alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-Q of NCI Building Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and3
    
    The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NCI Building Systems, Inc.
  /s/ Mark E. JohnsonMark E. JohnsonExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)   47
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6317

JERRY J. ANDERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STEVEN GAL, Warden of FCI - Estill; UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-3895-2-12)

Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry J. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry J. Anderson, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). As the district court recognized, the

fact that Anderson’s petition could not proceed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) does not necessarily render that section inadequate

so as to permit Anderson to proceed under § 2241. See In re Vial,

115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the decision in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), upon which Anderson’s

claim is based, is not retroactively applicable in § 2241

petitions. See San-Miguel v. Dove, 291 F.3d 257, 260-61 & n.2 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 938 (2002). Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s decision. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Cory Cornelius COY, DOC #T14265, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3489

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[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 North American Liability
Group, Inc. ("the Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December
31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof ("the Report"), I, Bradley Wilson, Chief Financial
Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Chief Executive Officer and
President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
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 result of operations
     of the Company.

April 14, 2004




/s/Bradley Wilson
-----------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Milena ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2227

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 8, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 26, 2018

Jason Cromey, Pensacola, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant challenges on appeal the revocation of her probation and the resulting judgment and sentence for the original offenses of organized fraud and fraudulent use of a credit card.

The order revoking probation is remanded for correction of a clerical error regarding admissions by Appellant. The corrected order should reflect that Appellant was found in willful violation of her probation for failure to pay restitution and costs as ordered, upon the evidence presented at the probation revocation hearing. Upon remand for this correction, Appellant need not be present. *Knight v. State* , 114 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). In all other respects, the judgment, sentence, and order on appeal are affirmed.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED .

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Anne McElheney HIGDON

CR-16-0844

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C 160A/27 t

| | ISSN 1977-0987 |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 160A |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 5727 ta' Mejju 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0987

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 160A

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 5727 ta' Mejju 2014

---

| Avviż Nru | Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avviżi |
| | PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI |
| | L-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini |
| 2014/C 160A/01 | Avviż ta’ tħassir | 1 |

Avviż Nru

Werrej

Paġna

V   Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

L-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini

2014/C 160A/01

Avviż ta’ tħassir

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 160A/02 | Reviżjoni tal-Ġurnali Uffiċjali C A Kompetizzjoni | 2 |

2014/C 160A/02

Reviżjoni tal-Ġurnali Uffiċjali C A Kompetizzjoni

2

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

V Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

L-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini

| 27.5.2014 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 160/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2014

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 160/1

---

Avviż ta’ tħassir

2014/C 160 A/01

L-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini ddeċidiet li tħassar din il-proċedura ta’ għażla tal-persunal:

| — | EMA/AD/359: Kap tad-Dipartiment ta’ Operazzjonijiet tal-IT, Diviżjoni tat-Teknoloġija tal-Informatika (AD 10). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/AD/359: Kap tad-Dipartiment ta’ Operazzjonijiet tal-IT, Diviżjoni tat-Teknoloġija tal-Informatika (AD 10).

---

27.5.2014

| 27.5.2014 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 160/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 160/2

---

REVIŻJONI TAL-ĠURNALI UFFIĊJALI C A KOMPETIZZJONI

2014/C 160 A/02

Hawn taħt għandek issib il-lista ta' C A ppubblikati matul din is-sena.

Ħlief meta indikat mod ieħor, il-Ġurnali Uffiċjali huma ppubblikati fil-lingwi kollha.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2019

b1021 

# Order

Clerk October 29, 2019

159091

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159091

COA: 340861

Oakland CC: 2017

- 261695

- FH

KEVIN SEAN ERNST,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Solomon Nmn KENZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2895

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Matt Mecke, certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Asia Payment Systems Inc.;

2. 	Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.  	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

4. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

a) 	designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) 	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) 	presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) 	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) 	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 13th day of April, 2004.



| | /s/ Matt Mecke
Matt Mecke
Principal Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------



---
No. 13-3472

Fox v. Koplik

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A

SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED

BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. 

WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY

MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE

NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY

OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the

21 day of May, two thousand fourteen. st

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

REENA RAGGI,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________________________

IN RE: PERRY H. KOPLIK & SONS, INC. 

Debtor.

MICHAEL S. FOX, AS LITIGATION TRUSTEE OF

PERRY H. KOPLIK & SONS, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-v- 13-3472-cv

MICHAEL KOPLIK, MARC N. SIEGEL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Alvin

Siegel, 

Defendants-Appellants.

_____________________________________________________

Appearing for Appellants: Michael L. Cook, Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLC. (Nancy L.

Kourland, Sanford P. Rosen, Rosen & Associates P.C., on the

brief) New York, N.Y. 

 

Appearing for Appellee: Christopher R. Belmonte, Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP,

New York, N.Y.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

(Castel, J.).

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. 

Michael Koplik and Marc N. Siegel, as the personal representative of the Estate of Alvin

Siegel, appeal from the August 14, 2013 memorandum and order of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.), imposing personal liability on Koplik

and Alvin Siegel for certain breaches of fiduciary duty and fraudulent conveyances. We assume

the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues

for review.

In this bankruptcy case, the lower court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error,

and its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); cf. Forsdick v.

Turgeon, 812 F.2d 801, 801 (2d Cir. 1987). The district court, assisted by the bankruptcy court’s

extensive proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, ably set forth a careful and thorough

analysis of the claims and the law. We affirm for substantially the same reasons as set forth by

district court. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED. 

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

2
#### William F. HOLDNER, Holdner Farms, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-36046

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 5, 2017

*391William F. Holdner, Holdner Farms, Portland, OR, pro se.

Richard Caldarone, Richard Farber, Esquire, Supervisory, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *391*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging income taxes and penalties for the tax years 2004, 2005, and 2006. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *Mills v. United States,*742 F.3d 400, 404 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Holdner’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Holdner failed to show that he paid the taxes in full prior to filing suit, or that he filed a refund claim, and Holdner previously petitioned the Tax Court challenging the assessments raised in his complaint. *See Flora v. United States,*362 U.S. 145, 177, 80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960) (full payment of assessment required before filing suit); *Omohundro v. United States,*300 F.3d 1065, 1067-69 (9th Cir. 2002) (a taxpayer’s failure to file a timely refund claim divests the district court of jurisdiction over a refund suit); *First Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. United States,*792 F.2d 954, 955-56 (9th Cir. 1986) (26 U.S.C. § 6512 has a “broad general application so as to provide that if the taxpayer files a petition with the tax court, the mere filing of the petition operates to deprive the district court of jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent suit for refund.” (citation and internal quotations omitted)).

We reject as without merit Holdner’s contention that his' action qualifies as a citizen suit under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


We have  issued  our  report  dated  February  1, 2001  (except  for the  second
paragraph  of Note 12 as to  which  the date is  March  5,  2001  and the  third
paragraph  of Note 12 as to which the date is March 23, 2001  )accompanying  the
financial  statements  included in the Annual Report of ePHONE  Telecom Inc., on
Form  10-KSB/A,  for the year ended  December 31, 2000. We hereby consent to the
incorporation  by  reference  of said report in the  Registration  Statement  of
ePHONE Telecom, Inc. on Form SB-2 (File No. 333-43368) filed with the Commission
on September 25, 2000.


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP


Vienna, Virginia
April 13, 2001
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

37.5 38.0 38.5 39.0 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲

▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/25 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
EX PARTE Dee PARKS

1160278 (2150686)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

GEORGE CALVIN WINDLEY, a.k.a. G, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10208 

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00660-DGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017**

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

George Calvin Windley appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 121-month sentence imposed on remand following his guilty-plea 

conviction for conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1594(c). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Windley’s 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 11 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-10208 

counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a 

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Windley the 

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or 

answering brief has been filed. 

Windley waived his right to appeal his sentence. Our independent review of 

the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no 

arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 

F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 

988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
Lewis GAINERS, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4071

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 D0 30 4

. TI MOTHY LI TTLEJ OHN v . JUDI CI A L QUALI FI CATI ONS COMMI SSI ON et a l

.

O n F e br u a r y 2
, 20 22
, Ti m o t h y Li t t l ejo h n fi l ed th i s ap p li cat i o n fo r di scret i o n ary

rev i ew o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s Decem b er 2 3, 2 0 2 1 o rd er d en y i ng h is fi li n g o f a ci v i l s u i t

. 1

W e l ack ju ri sd ict i o n b ecau s e t h e ap p l i cat io n i s u n t i m el y

. To b e t i m el y , an ap pl i cat i o n fo r d is cret i o n ary rev i ew m u s t be fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0
d ay s of en t ry o f t he o rd er o r ju d g m en t to b e ap p eal ed

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 ( d ). As
Li t t lejo h n fi l ed t h i s ap p l i cat i o n 4 1 d ay s aft er en try o f t h e o rd er at i ss u e, t h e
ap p li cat io n i s u n t i m el y an d i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. See Cr os s o n v. Co n wa y , 2 9 1 Ga.
2 2 0
, 2 20 (1 ) (7 2 8 SE2 d 6 17 ) (2 0 1 2 ); see al s o Bo yl e v. St a t e , 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4
, 7 3 4 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9 ) (“ Th e req u i rem en t s o f OCGA § 5-6 -3 5 are ju ri s di ct i o n al an d

t h i s [C] o urt can n o t accep t an ap p eal n o t m ad e i n co m pl i an ce t h erewi t h .”).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

.

1 Li t t l ejo h n fi l ed h is ap p l i cat i o n i n t h e Geo rg i a Su prem e Co u rt , wh i ch
t ran s ferred i t h ere. April 01, 2022

04/01/2022