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



CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended
April 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
Matthew T. Shafer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The
    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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company.



|/s/ Matthew T. Shafer                 | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Matthew T. Shafer                     | 
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer | 



Date:
March 11, 2019



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00104

- CR

Walter Lee Washington III
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 329th District Court of Wharton County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22427

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 10, 2021
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                       HEALTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CORPORATION
 
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
 
                    (In thousands, except per-share amounts)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                DECEMBER 31,
                                                                            --------------------
                                                                              1998       1997
                                                                            ---------  ---------
<S>                                                                         <C>        <C>
Net loss..................................................................  $  (1,426) $  (1,154)
                                                                            ---------  ---------
                                                                            ---------  ---------
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
  Basic...................................................................      6,678      6,535
                                                                            ---------  ---------
                                                                            ---------  ---------
  Fully Diluted...........................................................      6,678      6,535
                                                                            ---------  ---------
                                                                            ---------  ---------
Net loss per common share:
  Basic...................................................................  $   (0.21) $   (0.18)
                                                                            ---------  ---------
                                                                            ---------  ---------
  Diluted.................................................................  $   (0.21) $   (0.18)
                                                                            ---------  ---------
                                                                            ---------  ---------
</TABLE>
II

Calendar No. 317

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 808

[Report No. 104–215]

To extend the deadline for the conversion of the vessel M/V TWIN DRILL,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 16 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mr. BREAUX introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

JANUARY 26, 1996

Reported by Mr. PRESSLER, without amendment

A BILL

To extend the deadline for the conversion of the vessel

M/V TWIN DRILL, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CONVERSION.

4 Section 601(d) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act

5 of 1993 (Public Law 103–206, 107 Stat. 2445) is

6 amended—
2

S 808 RS

1 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘June 30,

2 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 1996’’; and

3 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘12 months’’

4 and inserting ‘‘24 months’’.

Calendar No. 317

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 808

[Report No. 104–215]

A BILL

To extend the deadline for the conversion of the

vessel M/V TWIN DRILL, and for other purposes.

JANUARY 26, 1996

Reported without amendment
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 17, 2021 No. 04-21-00374-CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.A. III, J.E.A., F.E.A., F.A.A., R.L., JR., AND B.J.L.

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-02352 Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The reporter’s record was due on September 13, 2021, but was not filed. On September 15, 2021, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, requesting until September 21, 2021, to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the court reporter’s requested extension and ORDER the court reporter to file the reporter’s record in this court on or before September 21, 2021 . The court reporter is reminded that this is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights, which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed. See T EX . R. J UD . A DMIN . 6.2. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of September, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,925
<SECURITIES>                                     4,188
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,840
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (363)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,196
<PP&E>                                          11,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,773
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,270
<SALES>                                          7,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,273
<CGS>                                            1,996
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,848)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        15
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,863)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-5707
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIBERTO RAMOS, a/k/a Pedro Hernandez, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-93-8) Submitted: April 30, 1996 Decided: July 18, 1996 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven D. Benjamin, Betty Layne DesPortes, STEVEN D. BENJAMIN & ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Eriberto Ramos appeals his convictions for various drug andfirearm offenses following a bench trial. Specifically, Ramos challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We agree with the district court's assessment that the officers whostopped Ramos and conducted a patdown search had reasonable suspicion for doing so. Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 21, 27 (1968). As Ramos has raised no other objections to his conviction, we affirm.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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          69,335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,536
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,833
<PP&E>                                         300,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 379,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,858
<BONDS>                                        265,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   379,708
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,419
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  103,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,726
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,726
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,726
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6750 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6750 EH

1 SECTION 1. MILTON F. FITCH, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in 

4 Wilson, North Carolina, shall be known and designated 

5 as the ‘‘Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Milton F. Fitch, Sr. 

10 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6750 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostF. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building’’. west in Wilson, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Milton al Service located at 501 Mercer Street South-
Exhibit 99.1

                                  Certification


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of PowerCerv
Corporation, a Florida corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  November 14, 2002                       /s/ Marc J. Fratello
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name:  Marc J. Fratello
                                                Title:   Chief Executive Officer
                                                (chief executive officer)
#### Duval Melvin COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert M. STEVENSON, III, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6860

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2017

Decided: April 18, 2017

Duval Melvin Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Duval Melvin Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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.

