument and abused its discretion in not equitably tolling the 180-day limitations period that he faced in filing the motion to rescind the in absentia order of removal. He asserts that tolling was warranted because he relied on an uncle who iraudulently misrepresented the steps in Kumar’s removal proceedings. Kumar asserts that the limitations period should begin from the time he consulted counsel who filed the motion to reopen.

In declining to equitably toll the limitations period, the BIA addressed Kumar’s assertion that he had relied on his uncle’s *374misrepresentation that he would have the case transferred to a closer venue and would follow up with him about the pending removal hearing. Moreover, Kumar does not state the date he consulted counsel, and he has not shown that he diligently pursued his rights, given that he obtained copies of the record in his removal proceedings in February 2014 but did not file the instant motion to reopen the proceedings and rescind the removal order until April 2016. *See Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch,*831 F.3d 337, 343-44 (5th Cir. 2016). Nor has he shown that an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control prevented him from complying with the 180-day deadline. *See id.*at 344.

Kumar argues also that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen the removal proceedings because he offered evidence of changed conditions in India. Kumar’s argument that he made a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum is inappo-site. *See I.N.S. v. Doherty,*502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Moreover, as the BIA observed, Kumar’s evidence showed an ongoing pattern of political violence that existed when he left India, such that he failed to show a material change in country conditions. *See Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch,*823 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 2016).

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                         2,672
<SECURITIES>                                     851
<RECEIVABLES>                                    502
<ALLOWANCES>                                      45
<INVENTORY>                                       15
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,368
<PP&E>                                           894
<DEPRECIATION>                                   310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,843
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          11
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,786
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,287
<SALES>                                        3,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,399
<CGS>                                          1,913
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  11
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  870
<INCOME-TAX>                                     252
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              870
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     618
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .50
        


</TABLE>
Craig Anthony TAGUDAR and Brittany Nicole Tagudar v. Melinda Denise HADLEY

2160091

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Janice ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Raymond Mabus, Secretary, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2167

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

Janice Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.*

*

 The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012).

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Janice Robinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Robinson v. Dep’t of the Navy,*No. 7:15-cv-00004-H (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 31, 2016 *&*entered Sept. 1, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                4,277
<SECURITIES>                                          8,112
<RECEIVABLES>                                        25,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                          1,676
<INVENTORY>                                          18,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     57,670
<PP&E>                                              108,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                        9,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      296,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                38,303
<BONDS>                                             132,902
<COMMON>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                          102,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        296,124
<SALES>                                              66,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     66,434
<CGS>                                                53,201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        60,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      2,798
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2,916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       3,448
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,655
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   1,793
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          1,793
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Jane Morlok, Chief Financial
Officer and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to
my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Breda
Telephone Corp.

Date: March 26, 2004


                                        /s/ Jane Morlok
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer
                                        and Co-Chief Executive Officer


                                       E-5
Brian WILLIAMS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. MCKENZIE CAPITAL LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-1394

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 30, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that the above styled appeal is hereby dismissed as taken from a non-final, non-appealable order and note that because the trial court set aside the default, the appeal is moot.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA and FERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.
John A. CROUSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1488

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert L. JOHNSON v. STATE

CR-16-0713

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Dwight Charles WISHARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and All United States Justice Department Office of Trust Officers, Employees or Agents; All United States Federal Bureau of Prison Office of Trust Officers, Employees or Agents, Defendants.

No. 17-6310

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Dwight Charles Wishard, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dwight Charles Wishard seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing in part Wishard’s civil action and denying Wishard’s motion for injunc-tive relief. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The portion of the order that dismissed in part Wishard’s action is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

However, we have jurisdiction over that portion of the order that denied Wishard’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wishard’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of this motion, Wishard has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of injunctive relief.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*101
      *DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART*
Jerelle Andre SUMPTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-758

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

Ariba, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-117437, 333-107864, 333-61064, 333-73458, 333-81773, 333-89119,333-95665, 333-33544, 333-46820, and 333-84916) on Form S-8 of Ariba, Inc. of our report dated December 13, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ariba, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2004 and 2003, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2004, which report appears in the September 30, 2004 annual report on Form10-K of Ariba, Inc. 

