alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
UNDER SECTION 906





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of deltathree, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-K") of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      March 29, 2010
                /s/ Ziv ZvielZiv
      Zviel, Chief Financial Officer
                  (Principal
      Financial Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 11, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-61070 

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NICKEY LYNN HAIRE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:04-CR-181-1

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

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nickey Lynn Haire appeals following his guilty plea to being

a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1) and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e)(1). The district court sentenced Haire based on his

status as an armed career criminal under § 924(e)(1) and U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.4 because Haire has three previous convictions for burglary

of a dwelling.

Although Haire incorrectly characterizes his sentence as

falling under the “career offender” provision of U.S.S.G. 
No. 05-61070

-2-

§ 4B1.1 rather than the ACCA and § 4B1.4, he reiterates arguments

that he raised in the district court, where he cited the correct

provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. Haire argues that his

sentence was unreasonable and violated United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220 (2005), because a sentence enhancement was required

based on the fact of his prior convictions without regard to the

underlying facts of those convictions. He contends that the

violent nature of his prior convictions had to be found beyond a

reasonable doubt. Haire’s arguments are unavailing.

The ACCA requires a mandatory sentence of at least 15 years

for a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a

firearm who has three previous convictions for a “violent felony”

or a “serious drug offense” committed on different occasions. 

See § 924(e)(1). The statute specifically enumerates burglary as

a violent felony. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Haire admitted as part of

his guilty plea that he possessed a firearm and that he had been

previously convicted of three burglary offenses committed on

separate occasions. Therefore, the ACCA was correctly applied. 

See United States v. Medina-Gutierrez, 980 F.2d 980, 982 (5th

Cir. 1992); see also § 4B1.4. The district court’s sentence of

Haire as an armed career criminal did not violate Booker or the

Constitution because the additional facts and nature of the prior

convictions did not require a finding by a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt. See United States v. White, 465 F.3d 250, 251
No. 05-61070

-3-

(5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Brown, 437 F.3d 450, 451 n.1

(5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 35

ITEM 1123 CERTIFICATION

I, David Duclos,
Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association (the Servicer), hereby certify that:

(1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during
the fiscal year covered by this annual report on Form 10-K and of the performance of the Servicer under the Standard Terms for Trust Agreement, dated as of November 9, 2006, between the Servicer and the depositor (the Agreement) has
been made under my supervision;

and

(2) To the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, I
have specified below each such failure known to me and the nature and status thereof.

Date: March 30, 2015



|                
|----------------
|/s/ David Duclos
|                
|David Duclos    
|Vice President
fLCAS E flESKMO TO :

' " |i«rw,CUi*K0 l

1-400-9M-H U f TtnA*>'*MiA«<iN*.«35 0 '- ^ caOkBAy.m9f4 M r- i «| j f C i*c«MiN*i>i*i . a t ' - ' RP«>uM.O«»MT » 

### n •JT.-..'C\ I 

## O F CRTAIIOM 

# Cciniire£(£( of

tlj eWiwitt h^tatt s PETEnA-OcFAZI O TltANSPOniATIO N AN D imiMtTftUCTUA e tWICOMMIIllU ' IIEGHVMVSANOTIIANSI T CH«W m AVUTK M fMLHOA M AU9US 1 2A , 201 0 HOMCIAN D SCCURIT V SvKCMifrncfl . TBMiSPMIAIt m tECUIUT VAN O MrRASTIMJCTU W PHOIECTIO M iMANAOClUENT . PfVE fnOAhOW . AN D OVEflSKW r

KA1URA LRESOURCE S SbMOUMi m NAllONA LrMOCS . POHSTI LAN D fMlI C IAM »

wArnAmranc R Secretar y Ra

y LaHoo d U S Deparanen t

o f Transportatio n Washingto nO

C Deei Secretar y LaHood : Pleas e not e m

y suppor t

fo r th e applicatio nsubmitto db y th e Eugen e Aixpor t fo r aSmal l Communit y Ai r Servic e Developmen t Progra mgran t

t o improv e ai r

service . Th e Eugen e Airpor t

serve s nearl y 700,00 0 are aresidents , bu t curren t ai r servic e i s insufficient . Federa l fund s wil l allo w th e airpor t t o establis halin k betwee nEugen e an dSa nJose , California . Increasin g fligh t

availabilit y wil l enhanc e us e o f th e airpor t

an d provid e valuabl e benefit s t o thi s economicall y vibran t region . Pleas e giv ethi s reques t ful l an dfai r

consideration . Sincerely ,

PETE RDeFAZI

O Meinbei : o f

Congces s PAD:P«n *

THI S STATIQNER V PRMTE O O N PAPCf t MAO E WIT H RECVaE D FIBER S
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0483 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0483

**2002/483/EC: Commission Decision of 24 June 2002 amending Decision 1999/120/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of animal casings, with respect to Ukraine (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 2226) **

*
Official Journal L 166 , 25/06/2002 P. 0025 - 0026 *

Commission Decision

of 24 June 2002

amending Decision 1999/120/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of animal casings, with respect to Ukraine

(notified under document number C(2002) 2226)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/483/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Decision 2001/4/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Provisional lists of establishments in third countries producing animal casings have been drawn up by Commission Decision 1999/120/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2000/80/EC(4).

