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














CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002










I,
William R. Walker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of hi/fn, inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2007
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 Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of hi/fn, inc.







February
      8, 2008
            /s/
      WILLIAM R. WALKERWilliam
      R. WalkerChief
      Financial Officer
EXHIBIT (32)(b)

Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 The Empire District Electric Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gregory A. Knapp, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.     The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

By:

/s/ Gregory A. Knapp


Name:

Gregory A. KnappTitle:

Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer


Date:
February 19, 2010

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The Empire District Electric Company and will be retained by The Empire District Electric
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
No. D-2478.

#### In the Matter of Disbarment of La Quetta Maria Golden.

562 U.S. 1197, 131 S. Ct. 1065,

178 L. Ed. 2d 880,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 916.

January 24, 2011.

Disbarment entered.

Former order, 561 U.S. 1044, 131 S. Ct. 41, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1130, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5584.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JACOB SANTIAGO,Defendant BelowAppellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § No. 235, 2014 § § § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware, § in and for New Castle County § Cr. ID 1112008352 § § Submitted: September 10, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014
Before HOLLAND , RIDGELY , and VALIHURA , Justices. O R D E R This 30 th day of September 2014, upon consideration of the a ppellant’s opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Jacob Santiago, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated April 9, 2014, senten cing him for a violation of probation (VOP). The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Santiago’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.2

(2) The record reflects that Santiago pled guilty on June 6, 2012 to Aggravated Drug Dealing. 1 The Superior Court immediately sentenced Santiago to ten years at Level V incarceration, to be suspen ded after six months for six months at Level IV Home Confinement followed by one year at Level III probation. In January 2014, police arrested Santia go, charging him with Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, Possession of a Deadly W eapon by a Person Prohibited, and Resisting Arrest. 2 As a result of these new criminal charges, Santiago was charged with a VOP for violating the c onditions of his probation that prohibited him from possessing a firearm and from c ommitting new criminal offenses. Following a hearing, the Superior Court found Santiago had violated probation and sentenced him to nine years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after two years for six months at Level I II probation. Santiago now appeals. (3) In his opening brief on appeal, Santiago does not dispute that he committed the VOP as charged. His only contention on appeal is that the officers who arrested him used excessive force and broke his arm, which required surgery and caused him permanent disability.

1 16 Del. C. § 4752(2). 2 A Superior Court jury ultimately found Santiago gu ilty of all three charges on August 13, 2014.3

(4) The issue Santiago raises, however, is not cog nizable in this appeal from his VOP sentence. This Court reviews a VOP fi nding for abuse of
discretion. 3 In a VOP hearing, the State is only required to p rove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant vi olated the terms of his probation. 4 A preponderance of evidence means “some competent evidence” to “reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of t he probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of probation.” 5 In this case, Santiago does not dispute that he was in possession of a weapon in vi olation of the terms of his probation. Accordingly, we find no basis to overtu rn the Superior Court’s judgment. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment o f the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice

3 Kurzmann v. State , 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 4 Id. 5 Id . ( quoting Collins v. State , 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)).
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Gerald Allan Hayes v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 09

- 00437

- CR

Trial court case number: 1198372

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: December 23, 2014

Party filing motion: Appellant, Gerald Allan Hayes

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.

Date: January 8, 2015
#### *State, Respondent, v. Proshold, Petitioner,*

No. 91948-8.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45736-9-II, June 4, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1004. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
We are the established provider of

document solutions for the

Department of Defense (DOD)

including: 

D E F E N S E L O G I S T I C S

A G E N C Y 

Document 

Services

HOW WE CAN 

HELP YOU 

OFFICE DEVICE 

MANAGEMENT 

SCANNING & 

CONVERSION 

HIGH-SPEED, 

HIGH-VOLUME 

DUPLICATING 

COMMERCIAL PRINT 

PROCUREMENT 

solutions 

DLA DOCUMENT 

SERVICES 

Order online at 

WWW.DSO.DLA.MIL 

Call to find a Customer Relations 

Specialist in your area 

1-866-736-7010
here to help 

DETERMINE HOW 

YOUR DATA IS 

STORED OR 

SHARED 

EXPERIENCE 

Our customers are our top priority.

We provide customized solutions,

attention to detail, quality products,

as well as responsive, friendly

customer service. 

CUSTOMER FOCUSED 

Meeting security standards and

regulations is a crucial part of any

agency. Various levels of user

authentication, data and password

encryption, and secure printing are

part of a long list of security

features that meet or exceed DoD

regulations. 

SECURITY We have been providing

professional document services to

the DOD and the Federal Executive

Branch agencies since 1949. Now

we handle all data - digital and on

paper.
No. 11-17.

#### Kay Park, Petitioner v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

565 U.S. 878, 132 S. Ct. 243,

181 L. Ed. 2d 138,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5325.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 421 Fed. Appx. 197.
#### *Pelzel, Petitioner, v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, et al., Respondents,*

No. 91789-2.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 43294-3-II, March 24, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 1034. *Denied*November 18, 2015.
No. 10-10412.