 

Our report contains an explanatoryparagraph that refers to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, *Goodwill and Other Intangibles*, effective October 1, 2002. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View, California 

December 13, 2004
To: Department of Energy

From: Andrew deLaski, Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Date: February 12, 2015

RE: ex parte communication

On January 14, representative s of energy efficiency advocates and fan manufacturers met to describe technical considerations related to fan efficiency with DOE.

The meeting participants described how fan efficiency varies with flow and pressure and reiterated support for an approach th at takes into account these considerations. The meeting participants explained the impact of potential fan standards using the attached graphs.

Meeting participants:

Andrew deLaski, Appliance Standards Awareness Project Neal Elliott, American Council for an Energy

- Efficient Economy Joanna Mauer, Appliance Standards Awareness Project (by phone) Wade Smith, Air Movement and Control Assoc., International Mike Wolf, Greenheck Tom Catania, on behalf of Air Movement and Control Assoc., International

Mark Bublitz , New York Blower (by phone) John Cymbalsky, DOE Ashley Armstrong, DOE

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Andrew deLaski Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Attachment
EX PARTE Kelvin Leon YOUNG

1160247 (CR-15-1151)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
[Cite as Stine v. Unknown, 2010-Ohio-4797.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

YVONNE STINE 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

UNKNOWN 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-05072-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On March 23, 2010, this court issued a Return of Complaint 

Form/Direction to Complete Form requiring plaintiff to file a corrected complaint naming 

an appropriate state entity as defendant or face dismissal of his case. Plaintiff was also 

ordered to pay the $25 filing fee or to file a poverty statement. Plaintiff has failed to 

comply with the court orders. Therefore, plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED, without 

prejudice, pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(1). The court shall absorb the costs of this case. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

cc: 

Yvonne Stine 

103 Phila 

Freeport, Ohio 43973 
DRB/laa 

Filed 6/4/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 10/1/10
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No s. 09-165 C, 09-882C

Filed : December 2, 2015

****************************************

*

* EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, *

* Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

* THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

*

****************************************

ORDER

On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion To Lift Stay. The Motion did not advance any reasons that were not already discussed in the October 23 , 2015 Oral Argument and the court ’ s November 10, 2015 Memorandum Opinion And Order. Therefore, the Motion To Lift Stay is

denied

.

The court will reconsider lifting the stay, following the entry of final judgment in Shell Oil Company v. United States , Case. No. 06-141.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Susan G. Braden

SUSAN G. BRADEN Judge
---

Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certifications

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer or
Principal Accounting Officer of Lightbridge Corporation. This Certification is
made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lightbridge
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2014.

The undersigned certifies that such 10-K Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-K Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Lightbridge Corporation as of December 31, 2014.

This Certification is executed as of April 30, 2015

|By: /s/ Seth
      Grae                                      | 
|------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Name: Seth Grae                                              | 
|Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and
      Director | 
|(Principal Executive Officer)                                | 
|                                                             | 
|By: /s/ Linda
      Zwobota                                  | 
|Name: Linda Zwobota                                          | 
|Title: Chief Financial Officer                               | 
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                 | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Lightbridge Corporation and will be retained by
Lightbridge Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 USC Section 1350. It is not being filed
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
Timeline for Product Certification to New EPA Rule

Promulgation

February 3

rd

First day to submit 

30 day notice to EPA 

March 3rd

First day any lab can 

begin testing 

April 3

rd

Data reduction and 

report generation

March 20th

First day testing 

could be completed 

April 6

th

Report sent to EPA 

Effective Date

May 3rd

WAF & Single Burn 

Rate Appliances 

required to meet new 

requirements 

July 6th

Date EPA is required to issue 

certification on compliant product -

2 months after compliant date