(2) Ukraine has provided the name of an establishment producing animal casings for which the competent authorities certify that the establishment is in accordance with the Community rules.

(3) A provisional listing of this establishment can thus be drawn up for Ukraine. Decision 1999/120/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Decision 1999/120/EC, the following row is added for Ukraine:

País: Ucrania/Land: Ukraine/Land: Ukraine/Χώρα: Ουκρανία/Country: Ukraine/Pays: Ukraine/Paese: Ucraina/Land: Oekraïne/País: Ucrânia/Maa: Ukraina/Land: Ukraina

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Decision shall apply as from the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 June 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 36, 10.2.1999, p. 21.

(4) OJ L 30, 4.2.2000, p. 41.
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
  (1)
    
    The Funds Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Annual Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Fund.
 /s/ Thomas J. FernandesThomas J. FernandesChief Financial Officer
Margaret J. FINUCAN v. Dr. Terry TREADWELL

2160628

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### IN RE: Vivek SHAH, Petitioner.

No. 17-1294

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Vivek Shah, petitioner pro se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*788Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vivek Shah petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We conclude that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Shah’s petition and supplemental petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
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 CytoGenix, Inc. (the Company) on Form 1O-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Greg S. Taylor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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) 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/Greg S. Taylor

Greg S. Taylor

Chief Financial Officer



November 14, 2007
#### Robert HAUGHIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BLUMBERG, Chairman; Asresahegn Getachew, M.D.; Yonas Sisay, M.D., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 16-7465

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 23, 2017

Decided: April 5, 2017

*303Robert Haughie, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Haughie, a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief in Haughie’s action seeking medical parole and damages. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

To the extent that Haughie seeks medical parole, the district court’s denial of relief is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Haughie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.

As to Haughie’s appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his claims for monetary damages, we have reviewed the record and find that Haughie failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court’s order. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
#### JIAHAO JIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70271

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 30, 2017

*756Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Katherine Ann Smith, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jiahao Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zhi v. Holder,*751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency denied Jin’s claims based on a finding that Jin failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s finding. *See Ren v. Holder,*648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011); *see Zhi,*751 F.3d at 1095 (IJ erred in not providing applicant notice that he was required to present corroborative evidence referred to in her decision). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            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 CytoGenix, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 1O-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof' (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence Wunderlich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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)
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/Lawrence Wunderlich
Lawrence Wunderlich
Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2002
#### Ronald I. PAUL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS; Paul D. de Holczer, individually and as a partner of the law firm of Moses, Koon & Brackett, PC; Michael H. Quinn, individually and as senior lawyer of Quinn Law Firm, LLC; Oscar K. Rucker, in his individual capacity as Director, Rights of Way South Carolina Department of Transportation; Macie M. Gresham, in her individual capacity as Eastern Region Right of Way Program Manager South Carolina Department of Transportation; Natalie J. Moore, in her individual capacity as Assistant Chief Counsel, South Carolina Department of Transportation; J. Charles Ormond, Jr., individually and as partner of the Law Firm of Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond, Plante & Garner, Defendants-Appellees.

*732No. 17-1057

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2017

Decided: June 8, 2017

Ronald I. Paul, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald I. Paul appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, and imposing a prefiling injunction against him. Paul also appeals the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in either order. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Paul v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp.,*No. 3:16-cv-01727-CMC, 2016 WL 6594908, 2017 WL 104132 (D.S.C. Nov. 8, 2016 *&*Jan. 11, 2017). 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7063 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7063

 To prohibit Federal funds from being made available to any pregnancy 
  center that diverts people from accessing comprehensive and timely 
           medical care from licensed medical professionals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2024

 Mr. Landsman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit Federal funds from being made available to any pregnancy 
  center that diverts people from accessing comprehensive and timely 
           medical care from licensed medical professionals.

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

SECTION 1. NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PREGNANCY CENTERS THAT DIVERT FROM 
              MEDICAL CARE.

    No Federal funds may be made available to any pregnancy center that 
diverts people from accessing comprehensive and timely medical care 
from licensed medical professionals.
                                 <all>
```
#### Carston Markel WOODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. *845Carston Markel Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Markel Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Markel Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Markel Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Markel Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Markel Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1255, No. 17-1257, No. 17-1259, No. 17-1260, No. 17-1261, No. 17-1262, No. 17-1263

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Carton Markel Woodson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carston Markel Woodson seeks to appeal the district court’s. order dismissing his complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 (2012), for failing to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 12(h)(3). 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). Because the district court identified deficiencies that Woodson may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Woodson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We “remand the case to the *846district court with instructions to allow [Woodson] to amend his complaint.” *Goode,*807 F.3d at 630. We also deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny Woodson’s motions to deconsolidate his seven nearly identical cases, “to invoke the law of disqualification force,” to set aside the order to dismiss the complaints, and for default judgment.

*DISMISSED AND REMANDED*
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 GCA I Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael M. Membrado,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Michael M. MembradoMichael
      M. Membrado
                Principal
      Executive Officer
                August
      31, 2009