alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(b)

                                 Certification

           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
            (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                       the Title 18, United States Code)

In connection with the Report of Long Island Physician Holdings Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Concetta Pryor, 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 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/ CONCETTA PRYOR
------------------------
Concetta Pryor,
Chief Financial Officer

September 4, 2004

This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-Q pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
### NUMBER 13

- 1 3

- 00 065

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE TOTAL COMMITMENT, LLC AND

TOTAL COMMITMENT IN MINISTRIES,

A NON

- PROFIT CORPORATION

On Petition for Writ of Mandamu s

.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1

Relator s

, Total Commitment, LLC, and Total Commitment in Ministries, a

Nonprofit Corporation, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the

Honorable Sergio Valdez , presiding judge of the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo

County , Texas, abused his discretion, leaving relators without an adequate appellate

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions), 52.8(d) (“When

denying relief [in an original proceeding] , the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do

so.”).2

remedy, by transferring the un derlying cause, styled MJJS Corporation v. Total

Commitment, LLC, et al.

, trial court cause number CL

- 11

- 3519

- G, to the County Court

at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County

. On February 1, 2013, we granted relator s’ request to

stay the underlying proceedings and we ordered the real party in interest, MJJS

Corporation, to file a response. Such a response was filed on February 20, 2013.

Having fully reviewed and considered relator s’ petition and real party in interest’ s

response , we conclude that the relator has no t shown itself entitled to the relief sought

and that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. Accordingly, we hereby

DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and LIFT the previously

- imposed stay of

trial court proceedings

.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

25th day of February

, 201 3

.
# C_2022257EN.01002602.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (Portugal) lodged on 6 April 2022 –TL

(Case C-242/22)

(2022/C 257/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Évora

Parties to the main proceedings

TL

Other party to the proceedings: Ministério Público

Question referred

Is it possible to interpret Articles 1 to 3 of [Directive 2010/64/EU] (1) and Article 3 of [Directive 2012/13/EU] (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, alone or in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, as meaning that they do not preclude a provision of national law which imposes a penalty of relative nullity, which must be pleaded, for failure to appoint an interpreter and to translate essential procedural documents for an accused person who does not understand the language of the proceedings, and which permits the rectification of that type of nullity owing to the passage of time?

---

(1)  Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010 L 280, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 
  (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/ Barry S. Rosenstein

Barry S. RosensteinCo-Chairman of Board of DirectorsNovember 14, 2007




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 
  (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/ Marc A. Weisman

Marc A. WeismanCo-Chairman of Board of DirectorsNovember 14, 2007
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 Annual Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy,
Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form
10-K”), I, Eric M.
Markell, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1)
            The
      Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Companies.











Date:  February
      29, 2008/s/Eric M. MarkellEric
      M. MarkellExecutive
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(e)

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-3 of our reserve report dated February 29, 1996, relating to
the estimated quantities of certain of the Company's proved reserves of oil and
gas and the related estimates of future net revenue and present values thereof
for certain periods, included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1995, as well as in the Notes to the Consolidated
Financial Statements of the Company in such annual report.  We also consent to
the reference to us under the heading of "Experts" in such Registration
Statement.



                                       /s/ Ryder Scott Company
                                       -------------------------------
                                       RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                       PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

Houston, Texas
March 17, 1996
EXHIBIT 11

                SUNRISE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                   (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         Nine Months Ended         Three Months Ended
                                             April 30,                   April 30,
                                      -----------------------     ---------------------
                                         1997          1996          1997         1996
=======================================================================================

PRIMARY:
<S>                                   <C>           <C>           <C>          <C>
Common Shares Outstanding,
  Beginning of Year                   2,982,968     2,935,894     2,982,968    2,935,894

Effect of weighting shares:

  Issuance of Common Stock               42,514            --       109,167           --

  Exercise of Warrants                       --        29,831            --       47,074

  Employee stock options outstanding         --            --        42,124           --

  Assumed Exercise of Warrants               --            --        48,165           --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weighted Average Number of Common
  Shares and Common Share
  Equivalents Outstanding             3,025,482     2,965,725     3,182,424    2,982,968
========================================================================================

Net Income (Loss) Available for
  Common Stock                       $ (164,292)   $ (120,466)   $   99,307   $  (24,710)
========================================================================================

Net Income (Loss) per Common Share
  and Common Share Equivalent        $    (0.05)   $    (0.04)   $     0.03   $    (0.01)
========================================================================================
</TABLE>
No. 11-10266.

#### Sykes *v.*Wolfenbarger, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: DORIAN LAUTRET,

 Relator.

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-18-00096-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN HABEAS CORPUS

J U D G M E N T

The court has considered this cause on the Relator=s petition for writ of habeas corpus and 

motion for emergency relief against the Honorable Mike Herrera, Judge of the 383rd District Court 

of El Paso, Texas, and concludes that Relator=s petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for 

emergency relief should be denied. We therefore deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus and 

motion for emergency relief, in accordance with the opinion of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 22, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-1919 Lower Tribunal Nos. F10-36830C and F11-15037A

________________ 

### Zevin Mitchell , Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge. Zevin Mitchell, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Spencer v. State, 842 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2003)("[S]ubstantive claims of prosecutorial misconduct could and should have been raised on direct appeal and thus are procedurally barred from consideration in a postconviction motion."); and Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)("A sentence is illegal for purposes of rule 3.800(a) if it imposes punishment that no judge could possibly impose for the charged crime under the entire body of sentencing statutes without regard to the underlying factual circumstances.").
# C_2022441EN.01000303.xml

| 21.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/3

---

Appeal brought on 28 February 2022 by FJ and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-225/20, FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case C-170/22 P)

(2022/C 441/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: FJ and Others (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

By order of 5 October 2022, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.