#### Patricia Shepard, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 836, 132 S. Ct. 140,

181 L. Ed. 2d 59,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5311,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 11-5194.

#### Gary Yoder, Petitioner v. Arizona.

565 U.S. 806, 132 S. Ct. 384,

181 L. Ed. 2d 7,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6522.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and *8petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
AP5.24 APPENDIX 5.24 

UNCLOSED CONTRACT STATUS 

Data Element Name 

Document Identifier 

PllN 

Purchasing Office 

Fiscal Year 

Type of Instrument 

Serial Number 

SPIIN: 

CallIOrder Modification 

Number 

Contract Modification 

Number 

Reserved 

Identity Code: 

Administered By 

Record 

Positionls) 

1-3 

4-1 6 

(4-9) 

(10-1 1) 

(12) 

(1 3-1 6) 

17-22 

(1 7-20) 

(2 1 -22) 

(1 7-22) 

23-24 

25-30 

Data Entries 

PKX. 

Must match the contract number to which it 

applies. 

A six-position DFARS, appendix G code. 

Alphanumeric. Normally, numeric, except 

when X-overpunched for cancellation. 

A, C-H, K-M, P, S, V, or W. 

Rp 13-1 6: 0001 -9999; 

or rp 13: A-Z and rp 14-1 6: 001 -999; 

or rp 13-1 4: AA-ZZ and rp 15-1 6: 01 -99. 

I and 0 cannot be used. 

When required, it must match the master file 

for this procurement instrument. 

If the Type of Instrument in rp 12 is A, D, or 

G, then rp 17-20 is four positions, 

alphanumeric. Otherwise, leave blank. 

When applicable, must be any combination of 

alphanumerics. I and 0 cannot be used. 

When applicable, if the Type of Instrument in 

rp 12 is other than A, D, or G, then rp 17 

must contain A or P and rp 18-22 must be 

alphanumeric. 

Blank. 

Must be a valid DoDAAC. 
Data Element Name 

ldentity Code: 

Purchasing Office 

Identity Code: Contractor 

Contract Closeout Group 

Reserved 

Date Physically 

Completed: 

Year 

Month 

Day 

Date of Final Payment: 

Year 

Month 

Day 

Estimated Completion 

Date 

Year 

Month 

Reserved 

Reason for Delayed 

Closing of Contract File 

Record 

 position!^) 

31 -36 

37-42 

43 

44 

45-51 

(45-46) 

(47-49) 

(50-51) 

52-58 

(52-53) 

(54-56) 

(57-58) 

59-65 

(59-60) 

(6 1-63) 

(64-65) 

66-71 

72 

Data Entries 

Must be a valid DoDAAC. 

Rp 37 must be blank. Rp 38-42 must be valid 

CAGE code. 

Blank. 

Numeric year. 

JAN, FEB, MAR, APR, MAY, JUN, 

JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC. 

Applicable day for the month in rp 47-49. 

Blank when rp 43 is code A; otherwise, 

continue as shown below. 

Numeric year. 

JAN, FEB, MAR, APR, MAY, JUN, 

JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC 

Applicable day for the month in rp 54-56. 

Numeric year. 

JAN, FEB, MAR, APR, MAY, JUN, 

JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC 

Applicable day for the month in rp 61-63. 

Blank. 

Six or 7, or any alpha, except that I and 0 

cannot be used. 
Data Element Name 

Reason for Delayed 

Closing of Contract File 

Reason for Delayed 

Closing of Contract File 

Transaction Date: 

Month 

Reserved 

Record 

 position!^) 

73 

74 

75-79 

(75-77) 

(78-79) 

80 

Data Entries 

Six or 7, or any alpha, except that I and 0 

cannot be used. 

Six or 7, or any alpha, except that I and 0 

cannot be used. 

JAN, FEB, MAR, APR, MAY, JUN, 

JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC. 

Applicable day for the month in rp 75-77. 

Blank.
No. 10-10063.

#### Irving Alvin Davis, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 830, 132 S. Ct. 128,

181 L. Ed. 2d 50,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5382.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.

Same case below, 329 S.W.3d 798.
No. 10-10841.

#### Bobby Dale Walker, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 852, 132 S. Ct. 179,

181 L. Ed. 2d 89,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6164.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 411 Fed. Appx. 947.
EXHIBIT 11

                                        DynCorp and Subsidiaries
                               Computations of Earnings Per Common Share
                              (Dollars in thousands except per share data)

     Primary and Fully Diluted                 1995          1994(a)     1993(a)

Earnings:
 Earnings (loss) from continuing operations
   before extraordinary item                 $  5,274     $    (352)   $ (4,485)
 Loss from discontinued operations                (20)      (12,479)     (8,929)
 Extraordinary loss                            (2,886)           -            -
 Net earnings (loss)                         $  2,368     $ (12,831)   $(13,414)
 Preferred stock Class C dividends
   not accrued or paid                         (1,915)       (1,606)     (1,347)
   Common stockholders' share of
    earnings (loss)                          $    453     $ (14,437)   $(14,761)

Shares:
 Weighted average common shares
   outstanding                             12,556,347     6,802,012   5,141,319

Net earnings (loss) per common share:
 Earnings (loss) from continuing operations
   before extraordinary item                 $   0.27     $   (0.29)   $  (1.13)
 Earnings (loss) from discontinued operations       -         (1.83)      (1.74)
 Extraordinary loss                             (0.23)            -           -
 Common stockholders' share of
  earnings (loss)                            $   0.04     $   (2.12)   $  (2.87)

(a)  Restated for the discontinuance of the Commercial Aviation business.
No. 10-11256.

