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



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350



I, Eric Smit, the chief financial officer of
eGain Communications Corporation (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,



(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2004 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ ERIC N. SMITEric N. SmitFebruary 14, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to eGain Communications Corporation and will be retained by eGain Communications Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

|1 | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 09-9588.

#### Dwight Jerome Latham, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1081, 130 S. Ct. 2123,

176 L. Ed. 2d 746,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3175.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 358 Fed. Appx. 661.
1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2847

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Arkansas. Kurt Robert Davis, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 23, 2003 Filed: December 30, 2003

___________ Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Following sentencing upon his conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of firearms, Kurt Robert Davis appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence. We have carefully reviewed-2- the record, and conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Davis’s consent to the search at issue was voluntary. Davis argues that his consent was not voluntary because he had been drinking alcohol at the time and he was effectively prevented from leaving his property, but the district court was entitled to credit a police officer’s testimony that Davis did not appear intoxicated: his speech was not slurred, and he did not have trouble walking, moving, or talking. The court also was entitled to credit the officer’s testimony that Davis had been free to leave at the time he gave his consent, despite Davis’s contrary testimony. SeeUnited States v. Hernandez , 281 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 2002) (district court’s decision at suppression hearing to credit police officer’s testimony was not clearly erroneous, even though officer’s testimony conflicted with defendant’s; district court was in better position to assess credibility of witnesses); United States v. Gipp , 147 F.3d 680, 686 (8th Cir. 1998) (rejecting contention that appellant could not have voluntarily consented because he was under influence of drugs; officers testified that appellant answered their questions intelligently, behaved rationally, and except for some nervous behavior, appeared normal); United States v. Hathcock , 103 F.3d 715, 719-20 (8th Cir. 1997) (court must examine environment in which consent was given, including how long individual was detained and whether individual (1) was threatened, physically intimidated, or punished by police; (2) relied upon police’s promises or misrepresentations; (3) was in custody or under arrest; (4) was in public or secluded place; and (5) objected to search), cert. denied , 521 U.S. 1127 (1997). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
# C_2017312EN.01000101.xml

| 20.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8589 — SCOR/MutRé)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 312/01)

On 13 September 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8589. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8589. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
No. 09-924.

#### Yun Kyu Yook, Sun Ju Yook, and Ju Hyung Yook, Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

559 U.S. 1037, 130 S. Ct. 2071,

176 L. Ed. 2d 415,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2891.

March 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 339 Fed. Appx. 795.
1 

### Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Raju Bisht <rbisht@navajo-nsn.gov>

Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 8:45 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Cc: Gutierrez, Roberto; Angie Frank

Subject: RE: Radio public service announcements for NGS part 71 permit

Hi Shaheerah,

Ok, here is the information. We just provided our English public notice information to the radio station KXAZ located at

Page, AZ and they read out the stuff for us. We did not provide any recording. Our contacts there were Janet Brown,

janet@kxaz.com (1 800 498 7741) and Catherine Norgen, catherine@kxaz.com ( 928 645 8181). They are from Lake

Powell Communications.

For the Navajo announcement, we provided the English document to KTNN at Window Rock, AZ and folks at the station

translated it into Navajo and read it out for us. But if you need to be confirmed about the authenticity of the translation,

you could have your translator, who I believe is going to be Joanna Manygoats, check it out for you. Our contact there

was Steward Begay, kwrk@ktnnonline.com (928 871 3544).

This is all the information I have. If you require further information re this, please feel free to contact Angie Frank at our

office at angiefrank@navajo

‐ nsn.gov or 928 729 4096.

Thanks. Raju

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:15 PM

To: Raju Bisht

Cc: Gutierrez, Roberto

Subject: Radio public service announcements for NGS part 71 permit

Hi Raju,

I was forwarded the attached audio files for radio public service announcements made for the NGS part 71 permit

renewal. We are considering doing the same for a PSD permit that will be issued by our office. Any leads on how it was

done or contacts for doing this would be helpful.

We were provided the following radio stations previously, and it was suggested to us to use the stations highlighted in

yellow. Any other info you can provide with respect to this would also be helpful.

Thanks.



