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

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James A. Tassone, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

·                     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and

·                     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  | August 14, 2006 | By:    | /s/ James A. Tassone                      |   |
|--------|-----------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |            |   | James A. Tassone, Chief Financial Officer |

 

*A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hasbeen provided to Uni-Pixel, Inc. and will be retained byUni-Pixel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.  The foregoing certificationis being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall notbe deemed  filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.*

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6024
JOHN HENRY JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-01-851) Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: April 8, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Henry Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Henry Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Brooks , No. CA-01-851 (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2001). 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
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage by order of that court of 27 January 2005 in Bovemij Verzekeringen N.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau

(Case C-108/05)

(2005/C 115/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) of 27 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Bovemij Verzekeringen N.V. and Benelux-Merkenbureau on the following questions:

----

(1)  Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21.12.1988 (OJ 1989, L 40, p. 1).

----
|    |                                                                                                                                                    |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A and the annual report on Form 10-K originally filed on March 31, 2015 of ClearOne, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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; |

|                     |
|---------------------|
|                     |  |  |  |
| April 30, 2015 | By: | /s/ Zeynep Hakimoglu |   |
|                |   | Zeynep Hakimoglu Chief Executive Officer |
EXHIBIT 31



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

REQUIRED BY EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(A)



I, Bruce Newman, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Protocall Technologies Incorporated.



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. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer' 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 small business issuer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 our 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.



November 19, 2007



/s/ Bruce Newman

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

Bruce Newman

CEO, Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting 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 June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Evan H. Zucker                   
|                      |  |  |  | Evan H. Zucker                       
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3836 — Goldman Sachs/Pirelli cavi e sistemi energia/Pirell cavi e sistemi telecom)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 140/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

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

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tirrell A. MIDDLETON, Appellant.

WD 81611

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: August 20, 2019

Julia E. Rives, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Susan A. McCarthy, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

**ORDER**

Per curiam:

Appellant Tirrell Middleton ("Middleton") appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri convicting him, following a bench trial, of one count of murder in the second degree, section 565.021, one count of armed criminal action, section 571.015, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, section 571.070. On appeal, Middleton contends that the circuit court erred in denying Middleton's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to show that Middleton was not acting in self-defense at the time of the murder. We affirm. For the reasons explained more fully in a memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm Rule 30.25(b).
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

138242

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138242 COA: 282028 Wayne CC: 07-011155-FH LARRY EDWIN SCHWARTZ, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 6, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1



VELVET ROPE SPECIAL EVENTS, INC.



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of  VELVET ROPE SPECIAL EVENTS, INC.,  (the Company), for
the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Maneeja Noory, Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



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





Date: August 31, 2009



| |     |                                                                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/Maneeja Noory                                                                     
| |     | Maneeja Noory                                                                        
| |     | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7420

DONELL J. BLOUNT, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WILLIE NEECE, Correctional Officer; VITATOE, Correctional 

Officer; SERGEANT J. LAMBERT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (7:11-cv-00362-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: December 26, 2012 Decided: January 8, 2013

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donell J. Blount, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher Davies Supino, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donell J. Blount, Sr., appeals the district court’s 

order granting summary judgment to the defendants on his claim 

of violations of the Eighth Amendment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Blount v. Neece, No. 7:11-cv-00362-GECRSB (W.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2012). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 249 (Friday, December 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 61767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28154]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, 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 on Aging Initial Review 
Group; Behavior and Social Science of Aging Review Committee NIA-S.
    Date: February 1-2, 2018.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 
Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institute on 
Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b000206090e190712450d02191f032b050203450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c7775717e796e7065327a756e68745c727574327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 26, 2017.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-28154 Filed 12-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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


TO
THE
 ARTICLES
OF INCORPORATION


OF


ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PARTNERS, INC.Document Number:PQ8000042648


Pursuant
to the provisions of Section 607.1006, Florida Statutes, this Florida profit
corporation adopts the following articles of amendment to its articles of
incorporation:


Article
IV


The
number of shares the corporation is authorized to issue is: 75,000,000 shares of
common stock, par value $.0001


The
date of amendment adoption: August 5, 2009 Adoption of
Amendment(s):


o The amendments
      were approved by the shareholders. The number of votes cast for amendments
      were sufficient for approval.


o The amendments were
approved by the shareholders through voting groups. The following statement must be
separately provided for each voting group entitled to voteseparately on the
amendments):
 
 "The number
of votes cast for amendments were sufficient for approval
by__________ (voting
group)."


x The amendment was
      adopted by the board of directors without shareholder action and
      shareholder action was not
required.


o The amendments
      were adopted by the incorporators without shareholder action and
      shareholder action was not
required.


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed these Articles of Amendment to the
Articles of Incorporation this 10th day
of November 2009,





By:
Exhibit 15.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-160505) of KB Financial Group Inc. (the Company) of our report dated May 22, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements (before the effects of the
adjustments to retrospectively apply the adoption of SFAS 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements (ASC 810-10-45-15) discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements) of the Company (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs related to the adjustments to retrospectively apply the adoption of SFAS 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements (ASC 810-10-45-15) which were audited by other
auditors), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Deloitte Anjin LLC
|                      
|Seoul, Korea          
|June 20, 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ADAN USCANGA

- GONZALEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 14

- 500 34 D.C. No. 3:13

- cr - 03690

- DMS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22 , 2015 ** Before: GOODWIN , BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Adan Uscanga

- Gonzalez appeals from the district court’ s judgment and challenges the 27

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

A PR 30 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 50034

Uscanga

- Gonzalez contends that the distr ict court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the upward variance and failing to consider or address his sentencing arguments

. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Uscanga

- Gonzalez’s arguments and sufficiently explained the reasons for imposing the above

- Guidelines sentence

. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)

. C ontrary to Uscanga

- Gonzalez’s contention, the court did not err by u sing his previous sentence for the same offense a s a benchmark. See United States v. Higuera

- Llamos , 574 F.3d 1206, 1211

- 12 (9th Cir. 2009).
Usca nga - Gonzalez next contends that the sentenc e is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors and the alleged procedural errors , and because the district court relied upon disputed facts underlying a previous state conviction

. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposin g Uscanga

- Gonzalez’s sentence. See Gall United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Uscanga

- Gonzalez’s immigration history

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51 ; see also3 14

- 50034

United S tates v. Gutierrez

- Sanchez , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover , the c ourt’s reliance on the disputed facts does not render the sentence unreasonable because Uscanga

- Gonzalez has not shown that the disputed facts were false or unreliable

. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst , 576 F.3d 929, 935

- 36 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
Sandra Marie DALLAS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106431

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: April 9, 2019

Alexandria Shah, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

Eric S. Schmitt, Atty. Gen., Julia E. Rives, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM

The movant, Sandra Dallas, appeals the motion court's judgment denying her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the motion court's judgment denying the movant's Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b)(2).
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00558

- CV

Edna A. MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT

,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001

- CI

- 17102 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to December 8, 2014.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 18th day of November, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court