alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of Noble Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark A. Jackson, Senior Vice President - Finance and 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 the best of 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

November 12, 2003                           /s/ MARK A. JACKSON
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Mark A. Jackson
                                            Senior Vice President - Finance and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            of Noble Corporation
Exhibit 31.1
 
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(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 of the 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 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; and
  (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: November 15, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Nigel JamesNigel JamesPresident and Principal Executive Officer E-2
|   | 1. | The      amount of the loan: RMB 17,538,448 (US$  2,562,017); |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      term of the loan agreement: from April 1, 2009 to June 30,      2009; |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | The      type of the loan: short-term loan; |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | The      interest of the loan: at a rate for the same level and same period of loan      stipulated by the People’s Bank of China on April 1, 2009      (4.86%); |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | With      approval from the Lender, the Borrower can pay off the loan before June      30, 2009. The interest of the loan shall be calculated until the day on      which the principal of the loan is repaid, and no fine shall be imposed on      the Borrower for advancing the repayment of the  loan. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| The      Lender:                                      |                                       | The      Borrower:                                              |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Tianjin      Tiens Life Resources  Co., Ltd |                                       | Tianjin      Tianshi Biological Engineering  Co., Ltd |
|                                                  |                                       |                                                            |   |   |
| By                                                    | /s/      Yiqun Wu                     |                                                            | By | /s/ Jinyuan Li |
|                                                  |                                       |                                                            |   |   |
| Title:                                      |   Authorized      Representative |                                                            | Title:   | AuthorizedRepresentative |
|                                                  |                                       |                                                            |   |   |
| April      21, 2009                                   |                                       | April      21, 2009                                             |

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the Report), I, Raymond L. Lawless, Chief
Financial Officer of the Companies, hereby 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 results of operations of the
Companies.



|                  |  |  |  |                        
|----------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Raymond L. Lawless 
|                  |  |  |  | Raymond L. Lawless     
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
~~~o~~k~ hither Woartscn, Page 7

under the tax lwy madeby said d’s trlzt durlnng the gears 1323 to 1935 to pap aaid bond issue. If said taxes are aore than sufI’Scisnt to sag all ol said bonCs, then, of course, the balance of the moneycolloc ted on t’ne tax lavied specifically to pay saw would below to said dlstrkt.

If, as %ndiaated 5.nyour letter, the tax levied specifloally to pay the bonds has not boon or will not be sufficient, then said district Lsauthorizad to and mayus8 sUCh pOrtiOn Of the stat8 tax Oollscted ShlO8 1935, SE I&‘ly be neoesaary to retire said bonds, both prinoipal and La

### tereest, All of the State tax oollected, 

### or that ?saybe oollactad shoe 1935, not raquired to ray the unpa:Bid portion of said boondsaFtor same have been oredited Yith all the money ColleOt8d under the tax lwied for the geaars192$ to 1935 should be and the lav requires saznu~e to be paid to ths state Treasurer.

