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 Lease Equity Appreciation Fund
I, L.P. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert K. Moskovitz, 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:

     (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.

May 16, 2006                                 /s/ Robert K. Moskovitz
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Robert K. Moskovitz
                                             Chief Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00525-CV

In re City of Fort Worth, Texas and Charles Boswell, City Manager,

in his official capacity as the City’s information officer

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relators have filed a motion to dismiss their petition for writ of mandamus. The

relators also request the return of documents filed with their petition. The real parties in interest do

not oppose this motion. Accordingly, we grant relators’ motion and dismiss the petition for writ

of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The relators shall contact the clerk’s office to make

arrangements for the return of the reporter’s record and the two sealed exhibits filed with the petition

for writ of mandamus.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Filed: October 3, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.01








CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Campbell L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Davis, President of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.































By:
/s/Walter DavisName:
Walter DavisTitle:
President ofDemeter Management LLC,General Partner of the registrantDate:
August 12, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5551 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5551

   To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to amend the 
    requirement that interstate firearms sales by Federal firearms 
  licensees be made in accordance with the State law of the purchaser.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2006

    Mr. Renzi (for himself, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Miller of 
    Florida, Mr. Poe, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Bradley of New 
 Hampshire, Mr. Goode, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Alexander, 
  and Mr. Davis of Kentucky) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to amend the 
    requirement that interstate firearms sales by Federal firearms 
  licensees be made in accordance with the State law of the purchaser.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Firearms Transfer Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT INTERSTATE FIREARMS SALES BY 
              FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 
              STATE LAW OF THE PURCHASER.

