alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|**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 The International White Tea
Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof or immediately
thereafter (the "Report"), I, Diane J. Harrison, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief
Financial Officer, 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

|/s/ DIANE J. HARRISON                                               
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Diane J. Harrison, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
|June 8, 2004                                                        

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed
to be filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

|
|
|**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 The International White Tea
Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof or immediately
thereafter (the "Report"), I, Diane J. Harrison, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief
Financial Officer, 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

|/s/ DIANE J. HARRISON                                               
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Diane J. Harrison, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
|January 30, 2004                                                    

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed
to be filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

|
|
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATIONS





I, Ping-Shun Lai, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010, of Asia Global Holdings Corp.:





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





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. 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. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and 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.





Date: February 21, 2010
/s/ Ping-Shun LaiPing-Shun Lai, Chief Executive Officer
Summary of Sources Affected by the Stay and P roposed Repeal of G randfathering P rovision for PM2.5

June 8, 2010 Region/ State Name of Source Comments N/A Status as of May 2010 I

– MA MMWEC Permit being revised to include PM2.5 BACT and Modeling Brockton Permit being revised to include PM2.5 BACT and Modeling III - PA AK Steel Source submitted PM2.5 analysis

– permit approval pending Allegheny Ludlum Source will provide a PM2.5 analysis Erie Renewable Source submitted PM2.5 analysis

– permit approval pending Essroc Cement Source will provide a PM2.5 analysis Green Renewable Energy Source will provide a PM2.5 analysis SG Somerset Application was denied on 2 - 2 - 2009

– SOURCE NOT AFFECTED BY STAY OR REPEAL X United Refining Source submitted PM2.5 analysis

– permit pending V - IL Vulcan Materials PM2.5 BACT analysis planned MN 3M R&D Facility Source may take synthetic minor limits to avoid PSD for PM2.5 Review ongoing American Crystal PM2.5 BACT analysis planned Review ongoing Anderson Windows Source may take synthetic minor limits to avoid PSD for PM2.5 Review ongoing: PM2.5 modeling shows violations; state is requiring monitoring Heron Lake Bioenergy Review ongoing: Synthetic minor limits planned Sappi Cloquet PM2.5 BACT analysis complete Permit issued USG Interiors PM2.5 BACT analysis planned Review ongoing IX - CA Big West Project cancelled due to public opposition X Colusa Generating Permit issued 9 - 29 - 08; not affected X Morrow Bay Permit issued 9 - 25 - 08; not affected X Victorville 2 Source agreed to do PM2.5 analysis; awaiting revisions Permit was issued on the basis of a PM2.5 analysis Mirant Marsh Landing Source is trying to demonstrate that it is not subject to PSD Mirant Willow Pass Application has not yet beenreviewed, but likely to be subject to PM2.5 NM Desert Rock Source has agreed to complete a PM2.5 analysis No change in status; unclear if source will proceed with project. NV Ely Energy Center Project cancelled X LS White Pine Project cancelled X Toquop Energy Project Project pending; source not sure whether it will move forward or cancel X

– WA BP Cogen Source reportedly will be cancelled. No current plan to proceed X Rece nt conversation with company confirms that they have no intention of proceeding with the project
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40915

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS MARTINEZ, also known as Jose Martinez-Lemus,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-881-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Martinez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 19, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40915 Document: 00514878440 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2019
No. 18-40915

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-40915 Document: 00514878440 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2019
Teresa Catherine TURNER, Respondent, v. Ted TURNER, Appellant.

WD 81515

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: March 19, 2019

Jonathan Sternberg, Kansas City for appellant.

Kevin K. Anderson, Harrisonville; Allison G. Kort, Kansas City for respondent.