### http://radio-locator.com/

There are 11 radio stations that may be within distant listening range of

84510 (Aneth, Utah). (37° 12' 53" N, 109° 17' 54" W)

Info Call Sign Frequency Dist./Signal City School Format2 KRMH 89.7 FM 17.9 mi. Red Mesa, AZ Red Mesa High

School Grade School (K-12)

KZET 90.5 FM 27.0 mi. Cortez, CO Variety

KBDX 92.7 FM 44.1 mi. Blanding, UT Oldies

KKDC 93.3 FM 45.9 mi. Dolores, CO Rock

KISZ 97.9 FM 63.9 mi. Cortez, CO Country

KRTZ 98.7 FM 27.0 mi. Cortez, CO Adult Contemporary

KLLV 550 AM 66.9 mi. Breen, CO Religious

KTNN 660 AM 91.5 mi. Window Rock, AZ Country

KVFC 740 AM 42.6 mi. Cortez, CO News/Talk

KKOB 770 AM 204.2 mi. Albuquerque, NM News/Talk

KNDN 960 AM 67.8 mi. Farmington, NM Ethnic

very weak signal weak signal moderate signal strong signal very strong signal

************************************

Shaheerah Kelly

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3)

U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Region 9

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
No. 11-6689.

#### Will Moses Palmer, III, Petitioner v. California.

565 U.S. 1082, 132 S. Ct. 821,

181 L. Ed. 2d 531,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8686.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
No. 09-1072.

#### Fortino Cobain Bueno, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1049, 130 S. Ct. 2359,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3021.

176 L. Ed. 2d 563,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 585 F.3d 847.
Montana Tenth Judicial District Court. County of Fergus.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- JESSE SATTERFIELD, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-07-034

DECISION

On June 21, 2016, the Defendant’s suspended sentence was revoked for violations of the conditions of his probation and was sentenced as follows: Count I: A commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections for a period of ten (10) years, with five (5) years suspended, for the offense of Burglary, a Felony, in violation of §45-6-204, MCA; and Count II: A commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections for a period of ten (10) years, all suspended, for the offense of Burglary, a Felony, in violation of §45-6-204, MCA, to run consecutive to Count I. The Court recommended that the Defendant be placed in the boot camp program, followed by an aftercare or pre-release placement. The Court granted the Defendant credit for time served, while pending sentencing, in the amount of 124 days.

On November 17, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant was present having been transported from START and was *115represented by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Done in open Court this 17th day of November, 2016.

DATED this 12th day of December, 2016.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brad Newman, Chairperson, Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member and Hon. John Warner, Member.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
KOGER EQUITY, INC. THE COMPANY DOES NOT FILE A CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET,
THEREFORE THESE NOT PROVIDED.  5-02(9), 5-02(21)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,827
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                       436
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         935,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 834,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        307,903
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           286
<OTHER-SE>                                     464,477
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   834,995
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,082
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,697
<INCOME-TAX>                                       956
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,602
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,602
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1637

ADEPEJU SHERIFA GIWA,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A75-367-398)

Submitted: April 9, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Irena Izabella Karpinski, LAW OFFICES OF IRENA KARPINSKI,

Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Allen W. Hausman, Aviva

L. Poczter, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Adepeju Sherifa Giwa, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)

affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications

for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the

administrative record, the Board’s order and the IJ’s decision and

find substantial evidence supports the Board’s affirmance of the

IJ’s conclusion that Giwa failed to establish a well-founded fear

of persecution necessary to qualify for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. §

208.13(b) (2002).

The standard for receiving withholding of deportation is “more

stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d

198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for withholding must

demonstrate a clear probability of persecution. INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Giwa has failed to establish

refugee status, she cannot satisfy the higher standard for

withholding of deportation.

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. §1350

In connection with the quarterly
report of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Alan P.
Niedzwiecki, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.

Date: December 17, 2007



/s/ ALAN P. NIEDZWIECKIAlan P. NiedzwieckiPresident and Chief Executive Officer
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 Quarterly Report of China Agritech, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yu Chang, the
Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




1.           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; an




2.           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




November
11, 2009





/s/
      Yu ChangChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTO 17 CFR 240.13A-14**

**PROMULGATED UNDER**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Chris Lowthert, certify that: 

 
 1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Starwood Real Estate Income Trust, 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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
 
 3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
 
 4.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 
 
 (a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 
 
 (b)[Intentionally omitted]; 
 
 (c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
 
 (d)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 
 
 5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 
 
 (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 
 
 (b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 
Date: March 30, 2018 

 
/s/ Chris LowthertChris LowthertChief Financial Officer and Treasurer**
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: New Hampshire Insurance Company v. Peggy C. Allison

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00505

- CV

Trial court case number: 2010

- 50904

Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County

Appellee’s Motion for Leave to File Post

- Submission Brief is GRANTED. It is so

ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

Acting individually

Date: June 20, 2013