---
# C_2022294EN.01001201.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/12

---

Order of the Court of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-126/22) (1)

(Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Cancellations - Re-routing - Cancellation of flight following measures taken by the Spanish government due to the Covid-19 pandemic - Re-routing arranged by air passengers - Re-routing through a combination of modes of transport other than air transport)

(2022/C 294/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Operative part of the order

Case C-126/22 is removed from the Register of the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  Filing date: 22.2.2022.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8720 

To provide greater flexibility to agencies to make appointments to positions 

for which there is a severe shortage of candidates, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2020 

Mr. STEUBE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To provide greater flexibility to agencies to make appointments to positions for which there is a severe shortage 

of candidates, 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. FEDERAL AGENCY APPOINTMENT FLEXIBILITY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 31 of title 5, United 

5 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 3116 

6 the following new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 3117. Agency appointment flexibility 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The head of an agency may, 

9 without regard to the provisions of section 3304 and sec10 tions 3309 through 3318, appoint a qualified individual 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8720 IH

1 to a position within the agency that is in the competitive 

2 service and for which the head of the agency determines 

3 that there is a severe shortage of candidates. 

4 ‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This provision shall 

5 not be construed as superseding or otherwise affecting any 

6 authority granted to the head of any agency under any 

7 other provision of law to make appointments without re8 gard to a provision of chapter 33. 

9 ‘‘(c) AGENCY DEFINED.—The term ‘agency’ has the 

10 meaning given such term under section 551.’’. 

11 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

12 for chapter 31 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 

13 by inserting after the item related to section 3116 the fol14 lowing item: 

‘‘3117. Agency appointment flexibility.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Opportunity for Public Comment

Environmental Assessment: Predator Damage Management in Idaho

You are invited by the United Sates Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services Program (WS) in Idaho to participate in 

the planning process for the development of a new Environmental Assessment (EA) on 

alternatives for reducing damage to agricultural and natural resources, and property; and risks to 

public health and safety caused by predators in Idaho. Once completed, the new EA will replace 

existing EAs on Idaho WS’ involvement in Predator Damage Management (PDM). Predator 

species involved in the majority of conflicts and damage in Idaho which will be addressed in the 

EA include badgers; black bears; black-billed magpies; bobcats; common ravens; coyotes; 

feral/free-ranging dogs and wolf-dog hybrids; grizzly bears; mountain lions; raccoons; red foxes;

and striped skunks. Other predators in Idaho that have historically caused only localized damage 

on an occasional basis include American crows, feral/free-ranging cats, long-tailed weasels,

mink; short-tailed weasels, and spotted skunks. Predation by wolves and fish-eating birds are 

addressed in separate EAs and will not be included in the new EA

The new EA is being prepared in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

Idaho WS is also consulting with the U.S. Departments of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management and Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Idaho State Department of 

Agriculture, Idaho National Laboratory, and Idaho Department of Lands. WS has tentatively

identified alternatives for involvement in predator damage and conflict management in the state 

and issues which should be considered in the new EA. The agencies are seeking your input, and

issues or concerns you may have regarding 1) the Idaho WS’ involvement in PDM; 2) PDM 

alternatives which should be considered; and 3) any other relevant information and data you 

believe should be considered in the analysis.

Additional information on the project may be obtained at the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0105), or by calling or sending a 

written request to the Idaho WS state office: USDA, APHIS, WS, 9134 West Blackeagle Dr., 

Boise, ID 83709. Phone: (208) 373-1630. We request that all comments be submitted in writing 

to the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the Idaho WS state office by January 14, 2015 for full 

consideration in the new EA. All comments received, including the names and addresses of 

those people who comment, will be part of the public record and will be released for public 

review as required and allowed by law.
# C_2021357EN.01002801.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/28

---

Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-417/21)

(2021/C 357/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ITINERANT — Application for registration No 17 946 853

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2021 in Case R 1017/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25;

| — | order [EUIPO] to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order [EUIPO] to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal;

| — | Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Misinterpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misinterpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2023104EN.01003002.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2023 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality)

(Case T-253/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Sustainability through Quality - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 104/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Groschopp AG Drives & More (Viersen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Ringelhann and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 March 2022 (Case R 1076/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Groschopp AG Drives & More to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Groschopp AG Drives & More to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---
#### Antonio FREEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-11036

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 28, 2018

Antonio Freeman, Pro Se

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Antonio Freeman, Texas prisoner #1512080, moves to dismiss without prejudice his interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the district court in connection with his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings. Freeman’s payment of the $5.00 filing fee rendered moot the issue of his IFP status in the district court, as his case was not dismissed and is proceeding to resolution there.

The IFP order in the instant case “is not appealable as a final judgment because it did not end the litigation on the merits.” *Thompson v. Drewry,*138 F.3d 984, 986 (5th Cir. 1998).

*371The motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED without prejudice.

*

 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.