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

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Eugene B. Witkowicz, Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of TierOne Corporation
(the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | (1) | The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
                    June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of                     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)                     or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

|                      |                                      
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------
|Date:  August 3, 2004 | By:  /s/ Eugene B. Witkowicz         
|                      | Eugene B. Witkowicz, Executive Vice  
|                      | President and Chief Financial 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)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Dividend Capital Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report") that:



|Date: May 10, 2005 |  | /s/EVAN H. ZUCKEREvan H. Zucker Chief Executive Officer and
President
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Hardesty 

126 (2012) (recognizing that an extraordinary writ petition was an 

appropriate vehicle to challenge an order that dismissed a petition 

alleging abuse and neglect). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that 

our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. 

Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). 

We have considered the petition, the answer, and the reply. 

Although the abuse and neglect petition was not filed within ten days 

after the protective custody hearing, the child was returned to his 

mother's care the day after the protective custody hearing. Under these 

circumstances, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary 

relief is not warranted. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 

674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that the issuance of an 

extraordinary writ is purely discretionary with this court). 1Accordingly, 

we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 2 

Parraguirre '44- Cherry 

'We take judicial notice that NRS 432B.490 wa substantively 

amended on May 24, 2013. See A.B. 174, 77th Leg. (Nev. 2013). 

2In light of our decision in this matter, we deny petitioner's motion 

for a stay, and we vacate the temporary stay imposed by our February 8, 

2013, order. We further deny petitioner's motion to strike the answer. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Special Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6260
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEON G. SPRUILL, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt C larke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-151, CA-96-827-2) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leon G. Spruill, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), his motions for reconsideration of that order, and his motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and the districtcourt's opinions and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Spruill , Nos. CR-94-151; CA-96-827-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 1996; Dec. 17, 1996; Jan. 13, 1997; and Jan. 30, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5546 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed 

in Greenville, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

HR 5546 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse to be constructed in 

3 Greenville, South Carolina, building number SC0017ZZ, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Carroll A. Camp5 bell, Jr. United States Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United 

11 States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 

2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Sean R. Stover, as Chief Financial Officer of NextMedia Operating, Inc.
(the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



Dated: May 12, 2004



/s/ SEAN R. STOVERSean R. Stover Chief Financial Officer of the Company




A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS
WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO NEXTMEDIA OPERATING, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY NEXTMEDIA OPERATING, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### Theresa Lanza, Appellant, v Anthony Carlick et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 707]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated April 4, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendants Anthony Carlick and Frank Carlick and the separate motion of the defendant Christopher D. Long for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

*614Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants met their burden on their respective motions by submitting an affirmation of a medical expert who examined the plaintiff and concluded that no objective medical findings supported her claim, and an affirmed report of the plaintiff’s own doctor who concluded that the plaintiff’s disc herniation was unrelated to the accident *(see, Grossman v Wright,*268 AD2d 79, 83-84).

The plaintiffs opposition was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to submit any proof that was contemporaneous with the accident showing any initial range of motion restrictions *(see, Passarelle v Burger,*278 AD2d 294; *Jimenez v Kambli,*272 AD2d 581). In addition, the plaintiffs doctor failed to set forth what objective tests, if any, he performed in arriving at his conclusions concerning any alleged restrictions of motion *(see, Grossman v Wright, supra,*at 84).

The plaintiffs subjective complaints of pain were insufficient to defeat the motion *(see, Kauderer v Penta,*261 AD2d 365).

The alternate ground for affirmance advanced by the defendants Anthony Carlick and Frank Carlick need not be reached in light of our determination. Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-21-00030-CR 

 

PHILLIP VELAZQUEZ, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 364th District Court 

 Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2017-411,477, Honorable William R. Eichman II, Presiding 

March 9, 2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant Phillip Velazquez, appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial 

court’s order denying his “Motion to Reduce Bail.” We dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

The minimal record before the Court reflects that Appellant was indicted for 

aggravated robbery. On December 15, 2020, Appellant’s trial counsel filed a motion to 
2

reduce Appellant’s bail from $250,000 to $10,000. The trial court denied the motion in a 

letter ruling dated January 21, 2021. Appellant appealed from the order, pro se.

In criminal cases, we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a judgment of 

conviction or where jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State, 

271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Because an order denying a motion to 

reduce bail is neither a judgment of conviction nor an order from which an appeal is 

specifically authorized by law, we have no jurisdiction over its appeal.1 Ragston v. State, 

424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“There is no constitutional or statutory 

authority granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding 

excessive bail or the denial of bail.”); Keaton v. State, 294 S.W.3d 870, 873 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2009, no pet.) (“[T]he Legislature did not provide appellate jurisdiction over a 

direct appeal from an interlocutory pretrial order involving bail.”).