    Section 922(b)(3)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``rifle or shotgun'' and inserting 
        ``firearm'';
            (2) by striking ``both such States'' and inserting ``the 
        State in which the licensee's place of business is located''; 
        and
            (3) by striking ``both States'' and inserting ``the State 
        in which the licensee's place of business is located''.
                                 <all>
```
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-1431

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

SUSAN S. CRANE,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Torruella, Selya and Lynch,

Circuit Judges.

Susan S. Crane on brief pro se.

Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, and Margaret D.

McGaughey, Appellate Chief, on brief for appellee.
-2-

December 27, 2001

Per Curiam. Pro se defendant Susan Crane appeals

a district court judgment that revoked her supervised

release and sentenced her to an additional term of

imprisonment. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the

parties' briefs on appeal, we conclude that the district

court did not clearly err in finding that Crane violated the

three conditions of her supervised release. Further, the

court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Crane's

supervised release term and imposing another term of

imprisonment. The arguments that Crane makes to the

contrary are either waived because she did not raise them

below or patently meritless. See, e.g., United States v.

Maxwell, 254 F.3d 21, 25-30 (1st Cir. 2001). Accordingly,

the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Local

Rule 27(c).
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 333-136105 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 12, 2008 relating to the consolidated
financial statements of California Coastal Communities, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") and the effectiveness of California Coastal Communities, Inc.'s internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of California Coastal Communities, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Costa
Mesa, California
March 12, 2008

---



QuickLinks
CERTIFICATION
      OF OFFICERS


OF
      ARTFEST INTERNATIONAL, INC.


PURSUANT
      TO 18 USC & 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE


SARBANES
      - OXLEY


ACT
      OF
      2002





I
      hereby
      certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB,


and
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission


on
      the
      date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange


Act
      of
      1934 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of that
      section.





I
      further
      certify that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents,


in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of


the
      company.





s/s
      Joseph Walsh


Joseph
      Walsh, President


(Chief
      Executive Officer)





s/s
      Joseph Walsh


Joseph
      Walsh, Treasurer


(Chief
      Financial Officer)





December
      29, 2005
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 June 30, 2006 (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: August 10, 2006 |  | /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.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Thomas P. Friezen, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dakota GrowersPasta Company, Inc.;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant andwe have:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)presented in this quarterly report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controlswhich could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’sauditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and

 

6.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date:  March 16, 2005

 
|   | /s/ Thomas P. Friezen   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas P. Friezen       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
MONARCH COMMUNITY BANK
DIRECTORS DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
     A. Participants .
 B. Deferred Compensation.
  C. Interest on Deferred Amounts .
 18




---



##### 



D. Distribution
 1.
    
    The Participant will be entitled to receive all amounts credited to the Participants
Account upon the later of the attainment of the age irrevocably elected on the Notice or
termination of services as a Director with the Bank for any reason other than death. The
Participant may elect one of the following forms of payment at the time of deferral: (1) in
a lump sum, or (2) in 120 substantially equal monthly installments. The Participant may
change the form of benefit payment initially elected under this Section D.1., no later than
1 year in advance of the first scheduled payment under this Plan.2.
    
    The Participants designated beneficiary or beneficiaries will be entitled to receive
all amounts credited to the Account of the Participant upon termination of a Participants
service as a Director by reason of his death. The Participants Account shall be payable
pursuant to paragraph (4) of this Section.3.
    
    The balance of a Participants Account shall be payable to the Participants designated
beneficiary or beneficiaries pursuant to paragraph (4) of this Section upon the death of
the participant prior to complete distribution to him of the entire balance of his Account
(and after the date of termination of his service as a Director with the Bank.4.
    
    The Bank shall direct distribution of the amounts credited to a Participants Account,
including interest credited thereon pursuant to Section C, to a Participant or his
beneficiary or beneficiaries pursuant to the preceding paragraphs of this Section D.1.-3.
If Participant has not elected a method of payment in the manner set forth in this Section
D.1., than the Bank shall distribute the benefit in 120 substantially equal monthly
installments. Distribution shall be made or commence on the first day of the month
following:
 a.
    
    the later of the date upon which the Participant attains the age irrevocably
elected on the Notice of Election to Participate or the Participants service as a
Director terminates in the event of a distribution pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
Section; orb.
    
    the date of the Participants death in the event of a distribution pursuant to
paragraphs (2) or (3) of this Section.
 Subsequent installments, if any, shall be made on the monthly anniversary dates of the date
of the first installment. Each installment, if any, shall include interest credited to the
balance of the Account pursuant to Section C.
 E. Election To Defer Compensation .
 19




---



##### 



F. Participants Rights Unsecured .
 G. Amendment to the Plan .
 H. Termination of the Plan .
 I. Expenses .
 J. Notices .
 1.
    
    on the date it is personally delivered to the Treasurer of the Bank; or2.
    
    three business days after it is sent by registered or certified mail, addressed to such
Treasurer at 375 North Willowbrook Road, Coldwater, Michigan 49036,
  20
CHARLESTON.

#### State *v.*Bowles

(No. 6571)

Submitted May 7, 1930.

Decided May 13, 1930.

*175
      *Howard B. Lee,*Attorney General, and *B. A. Blessing,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe State.

*Harman & Howard,*for plaintiff in error.

Hatcher, Judge:

The defendant, aged 17, was convicted and sentenced for unlawful wounding. The trouble arose over a girl whom he had taken to church. She started home with another escort. The evidence in favor of the state shows that the defendant attacked the supplanter and cut him severely with a knife. The defendant, who received some wounds himself, claims that he acted only in self defense. The details of the conflicting evidence would add nothing to this opinion. Suffice it to say that there is ample evidence to support the verdict, and we cannot say that the finding of the jury is plainly wrong.

The defendant complains because the cross-examinations of his witnesses Riley Roberts and Herbert Payne were not restricted to matters contained in their examinations in chief. No objections was made or exception taken to the cross-examination of Roberts. The impropriety of the interrogation cannot be initially raised in this court. *State*v. *Driver,*88 W. Va. 479, 107 S. E. 189, 15 A. L. R. 917. That of Payne was either proper or on matters not controverted.

The defendant also complains because the state introduced as a witness his «ounsel, J. N. Harman, Jr., and elicited who had employed him. No objection was made either to the introduction of this witness or to the questions asked him. At the close of his examination, the court struck out his evidence. He was employed by the father of the 'defendant. The evidence thus elicited was improper. But we see no possible prejudice to the defendant because the jury learned that his *176father was rendering him this assistance. Paternal aid in such case is natural and to be expected.

The defendant claims as error the refusal of the court to have the jury answer certain interrogatories. The practice of submitting interrogatories is not followed in the trial of criminal cases. *State*v. *Boggs,*87 W. Va. 738, 106 S. E. 47, 18 A. L. R. 1360.

The defendant protests the refusal of the court to give his instructions Nos. 9 and 10. No. 9 is practically covered by his instruction No. 1, which was given. Duplication of instructions is not required. *State*v. *Peoples,*106 W. Va. 262, 145 S. E. 389. No. 10 presented his defense against the charge of malicious wounding. As the verdict of the jury acquitted him of that -charge, he is not prejudiced by the failure to give his instruction thereon. *State*v. *Johnson,*108 W. Va. 630, 152 S. E. 203.

Perceiving no error prejudicial to the defendant; the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
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 Minden Bancorp,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Becky T. Harrell, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


                                            /s/ Becky T. Harrell
                                            Name: Becky T. Harrell
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 16, 2005

A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act has  been  provided  to  Minden  Bancorp,  Inc.  and will be
retained by Minden  Bancorp,  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       24
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,513-01

EX PARTE EARNEST MAURICE BLEDSOE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1191529-A IN THE 178TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to possession of a

controlled substance, and was sentenced pursuant to Section 12.44(a) of the Texas Penal Code to

sixty days’ county jail imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary and that his conviction violates due process

because after he entered his plea, laboratory tests revealed that the evidence in this case contained

no controlled substance. Applicant alleges that he was never advised of the laboratory test results,
2

and alleges that he would not have pleaded guilty to this offense had he known that the evidence did

not support the charge. The parties have entered agreed findings of fact and conclusions of law,

which the trial court has adopted.

The trial court has determined that Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Huerta, 692

S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W. 3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 1191529 in the 178th District Court of Harris County

is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County to answer the

charges as set out in the information. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within

10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: July 29, 2015

Do not publish