Before Division Three: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

**ORDER**

Per Curiam

Ted Turner appeals the circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Teresa Turner. He brings three points challenging the division of property. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. The parties have been provided with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)
**Exhibit 31.1**Certification of Principal Executive OfficerI, Peter A. Edison, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bakers Footwear Group,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;(b) [reserved](c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        June 12, 2006 /s/ Peter A. Edison   Peter A. Edison   Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregorio Abad, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 86]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J., at hearing; Micki Scherer, J., at plea and sentence), rendered March 31, 1999, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The *359police officer, conducting a “vertical patrol” of a residential building known for drug activity which posted “no trespassing” signs in the lobby, had an objective credible reason to ask defendant his reason for being in the building, particularly since another individual who had entered the building at the same time as defendant had just been found to be a trespasser and placed under arrest *(see, People v Babarcich,*166 AD2d 655, *lv denied*76 NY2d 1019; *see also, People v Tinort,*272 AD2d 206, *lv denied*95 NY2d 872; *People v Thompson,*260 AD2d 242, *lv denied*93 NY2d 1006). Viewing the arguments of counsel and the hearing court’s ruling as a whole, we conclude that the question whether the police approach was justified as a Level-I request for information is properly before this Court. Since, as the People correctly argued at the hearing, the police inquiry was nonthreatening, it constituted a Level-I intrusion *(see, People v Hollman,*79 NY2d 181, 185). When defendant gave patently false answers to the officer’s inquiry, the officer was justified in arresting defendant for trespassing and the evidence which defendant sought to suppress was properly obtained pursuant to his lawful arrest. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the annual report of TK Star Design, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas P. Kinney, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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.  Dated: August 4, 2010By: /s/ Thomas P. KinneyChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# 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
(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
               March 31, 2008 (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:  May 12, 2008 | By: /s/ Eugene B. Witkowicz          
|------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                    | Eugene B. Witkowicz, Executive Vice  
|                    | President and Chief Financial Officer
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert MURA, Appellant.

WD 81758

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: June 18, 2019

Casey Taylor, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Joshua Bachman, St. Joseph, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Three: Thomas H. Newton, P.J., Anthony Rex Gabbert, and Edward R. Ardini, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

A Buchanan County jury convicted Mr. Robert Mura of the class A misdemeanor of stealing, while acquitting him of robbery in the first degree and armed criminal action. He was sentenced to one year in the county jail with credit for time served. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
Rhonda POTTS, Respondent, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant.

No. ED 106345

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: January 15, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: H. Anthony Relys, City Counselor's Office, 1200 Market Street, City Hall, Room 314, St. Louis, Missouri 63103.

FOR RESPONDENT: Brent E. Labovitz, Defeo & Kolker, LLC, 7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 350, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

The City of St. Louis ("City") appeals judgment entered on a jury verdict on a claim of negligence where Respondent Rhonda Potts ("Potts") sustained an injury when she tripped over a granite curb uneven with a sidewalk installed in 2005. The City raises five (5) points on appeal, each of which concern the expert opinion evidence offered by Potts at trial. The City argues: (1) expert testimony on the safety of sidewalks is inadmissible as a matter of law under controlling Missouri Supreme Court precedent; (2) experts are not permitted to testify regarding ordinances, code, and industry standards applicable to a municipalities' negligence; (3) the expert testimony regarding industry standards and the City's code and construction specifications forming its factual basis were admitted without proper foundation; (4) material differences in Potts' expert's testimony were not properly disclosed before trial; and (5) the trial court erred in denying the City's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial based on failing to exclude the expert.

We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion allowing Pott's expert testimony evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for use of the parties setting forth the reasons for the decision.

*760We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).
# **EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Riverbend Telecom, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report), Leon Nowalsky, as Principal Accounting Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

| (1)    | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ Leon Nowalsky                   Leon NowalskyTreasurer and Principal Accounting OfficerDate:  May 17, 2004This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Alberto MENA and Myriam Patricia Rodriguez, Appellants, v. OWB REO, LLC ; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Indymac Federal Bank, F.S.B. ; Bridgewater Community Association, Inc.; Unknown Person(s) in Possession of the Subject Property, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-2072

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 24

- 00591

- CV

Alton CRAIN Jr.,

Appellant

v.

Mike MURACH

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2024CV03445

Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE VALENZUELA , AND JUSTICE

BRISSETTE

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION. Costs are taxed against the appellant

.

SIGNED October 2, 2024.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice
Order entered May 19 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00697

- CR

ALLEN MAURICE LITTLE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. F

- 0951721

- Y



### O RDER

The State’s motion to extend the time for filing a brief is GRANTED . The State’s brief,

received on May 15, 2015, is ORDERED filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES PRESIDING JUSTICE
[No. 30211-0-II.

Division Two.

April 13, 2004.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Angela L. Schwary, *Respondent,*and Stephen Richard Schwary, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 01-3-01739-7, Diane M. Woolard, J., entered April 17, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Morgan, A.C.J., and Hough-ton, J.