very truly yours ATTORXZY

GA%RALOPTEXAS

Gso. ii. Dsrcus Assistant
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-35,508-03

EX P ARTE JAMES WAYNE P ITTS , JR., Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1993-511-C2C IN THE 54T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM MC LENNAN COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1

. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of sexual assau l t and sente nced to imprisonment for twe nty year s. Applicant contends that he is ac t u al l y innocent and that had scientific evidenc e been prese nted at trial, on the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e he would not have been convicted. Ex parte Elizondo , 947 S.W .2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.073. We order that this application be filed and set for submissi on to deter mine whether : (1) Applicant’s claims are2

barr ed by Article 11.07, § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedur e; (2) Applicant is actua lly innocent; and (3) Applicant is entitled to relief under Article 11.073. The parties sha ll brief these issues. I t appea rs that Applicant is repr esente d by counsel. I f that is not corr ect, the trial court shall deter mine whether Applicant is indig ent. I f Applicant is indig ent and de sires to be represe nted by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art 2 6

. 0 4

. The trial court shall send to this Court, within 60 day s of the date of this order , a supplemental transcr i p t co n t aini ng : a confirmation that Applicant is repr esente d by counsel; the order appointing counsel; or a statement that Applicant is not indige nt. All briefs shall be filed with this Court wit hin 90 day s of the date of this order. Filed: Nove mber 9, 2016 Do not publish
# CONQUEST AIR Inc. 5820·Miami Lakes Drive East Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Telephone: 305-863-3108 Cell: 305-218-0619

U.S .Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration June 7, 2016

Docket management System, Room PL 40 1 Ms. Nia Daniels Ref: Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2016-4554



### Dear Ms..Daniels-, 

### Fax: 305-871-1622

Petition for Reconsideration ofDenial: Exemption No. FAA-2016-4554 Maximum Payload Provision ofCFR Part 110.2 Justification for Reconsideration Currently the FAA, EPA and ICAO are in the final phase of requiring air carriers to present a plan to Reduce Carbon C02 Gas Emissions. Additional documents have been published which will further support our request. Conquest Air feels the FAA in its decision making failed to address the Federal Governments new policy on Reducing Carbon C02 Emissions. In the denial letter, the FAA failed to address any of the Carbon C02 Gas Emission requirements which are becoming mandatory and clearly defme ways in which air carriers can reduce their Carbon C02 Emissions which includes an increase in payloads. Conquest Air feels the FAA failed to acknowledge the fact that the 125 1 135 ARC did in fact address piston powered aircraft with payloads greater than 7,500 lbs. to be allowed to operate under Part 135 as well as turbo powered aircraft manufactured under Part 25 . The FAA approved Ameriflights reconsideration for their exemption based on the 125 I 135 ARC applicability 32 documents. Conquest Air feels the FAA should not discriminate under any circumstance against any operator wishing to comply with the Reduced Carbon C02 Gas Emissions regulations or with the 125 I 135 ARC recommendations. Any operator wishing to meet the above mention requirements should be permitted to do so without prejudice.The FAA has been concerned about all the other operators wishing to operate aircraft with greater than 7,500 lbs. payload under Part 135, but the fact is that in over 10 years there have only been five (5) operators who have requested such exemption and only one exemption has been granted ( Ameriflight, IFL, Skywagon, Florida Air Transport and Conquest Air) have been the only operators seeking similar exemptions. The restriction imposed on the Part 125 operators was an economic restriction set by the DOT and Applicability 32 allowed for a compromise between the federal government and the 125 operators to come into compliance. The failure offthe FAA' s willingness to work with these cargo operators or the Aviation Rule Making Committees recommendations has caused almost all ofthem to close down their businesses. Attached to this letter are additional documents pertinent to our exemption request. 1. Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2.FAA Study supporting increasing the Payload for Part 135 Air Carriers. 3. Aviation & Climate Change: AircraftEmissions 4.Impacts ofAviation on Climate change 5.Aviation & Emissions 6. FAA Center ofExcellence (https://ASCENT.AERO) I am available to meet with you at any time to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time and consideration inthis matter.

Carlos Gomez Cell: 305-218-0619
United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 93-9081.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Loreta De-Ann COFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

April 10, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Robert B. Maloney,

Judge.

Pri or report: --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 40, 136 L.Ed.2d 3.

Before GARWOOD, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated this Court's previous order as to Loreta DeAnn Coffman, see United States v. Clark, 67 F.3d 1154 (5th Cir.1995), and remanded it for further

consideration in light of Bailey v. United States,

--- U.S.

----, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472

(1996).

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of appellant, Loreta De

- Ann Coffman, to summarily

reverse, vacate, and remand for resentencing is GRANTED. Loreta De-Ann Coffman's conviction

for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is REVERSED, her sentence is VACATED, and this case is

REMANDED to the district court for resentencing.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 47 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5262]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF08-564-000]


Georgia Pacific Toledo LLC; Notice of Filing of Notice of Self-
Certification of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration Facility

March 5, 2009.