By letter of February 11, 2021, we directed Appellant to file a response showing 

how we have jurisdiction over this appeal by February 22. Appellant has not filed a 

response to our letter to date.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

1 We note that this is not an appeal from the trial court’s denial of an application for writ of habeas 

corpus seeking bail reduction. See Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 

S.W.3d 645, 649-50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“[W]e have also long recognized the separateness of preconviction habeas proceedings by permitting an immediate appeal from a denial of relief, before the trial 

proceedings in a criminal prosecution have been concluded.”).
November 10,2015 

Memorandum 

Subject: November 5, 2015 Meeting Between the Anadarko and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

From: 

('~~.~7~~~ Christop~r""'St~eman, Policy Advisor 

Outreach and Information Division, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 

To: Docket- EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606 

This memorandum to docket provides a brief summary of the main discussion points 

made at the subject meeting for the proposed rulemaking: "Review ofNew Sources and 

Modifications in Indian Country: Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Air 

Emissions from True Minor Sources Engaged in Oil and Natural Gas Production in 

Indian Country," (80 Federal Register 56554, September 18, 2015). 

Meeting details: 

When: November 5, 2015; 1:30-3:30 p.m. ET 

Where: EPA Offices, RTP, NC 

EPA participants: 

Name EPA Office 

Bruce Moore Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Lisa Thompson Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Cheryl Vetter Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Amy Hambrick Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Matthew Witosky Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

David Cozzie Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Lourdes Morales Office of Ajr Quality Planning and Standards 

Christopher Stoneman Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Greg Nizich Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Suzie Waltzer Office of Atmospheric Programs 

J ameel Alsalam Office of Atmospheric Programs 

Claudia Smith Region 8 

Carl Daly Region 8 

Anadarko: 

Name Company 

Chad Shlichtemeir Anadarko 

Angela Zivkovich Anadarko 

Julia Jones Anadarko 
Other: 

I Name Company 

EC/R 

The EPA met with Anadarko at the energy organization's request. During the meeting, 

several topics were discussed related to the proposed rulemaking. The topics were: 

• Transition for areas of Indian country under the proposed Federal Implementation 

Plan from attainment to nonattainment; 

• Issues associated with pre-construction registration; and 

• Processes and requirements related to the Endangered Species Act and the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

The EPA answered basic questions clarifying its thinking on the proposed rule and 

offered to be available for further discussions and/or exchanges of technical information. 

This memorandum will be filed in the docket for the above actions and will be available 

for public review. 

2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 562 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 562

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on 
 Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the 
         manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.

    (a) In General.--The Government of Ukraine is authorized to 
establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to 
honor the victims of the Ukrainian famine-genocide of 1932-1933.
    (b) Compliance With Standards for Commemorative Works.--The 
establishment of the memorial shall be in accordance with chapter 89 of 
title 40, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Commemorative 
Works Act''), except that sections 8902(a)(1), 8906(b)(1), 8908(b)(2), 
and 8909(b) shall not apply with respect to the memorial.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.

    The United States Government shall not pay any expense for the 
establishment of the memorial or its maintenance.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 562

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on 
 Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the 
         manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933.
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form
10-Q Quarterly Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                                                                                                                  
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 14, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Stephanie D. Lepori
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Stephanie D. Lepori, Chief Financial Officer of
Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp.
EX-32.1
SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER


Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Annual Report of Cetrone Energy Company, a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”), on the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
Michael Cetrone, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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.


/s/ Michael
      CetroneMichael
      Cetrone
              Chief
      Executive Officer and
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              April
      13, 2010







1
**Exhibit 31.1**

*Certifications:  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002*

*I,Keith C. Robbins, certify that:*

*1.**     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Community Valley Bancorp (the “registrant”);*

*2.**     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;*

*3.**     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;*

*4.**     The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:*

*a)**      Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, 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)**      Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and*

*c)**       Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting ;and*

*5.**     The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors:*

*a)**     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and*

*b)**    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.*
| *Date:*  | *May 9,  2007*                       | * * | *By:* | */s/ Keith C. Robbins* | * * |
|----------|--------------------------------------|----------|-------|------------------------|----------|
| * * | * *                             |
| * * | *President, Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1456

FRANCIS M. RUSSELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District

Judge. (CA-99-20-2)

Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 12, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon M. Williams, S. Scott Baker, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Lori Karimoto,

Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISSTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Robert P.

Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Francis M. Russell appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to the Commissioner in this action challenging the

denial of Russell’s application for supplemental security income.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the report of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Specifically, we find that the ALJ was under no obligation

to inquire into whether Russell was disabled under 20 C.F.R. Part

404, Subpart B, App. 1, § 12.05(C) (2000). We further find that

the ALJ appropriately applied the medical-vocational guidelines in

finding that Russell was not disabled. We therefore affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Russell v. Apfel, No. CA-99-

20-2 (W.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED