alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 32.3 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Derek Chang, the Interim Co-Chief Financial Officer of Charter Communications Holdings, LLC
and Charter Communications Holdings Capital Corporation (the Company) in compliance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certify that, the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
Report) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:  
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ Derek ChangDerek ChangInterim Co-Chief Financial Officer(Co-Principal Financial Officer)March 31, 2005
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 Fona, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chloe DiVita, Treasurer, Secretary, Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.



|              |     |                                | 
|------------- | --- | ------------------------------ | 
|April 9, 2013 | By: | /s/ Chloe DiVita               | 
|              |     | Chloe DiVita                   | 
|              |     | Treasurer, Secretary, Director | 
|              |     | and Chief Financial Officer    | 
|              |     | (Principal Financial Officer)  |
Ray LEWIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3228

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
#### Victor Mora, Appellant, v Shirley A. Garcia, Defendant, and Ray A. Mojica et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[771 NYS2d 138]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated March 7, 2003, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ray A. Mojica and Spectacular Limo Service which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

*479Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while he was a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by the defendant Shirley A. Garcia, which was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle operated by the defendant Ray A. Mojica and owned by the defendant Spectacular Limo Service. Mojica and Spectacular Limo Service demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that Garcia violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (c) when she attempted to make a left turn from the center lane of a roadway and crossed directly into the path of Mojica who was proceeding legally in the leftmost lane of traffic *(see Rieman v Smith,*302 AD2d 510 [2003]; *Sureda v Diamonti,*300 AD2d 572 [2002]). In opposition to the motion, the conclusory and speculative assertions of the plaintiff concerning Mojica’s speed and possible negligence were unsupported by any competent evidence and, therefore, did not raise a triable issue of fact *(see Rieman v Smith, supra; Russo v Scibetti,*298 AD2d 514 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Mojica and Spectacular Limo Service *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB
                                       OF
                           PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

                       FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2002

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.
(the "Registrant"). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002.

I certify that such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB 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-QSB Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant.

This certification is executed as of August 13, 2002.    /s/ John D. Bair
                                                         ----------------------
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                      -17-
**Exhibit 99.4****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Richard B. Clark, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Brookfield Properties Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theAudit Committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated: March 31, 2006     /s/ Richard B. Clark     Richard B. Clark  President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dominic Thompson, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 754]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J), rendered May 2, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (six counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (three counts), and criminal trespass in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aided by another actually present is not preserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858 [1987]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish all of the elements of robbery in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 160.10 [1]; *People v Cabey,*85 NY2d 417, 421-422 [1995]; *People v Allah,*71 NY2d 830, 832 [1988]; *People v Borrero,*26 NY2d 430, 436 [1970]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The prosecutor’s reference in summation to alleged statements made by the defendant that were not introduced into evidence, while improper, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Altman, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.
From: Szabo, Aaron To: Fisher, Brian ; Risley, David Subject: Summary of Additional Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (RIN 2060-AS05) Date: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:39:39 PM Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO12866_13563 EPA CSAPR Update NPR....docx
Attached please find additional summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the draft proposed rule entitled, Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

. Thank you and please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Aaron L. Szabo Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget 202-395-3621 Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      Exhibit 21



                         Subsidiaries of NaviSite, Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiary                                         Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----------                                         -----------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
Avasta, Inc.                                       California
ClearBlue Technologies Management, Inc.            Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Chicago-Wells, Inc.         Delaware
Clear Blue Technologies/Las Vegas, Inc.            Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Los Angeles, Inc.           Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Milwaukee, Inc.             Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Oak Brook, Inc.             Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Vienna, Inc.                Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Dallas, Inc.                Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/New York, Inc.              Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/San Francisco, Inc.         Delaware
Conxion Corporation                                California
Intrepid Acquisition Corp.                         Delaware
Lexington Acquisition Corp.                        Delaware
NaviSite India Private Limited                     India
NaviSite Europe Limited                            UK
</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 23, 2009 

p0615 

Order 

 

June 23, 2009 

138445 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138445 

 COA: 279861 

Gratiot CC: 05-005008-FH 

JOBEY L. HENDERSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 22, 2009 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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



I, Vivek Y. Ranadivé, President and Chief Executive Officer of TIBCO Software Inc. (the Company), 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, to my knowledge:



| | (a) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 11, 2005



By:

/s/    VIVEK Y.
RANADIVÉName:

Vivek Y. RanadivéTitle:

President, Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Directors
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis ORTEGA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10309 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Joel Page, Federal'Publie Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Michael Arthur Lehmann, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Luis.Ortega-Ortiz appeals the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that he was convicted of an offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and not under subsection (b), because the indictment did not allege that he was previously removed subsequent to a prior conviction, and he did not admit to such a conviction when he entered his guilty plea. Accordingly, he argues that his sentence is unconstitutional because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of two years under Section 1326(a). He concedes that this issue is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue.

In *Almendarez-Torres,*523 U.S. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres, See United States v.*
      *383
      *Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of *Alleyne v. United States,*570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013)); *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)). Thus, Ortega-Ortiz’s argument is foreclosed.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6379 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6379

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to reauthorize 
             the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2023

Mr. Feenstra (for himself, Mr. Costa, Mr. Bost, Ms. Craig, and Mr. Nunn 
   of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to reauthorize 
             the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Farmers First Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. FARM AND RANCH STRESS ASSISTANCE NETWORK.

    Section 7522 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 
U.S.C. 5936) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting ``, including 
        crisis lines'' before the semicolon at the end;
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``$10,000,000 for each 
        of fiscal years 2019 through 2023'' and inserting ``$15,000,000 
        for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2028''; and
            (3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
    ``(e) Referrals to Providers.--As part of the efforts of the 
recipient of a grant under subsection (a) to connect individuals to 
behavioral health counseling and wellness support and to ensure 
individuals have access to a comprehensive scope of mental health and 
substance use treatments and supports, when applicable, the grant 
recipient may establish referral relationships with--
            ``(1) certified community behavioral health clinics 
        described in section 223 of the Protecting Access to Medicare 
        Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. 1396a note; Public Law 113-93);
            ``(2) health centers (as defined in section 330(a) of the 
        Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b(a)));
            ``(3) rural health clinics (as defined in section 1861(aa) 
        of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)));
            ``(4) Federally qualified health centers (as defined in 
        that section); and
            ``(5) critical access hospitals (as defined in section 
        1861(mm) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(mm))).''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARIA CYNTHIA BUSTAMANTE

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 037

- C R

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 4

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 4 0C0 6099 )

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due to be filed on June 12 , 201 8 and none has been filed. Jason

Mestas , Court Reporter for County Criminal Court No. 4 of El Paso County, advised the Court on

June 15, 2018 and June 26 , 201 8 that he has not received a written request/designation for the

record from Appellant and Appellant has not made financial arrangements for the preparati on of

the reporter’s record. It is unclear from the record whether Appellant is indigent for purposes of

appeal because the trial court granted Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel, but

Appellant is currently represented by retai ned counsel.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the trial court conduct a hearing to determine whether

A ppellant wishes to continue the appeal . If A ppellant wishes to continue with the appeal, the trial

court must determine whether A ppellant is able to afford to pay for the reporter’s record

. T he trial

court shall forward its findings to the County Clerk of El Paso County, Texas, on or before July

16, 2018 . The County Clerk shall prepare and forward a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing

the trial court’s findings and forward the same to this Court on or before July 26 , 201 8 . Further,

the trial court’s reporter shall prepare, certify, and file the record of the trial court proceedings with

this Court on or before July 26, 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED t his 26 th day of June , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.