alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2****WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**     Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of North PointeHoldings Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 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:November 13, 2007     /s/ Brian J. Roney     Brian J. Roney
**Exhibit 31.2**
Certification of Principal Financial Officer
I, Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Bakers FootwearGroup, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
(b) [reserved]
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.         March 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.   Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.   Chief Financial Officer
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 960

EX PA R TE FE R N A N D O A N D U JO , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. A- 3 3 , 3 8 8 - A I N T HE 7 0 t h DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM ECTOR CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u a n t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applican t wa s co nvicted of robber tand sentenc ed to twenty

y ear s’ imprisonment. Applicant conte nds that his counsel rende red ineffe ctive assist ance beca use counsel fa iled to timely file a notice of appe al. The A pplicant also conte nds that he timely notified the district cler k that he wished to f

ile a notice of appea l a

nd reque sted that counsel be appointed. Counsel was the n appointed af

ter the deadline for filing a notice of appea l ha d expired. We remande d this applicationto the trial court f or finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law. Af t er c onducting an evide ntiary hear ing, the trial court ha s determined that Applicant was deprive d of his rig ht to appea l thr oug h no fault of his own and r ecommends tha t he be g rante d relief
. We find, theref

ore, that Applicant is e ntitled to the opportunity to f ile an out-of- time appea l of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause No. A-33,388-Afrom the 70 t h J u d i ci al District Court of Ector County . Applicant is order ed re turned to t hat t ime at which he may g ive a wr itten notice of a ppeal so that he may

then, with the aid of c ounsel, obtain a mea ningf ul appea l. All tim e limit s shall be
c a lc ulate d a s if

the se nte nc e ha d b e e n im

po se d o n th e da te on

wh ic h the mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s. We h old that, s ho uld

Ap pli c a nt d e sir e to pr os e c ute a n ap pe a l, he mus t tak e a ff ir ma tiv e ste ps to f

ile
a wr itt e n n oti c e of

a pp e a l in the tr ia l c ourt

wi thi n 3 0 d a y s a ft e r t

he mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s.

Deliver ed: J uly

2, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51205 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD JAY CLIFTON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-02-CR-48-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ronald Jay Clifton pleaded guilty to counts one and two of an information charging him with conspiracy to commit fraud and securities fraud. Clifton has appealed, raising issues related to the district court’s upward departure from the guideline imprisonment range. In his plea agreement, Clifton waived the right to raise these issues on appeal and the record reflects that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 567–68 (5th Cir. 1992). We caution counsel that the assertion of issues on appeal that are plainlyNo. 02-51205 -2- barred by a plea agreement and the failure to explain in briefing why the defendant’s issues are not waived invites the imposition of a sanction. See United States v. Martinez , 263 F.3d 436, 438 (5th Cir. 2001). The appeal is
DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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  Annual  Report of Kopr  Resources  Corp.,  a  Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2009 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned,  the Chief  Executive  Officer,  hereby  certifies
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Sec.  1350 as adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the undersigned's knowledge:

     (1)  the  Report  of the  Company  filed  today  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 operation of
          the Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Date: January 29, 2010              By: /s/Andrea Schlectman
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Andrea Schlectman
                                    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 453 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 453

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2403) to amend chapter 44 
  of title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the background check 
   procedures to be followed before a Federal firearms licensee may 
       transfer a firearm to a person who is not such a licensee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2023

 Mr. Clyburn submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2403) to amend chapter 44 
  of title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the background check 
   procedures to be followed before a Federal firearms licensee may 
       transfer a firearm to a person who is not such a licensee.

    Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 
2403) to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 
strengthen the background check procedures to be followed before a 
Federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is not 
such a licensee. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and 
(2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
consideration of H.R. 2403.
                                 <all>
```
Annual Average Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Extent Downloaded from Rutger University Global Snow Lab http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.nhland.txt
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10011 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TROYCE ARVA RUBY, III, also known as Troyce Ruby, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-129-1-A

-------------------- October 29, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Troyce Arva Ruby (“Ruby”) appeals the sentencing following his guilty plea to possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Ruby argues that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c) because his previous conviction for escape was not a crime of violence.No. 02-10011 -2- This court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo
. See United States v. Charles , 301 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir. 2002). Section 4B1.2 defines a “crime of violence” as an offense which “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). Ruby attempted to escape after he was detained by officers for throwing beer bottles out of a car window. Ruby’s conviction for escape meets the definition of a “crime of violence.” See United States v. Ruiz , 180 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 1999). Ruby’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
#### Robert M. Wells *v.*State Road Commissioner

(No. 7910)

Submitted March 6, 1934.

Decided March 13, 1934.

*710
      *Homer A. Holt,*Attorney General, and *B. Dennis Steed*and *W. Holt Wooddell,*Assistant Attorneys General, for plaintiff in error.

*1. L. Hark,*for defendant in error.

Hatcher, Judge:

A writ of mandamus was awarded by the circuit court requiring the respondent to issue relator a license for his truck under class “ B ” of the road laws. The respondent obtained a writ of error.

The truck is operated under a contract (for one year) with a laundry company. The contract terms the relator “salesman”, confines his services to certain territory, and obligates him to furnish at his own expense a truck in the performance of his contractual duties which are: “ To solicit for the laundry, laundry work and dry cleaning of such nature as the laundry shall, from time to time, designate, from persons, firms or corporations within the bounds of the route herein-before designated; to collect laundry and dry cleaning from customers on said route, to deliver the same to the laundry for service, to return and deliver the same to the customer after said laundry and dry cleaning has been serviced, and to collect the charges therefor from the customer, all of which duties shall be performed under the rules and regulations which shall, from time to time, be promulgated by the laundry.” For his services relator is paid certain commissions on the total charges collected by him from his laundry customers. • The respondent contends that the use of the truck places it in class “K” of the road laws. The “registration fee” is higher for class “K” than for class “B”.

Class “B” includes all trucks “other than those operated for compensation.” Acts 1933, First Ext. Session, Chapter 60, section 11. Class “K” includes all trucks “operated for transportation of property for compensation” other than common carriers. *Idem,*section 20. The test of classification, therefore, is whether a truck is operated for compensation.

■ Relator contends that he is an independent contractor and operates the truck in the performance of his own business. The respondent contends that the truck is operated in the *711business of the laundry company and that the commission paid relator compensates him for operating the truck as well as for his personal services. The respondent is supported by the opinion of Judge Northcott of the three-judge Federal court for the Southern District of West Virginia in the case of *Buckland*v. *Lee,*not yet published. There is argument in favor of each contention. But an analysis of the arguments is not essential. In mandamus, it is not a question of weight of argument, but of clear legal right in the relator. It is the primary duty of the respondent to classify trucks. His classification should not be disturbed unless plainly wrong. The apparent reasons supporting his classification in this case are so substantial that we cannot say he is wrong.

Hence, the plaintiff does not show a clear legal right to the writ, and the judgment of the circuit court is reversed.

*Reversed.*
CHARLESTON.

#### Amick *v.*Ellis.

Submitted February 13, 1903.

Decided April 28, 1903.

1. Contract of *Sate*— Husband *and Wife.*

A contract of sale of the wife’s land by her and her husband, not acknowledged for recordation, cannot be specificálly enforced in equity, and on a bill to enforce the same there cannot be a decree against the wife for repayment of purchase money! Mere colorable claims of jurisdiction will not do. (p. 421).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Eayette County.

Bill by J. A. Amick against R. H. Ellis and wife.. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant wife appeals.

*Reversed.*

J. W. Davis, for appellant.

Pavne & Hamilton, for appellee.

Beannon, Judge:

Virginia L. Ellis, wife of R. Id. Ellis, being owner of land in Eayette County, sbe and her huband.made a contract with J. A. Amick, 5 September, 1896, selling to him “all mineral and coal” in the tract of land, part of the purchase money being paid down, and part payable in future.. Mrs. Ellis refused to accept the last payment, and Amick brought a suit in equity in the circuit court of that county, asking that Ellis and wife be compelled to perform the contract by conveyance according to it, or if that could not be done, that the contract be rescinded, and that a decree be made in favor of the plaintiff for the money paid him under the contract. A decree was made rescinding the contract, and decreeing personally against Virginia L. Ellis $232.13 on account of money paid under said contract,- and subjecting the sale of minerals and coal in the land from which decree Virginia L. Ellis appeals.

As this contract was not acknowledged for recordation it could not be specifically enforced by conveyance of the land. *Rosenour*v. Rosenour, 47 *W.*Va. 554. The contract being on its face void in law for all .purposes of equity jurisdiction, the *422alleged equity jurisdiction is merely colorable or pretended, just to get jurisdiction. *Laidley*v. *Laidley,*25 W. Va. 525; *Thompson*v. *Whitaker,*41 W. Va. 574. To give jurisdiction there must be “in addition to the simple setting up of the claim, some color for it; in other words, the claim must be of such character that its mere mention does not show it destitute of merit.” *N. O. Waterworks*v. *Louisiana,*185 U. S. 344. Hence we cannot apply the rule that having jurisdiction for one purpose full relief or alternative relief will be given. There is jurisdiction neither to compel a deed nor for money. If there is any liability on Mrs. Ellis to recover back money paid under the contract, it is recoverable at law under section 15, chapter 66, Code. *Williamson*v. *Cline,*40 W. V. 194; *Wick*v. *Dawson,*42 *Id.*43; *Rogers*v. *Lynch,*44 *Id.*94.

Therefore, we reverse the decree and dismiss the bill without prejudice to an action at law.

*Reversed.*
EXHIBIT 32.2 – 906 Certification








CLASSIC RULES JUDO CHAMPIONSHIPS, INC.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Classic Rules Judo Championships, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chris Angle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.








By: /s/ Chris Angle


Chris Angle


Chief Financial Officer


And Director





October 29, 2013





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Classic Rules Judo Championships, Inc., and will be retained by Classic Rules Judo Championships, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Pensacola Aviation Center, LLC, 

Complainant 

v. 

Pensacola International Airport, 

City of Pensacola, FL 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-12 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFRPart 16 (Rules ofPractice). OnApril22, 2015, 

counsel for the Respondent, Pensacola International Airport, filed its response to the 

Director's Request for Additional Information. The Director hereby acknowledges receipt 

of the Respondent's filing. Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, §16.11(a), the date by which 

the Director, FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis will issue a 

Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before July 21,2015. 

Ran all S. Fiertz 

Di ctor, Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 

Ar£ 1-'l 1zo1s 

Dae 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April da , 2015, I served via Certified mail a true copy of 

the FAA's Notice of Extension of Time, addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. 

McBreen & Kopko 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, New York 11753 

Tel: (516) 364-1095 

Fax: (516) 364-0612 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Robert J. Williams, Esq. 

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP 

Fifth A venue Place 

120 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3001 

Tel: (412) 577-5223 

Fax: (412) 765-3858 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, (AC0-1 00) 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysi
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,518]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 9, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Sunbury Textile Mills, Sunbury, Pennsylvania.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-6541 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P