#### Zachary Cooper, Petitioner v. Virginia.

565 U.S. 875, 132 S. Ct. 235,

181 L. Ed. 2d 132,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6558.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Application of ) 

 ) 

AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. ) 

 ) DOCKET OST-2008-0313 

 for renewal of exemption authority ) 

(Morelia-Chicago) ) 

__________________________________________) 

AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION OF 

AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. 

FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

John R. Mietus, Jr. 

Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 

6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 

(202) 747-5212 

(240) 396-5362 fax 

john@mietuslaw.com 

Counsel for AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, 

S.A. DE C.V.

 

February 1, 2013
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Application of ) 

 ) 

AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. ) 

 ) DOCKET OST-2008-0313 

 for renewal of exemption authority ) February 1, 2013 

(Morelia-Chicago) ) 

__________________________________________) 

AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION OF 

AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. 

FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By application dated November 30, 2012, Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de 

C.V. ("Aeromexico") requested renewal of the above-captioned exemption 

authority to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, 

property, and mail between Morelia, Mexico and Chicago, Illinois. That 

request was included in an application that aggregated renewal applications 

from ten separate dockets. 

Aeromexico respectfully amends that application to withdraw its 

application for renewal of Morelia-Chicago authority, leaving no unexpired 

authority in Docket OST-2008-0313. (This is not intended to affect 

Aeromexico’s pending renewal requests in the remaining nine dockets 

referred to in the November 30 document.)
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: January 28, 2016 106326 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES CONLEY,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: December 15, 2015

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________

John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant, and appellant 

pro se.

James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Michael J.

Andreani of counsel), for respondent.

__________

McCarthy, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan

County (McGuire, J.), rendered November 12, 2013, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of course of

sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and incest in

the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to course of sexual conduct

against a child in the first degree and incest in the first

degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court thereafter

sentenced him to two concurrent prison terms of 18 years, to be

followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now

appeals. 
-2- 106326 

We affirm. Defendant's valid and uncontested waiver of the

right to appeal the judgment of conviction and sentence precludes

both his challenge to the agreed-upon sentence as harsh and

excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v

Morrison, 106 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1065

[2014]) and his challenge to County Court's denial of his

application to redact certain information contained in the

presentence investigation report (see People v Joslin, 130 AD3d

1093, 1093-1094 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1009 [2015]; People v

Guyette, 121 AD3d 1430, 1431 [2014]). To the extent that

defendant argues in his pro se brief that his plea was not

knowing, intelligent and voluntary because it was coerced, this

issue is unpreserved for our review as the record does not

reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see

People v Colon, 106 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2013]; People v Morelli, 46

AD3d 1215, 1216 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 814 [2008]). Further,

the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable

here, as defendant did not make any statements during the plea

colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or otherwise called into

question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Kormos, 126

AD3d 1039, 1040 [2015]; People v Cajigas, 123 AD3d 1299, 1300

[2014]). Defendant's remaining claims, to the extent they are

properly before us, have been considered and found to be without

merit.

Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D17-3142 

_____________________________ 

BRANDON DAVID SUMMERLIN, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. 

Michael A. Flowers, Judge. 

February 8, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

ROWE, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 
2 

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Brandon David 

Summerlin, pro se, Appellant. 

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, 

Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

September 9, 2010 

p0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

140888 

DR. SAMMIE E. HARRIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140888 

 COA: 283472 

Wayne CC: 04-419599-CZ 

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 23, 2010 

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.
No. 10-11075.

#### Herman H. Stevenson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 865, 132 S. Ct. 210,

181 L. Ed. 2d 114,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7131.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 412 Fed. Appx. 684.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 1350 Certification
By Principal Executive Officer



I, Daniel Greenberg, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A of Electro Rent Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2012 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon
request.



Dated: February 1, 2013





|/s/ Daniel Greenberg                            
|------------------------------------------------
|Daniel Greenberg
        Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-11234.

#### Carl Alan Gentis, Petitioner v. Maggie Miller-Stout, Superintendent, Airway Heights Corrections Center.

565 U.S. 874, 132 S. Ct. 231,

181 L. Ed. 2d 130,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6715.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-10950.

#### Michael F. Henry, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 858, 132 S. Ct. 194,

181 L. Ed. 2d 101,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6131.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

GEORGE ALEXANDER HILL, SR., )

DOC #106983, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2327

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed May 10, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Collier County; Ramiro Manalich, Judge.

George Alexander Hill, Sr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
##### 



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 on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30,
2004, of El Paso Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, D. Dwight Scott, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ D. Dwight ScottD. Dwight ScottExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


July 8, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
Corporation and will be retained by El Paso Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.