*226We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cooper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 784 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 784

   To amend the National Labor Relations Act to impose a penalty for 
  encouraging others to violate the provisions of the National Labor 
                 Relations Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 9 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

   Mr. Simon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the National Labor Relations Act to impose a penalty for 
  encouraging others to violate the provisions of the National Labor 
                 Relations Act, and for other purposes.
    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 ``National Labor Relations Penalty Act 
of 1995''.

SEC. 2. PENALTIES.

    The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new section:

                               ``penalty

    ``Sec. 20. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person including a 
consulting firm or legal firm to encourage an employer or labor 
organization to violate the provisions of this Act.
    ``(b) If a person described in subsection (a) violates the 
provisions of such subsection, the person shall be fined by the 
Secretary not more than $10,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
SCHEDULE III



SCHEDULE
III







Schedule of non-recurring cash items:


                       


	
The Titan
Corporation

						
	
  Non-Recurring Cash Items
LTM

					
									
									
						
  Change
in

		
 
Non-cash

	
 


			
 
Discontinued

			
 
Accounting

	
 
Non-cash

	
 
Deferred

	
 


			
 
Operations

	
 
Acquisition

	
 
Restructuring

	
 
Treatment

	
 
Impairment

	
 
Compensation

	
 
Total


									
 


	
  Q1
2002

		
                
-  

	
        
3,926

	
                 
-  

	
              
-  

	
               
-  

	
               
-  

	
    3,926


									
 


									
 


	
  Q2
2001

		
                
-  

	
           
244

	
              
147

	
              
-  

	
               
-  

	
               
-  

	
      
391


									
 


									
 


	
  Q3
2001

		
    Section
0.1            
-  

	
        
2,725

	
              
132

	
              
-  

	
               
-  

	
               
-  

	
    2,857


									
 


									
 


	
  Q4
2001

		
                
-  

	
        
2,867

	
            
9,033

	
              
-  

	
      
         
-  

	
               
-  

	
  11,900


									
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
  LTM Q2
02

	
                
-  

	
        
9,762

	
            
9,312

	
              
-  

	
               
-  

	
               
-  

	
  19,074
# E C 

# / R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 25 0  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 2751 4

Telephone: (919)484

- 0222  Fax: (919) 484

- 0122 MEMORANDUM

Date: August 12, 2010

To: Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG

From: Heather Brown , EC/R Incorporated

Subject: Documentation of the May 11, 2010 EPA site visit to an ExxonMobil drill rig in

Carthage, Texas

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this site visit was to examine an active drill rig in the East Texas basin

and discuss opportunities for air emissions with the operators.

II. LOCATION & DATE

The drill rig was located in the town of Carthage, Texas, Panola County. The site visit

took place on May 11, 2010.

III. ATTENDEES

API

Matt Todd

Cathe Kalisz

BP

Jeffrey A. Adams, Manager, Regulatory Affairs

ExxonMobil

Tom Monahan, Senior Regulatory SpecialistU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA /OAQPS )

Alex MacPherson , Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit and Cost Group

Bruce Moore , Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Jodi Howard , Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Nick Parsons , Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Rachel Agnew , Sector Policies and Programs Division, Measurement Policy Group

EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown

Phil Norwood

Robert Vogt

The site visit report for this facility contains confidential business information (CBI), and

pending approval by the facility, a non

- confidential report has not been issued.
EXHIBIT 31.02A

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Randy R. Wiese, certify that:

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of CSG Systems International, Inc.; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date:  | September 18, 2015 |   | /s/ Randy R. Wiese                                   |
|--------|--------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |               |   | Randy R. Wiese                                       |
|   |               |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

 

1
#### IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC., Appellant

2015-1838

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 10, 2017

Michael T. Rosato, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Seattle, WA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Andrew Swanson Brown, Sonja Rochelle Gerrard; Grace J. Pak, Paul David Tripodi, II, Los Angeles, CA; Richard Torczon, Washington, DC.

Sarah E. Craven, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Joseph Matal, Scott Weidenfeller.

(Dyk, O’Malley, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.