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

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICEROF PACIFIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT LLCPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 that is being filedconcurrently with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned officer of Pacific Energy Management LLC,general partner of Pacific Energy GP, LP which is the general partner ofPacific Energy Partners, L.P. and its subsidiaries (the “Partnership”)hereby certifies that:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|        | /s/ GERALD A.  TYWONIUK |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Gerald A. Tywoniuk      |
|   | *November 3, 2006* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Pacific Energy Partners, L.P., andwill be retained by Pacific Energy Partners, L.P., and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
#### Oriler Taylor, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed May 15, 1928.

*Benjamin Axleroad,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred II. Davis,*Attorney General, and *H. E. Garter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

In this case the plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of arson.

It is the theory of the plaintiff in error that the case should be reversed because of the admission in evidence of a confession alleged to have been made by the plaintiff in error.

*949It appears that the judgment should be affirmed upon authority of the decisions in the cases of McDonald v. State, 70 Fla. 250, 70 Sou. 24, and in Davis *et al.*v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 Sou. 843, and Brown v. The State, 92 Fla. 699, 109 Sou. 811, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J. and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1304 FEN YONG CHEN, a/k/a Fen Yuan Chen, Petitioner, versus PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-731-915) Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 14, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fen Yong Chen, Appellant Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Tyrone Sojourner, Jason Xavier Hamilton, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Javier E. Balasquide, Chief Counsel, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Fen Yong Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings based upon changed circumstances. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion. SeeBarry v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007). We lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s argument that he is eligible for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture based on an alleged fear of punishment for his illegal departure from China or asylum request, because Chen failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by making this argument before the Board. See Asika v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. 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.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART
No. 09-9968.

#### Durrell Liggins, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1116, 130 S. Ct. 2424,

176 L. Ed. 2d 941,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3866.

May 3, 2010.

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

Justice So-*942tomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 359 Fed. Appx. 266.
STATE of North Carolina v. Mark Tyler MATTHEWS

No. COA18-663

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 16, 2019

NO ERROR.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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, and 2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                     |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 4, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Russell P. Fradin  
|                     |  |     |  | Russell P. Fradin      
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

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 Hewitt Associates, Inc. and will be retained by Hewitt
Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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, Elizabeth H. Davila, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
VISX, Incorporated on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of VISX, Incorporated.

                                      /s/Elizabeth H. Davila
                                      --------------------------------
                                      Elizabeth H. Davila
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      March 31, 2003

I, Timothy R. Maier, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
VISX, Incorporated on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of VISX, Incorporated.

                                      /s/Timothy R. Maier
                                      --------------------------------
                                      Timothy R. Maier
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      March 31, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MAY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED
MAY 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                         602,456
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  598,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                    230,417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,535,780
<PP&E>                                       1,585,684
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,132,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,189,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          524,451
<BONDS>                                        507,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           379
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,741,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,189,654
<SALES>                                      1,902,874
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,902,874
<CGS>                                        1,163,688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,163,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,698,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,616,816
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,514,785)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,514,785)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,514,785)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
Donna CLIFTON, Employee, Plaintiff, v. The GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Employer,

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA18-987

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 26, 2019

AFFIRMED.
In the MATTER OF: K.A.G., N.R.P.

No. COA18-829

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 26, 2019

AFFIRMED.
THOMAS v. SHEPPARD.

A19A0184

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 9, 2019

William Ricky Musgrove, Nigel Phiri, for Appellant.

Anne Dodson Gower, Atlanta, for Appellee.

Brown, Judge.

*871Plaintiff Timmy Thomas appeals the trial court's order granting defendant Vernika Sheppard's motion to enforce a settlement agreement in this personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident. Thomas argues that the trial court erred in finding an enforceable settlement agreement because Sheppard attempted to alter the material terms of the settlement offer and failed to tender the proceeds as proposed. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Thomas filed this action against Sheppard on December 19, 2016, in Fulton County State Court, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Sheppard moved to enforce the parties' settlement agreement, and the trial court granted the motion on June 19, 2018.