    Take notice that on May 15, 2008, Georgia Pacific Toledo LLC 
(``GP''), 1400 SE. Butler Bridge Road, Toledo, Oregon 97391, filed with 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a notice of self-certification 
of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility pursuant to 18 CFR 
292.207(a) of the Commission's regulations.
    GP states that the facility in question is a topping-cycle 
cogeneration facility with a primary energy source of natural gas. The 
cogeneration facility consists of two black liquor recovery boilers, 
three power boilers, and one hog fuel (bark) boiler to generate 
electricity and process heat to serve the resident paper mill. The 
facility is located in Toledo, Oregon.
    GP further states that the facility is interconnected to Central 
Lincoln PUD (``Lincoln''), and expects from time-to-time to sell energy 
to or purchase supplementary, standby, back-up, and maintenance power 
from Lincoln.
    A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding 
regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification 
provides notice that the entity making filing has determined the 
Facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any 
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so 
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#165053445559787a7f787345636666796462567073647538717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="094f4c5b4a46676560676c5a7c7979667b7d496f6c7b6a276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5262 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31

                     RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A) CERTIFICATION

                         I, David C. Levy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of AGU  Entertainment
Corp.;

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for  establishing  and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
procedures  (as defined in Exchange Act Rules  13a-15(e) and  15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

            a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures  to be designed  under my  supervision,  to
ensure  that  material  information  relating  to  the  small  business  issuer,
including its  consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made known to me by others within
those  entities,  particularly  during the period in which this  report is being
prepared;

            b)  Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  small  business  issuer's
disclosure  controls and  procedures and presented in this report my 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 small  business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business  issuer's  fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual  report) that has  materially  affected,  or is
reasonably  likely to materially  affect,  the small business  issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial  reporting,  to the small  business  issuer's  auditors  and the audit
committee  of the  small  business  issuer'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 small business  issuer'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 small  business  issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 20, 2004

/s/ David C. Levy
------------------
NAME: David C. Levy
TITLE: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


                                       18
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1690. BERNA MASON v. PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE

CORPORATION et al.

Berna Mason sued Permanent General Assurance Corp., Permanent General

Assurance Corp. of Ohio, and the General Automobile Insurance Company

(collectively “Defendants”) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Defendants

filed an answer and defenses, along with a counterclaim against Mason for abusive

litigation, seeking recovery of litigation expenses under OCGA §§ 51-7-80 et seq.,

9-15-14, and 13-6-11. Defendants also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The trial court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion for judgment on the

pleadings. The order did not address Defendants’ counterclaim, which remains

pending. Mason filed this direct appeal. Defendants have filed a motion to dismissthe

appeal, arguing that we lack jurisdiction. We agree.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final

judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” “In

a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating fewer

than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not a final

judgment.” Shoenthal v. Shoenthal, 333 Ga. App. 729, 730 (776 SE2d 663) (2015)

(punctuation omitted). For a party to obtain appellate review under such

circumstances, there must be either an express determination by the trial court that

there is no just reason for delay under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or compliance with the

interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See id. Where neither code

section is followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. Id.

Here, the trial court did not rule on Defendants’ counterclaim, and it did not

August 19, 2022
direct the entry of judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b). Consequently, this action

remains pending in the trial court, and Mason therefore was required to use the

interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate

review from the trial court – to appeal the order granting Defendants’ motion for

judgment on the pleadings. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v.

Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 (713 SE2d 678) (2011); Chatham County Hosp.

Auth. v. Mack, 185 Ga. App. 13, 14 (363 SE2d 264) (1987). Mason’s failure to do so

deprives us of jurisdiction over this premature direct appeal. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266

Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996). Accordingly, Defendants’motion to dismissthe

appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/19/2022