"It is well established that this Court has a solemn duty to inquire into our jurisdiction to review the errors enumerated on appeal, and it is a duty we [should] not take lightly." (Citation and footnotes omitted.) *Torres v. Elkin* , 317 Ga. App. 135, 138 (1), 730 S.E.2d 518 (2012). OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) provides that direct appeal may be had from all final judgments of the trial court, and specifies that a final judgment exists only "[when] the case is no longer pending in the court below. ..." In *Torres* , supra, this Court explained that "[i]n the case of an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the order is not final until the trial court expressly enters final judgment on that order." (Citations and footnote omitted.) Id. at 138-139 (1), 730 S.E.2d 518, citing *872*Underwood v. Underwood* , 282 Ga. 643, 644 (1), 651 S.E.2d 736 (2007) ("notwithstanding the trial court's grant of a motion to enforce a settlement, a case is not at an end until such time as the agreement has been made the judgment of the court, thereby terminating the litigation") (citation and punctuation omitted).

Here, the trial court did not enter final judgment simultaneously with its order granting Sheppard's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, and there is nothing in the record indicating that the trial court entered a final judgment after ruling on the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Because the trial court's order enforcing the settlement agreement is not a final judgment *61within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a), this appeal must be dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Barnes, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Unsolicited P01 Application.                     

*Date:*                         March 31, 2009.                     

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Eleazar Cohen, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 3129, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3564,                         *ec17w@nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 5, 2009. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-5316 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

DANA JENNIFER PAPPAS, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB 

BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

CITY OF LAS VEGAS, 

Real Party in Interest. 

No. 70533 

FILED 

JUL 1 3 2016 

TRACIE K. UNDEMAN 

CLER OF UPREME COURT 

BY Th• 

DEPUTY CLE K 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari contending that the 

district court lacked jurisdiction to reverse an order of the municipal court 

granting a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal proceeding. 

Petitioner did not submit an appendix with his petition, see NRAP 

21(a)(4); thus, he has not demonstrated circumstances warranting our 

review, see Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 

840, 844 (2004) ("Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that 

extraordinary relief is warranted."). Moreover, his claim that the district 

court lacks authority over an appeal from a municipal court's grant of a 

motion to suppress evidence is without merit. See NRS 189.120 (expressly 

conferring upon the district court the power to review an order of the 

justice court granting a defendant's motion to suppress evidence); NRS 

5.073(1) ("The practice and proceedings in the municipal court must 

conform, as nearly as practicable, to the practice and proceedings of justice 

(0) 1947A e 
' J. 

Donlas 

) 

J. 

courts in similar cases."); Sandstrom v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 121 

Nev. 657, 661-62, 119 P.3d 1250, 1253-54 (2005) (recognizing appeals from 

municipal courts are treated the same as appeals from justice courts). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Cherry 

Gibbons 

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Mueller Hinds & Associates 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Las Vegas City Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF' 

NEVADA 2 

(DI 1947A er,
----

----

**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**

| (1) | The                report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                        |                                                             |                                     |
|---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                        | **COBALIS                    CORP.**                             |
|                                   |                                                        |                                |
| Date: August                  18, 2006 | By:                                                    | /s/ Gerald                  Yakatan |
|                                        | Gerald                  Yakatan                                  |
|                                        | Title:                  Chief Executive                  Officer |
No. 09-9623.

#### James Bernis Midkiff, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1082, 130 S. Ct. 2126,

176 L. Ed. 2d 748,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3241.

April 19, 2010.

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

Same case below, 596 F.3d 236.
EX-31.2 13 dex312.htm CERTIFICATION OF CFO
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, James Cartmill, Chief Financial Officer of Alpha Nutraceuticals, Inc.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alpha Nutraceuticals,
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;

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
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-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 its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) 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 of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) 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 quarter in 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;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrant'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 financing 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 29, 2004

/s/ JAMES CARTMILL

James Cartmill,
Chief Financial Officer