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 Annual Report of Diversified Global Holdings Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nikolay Lobachev, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Nikolay LobachevNikolay Lobachev, Chief Financial Officer
 April 14, 2011
Terrance Kwan KEITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-2163

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

IVAN LOUIS RODRIGUEZ , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D 20

- 2 719

[ May 27, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nine teenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Charles A. Schwab

, Judge; L.T. Case No . 56

- 2015

- CF

- 000952 A

.
Ivan Louis Rodriguez

, Chipley

, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , C IKLIN and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
. ' . ,.. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION I 

July 3, 1997 

Jeff Crawford 

JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING 

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-0001 

Bureau of Air Quality Control 

Department of Environmental Protection 

State House, Station No. 17 

Augusta, ME 04333 

Dear Mr. Crawford: 

As a result of recent EPA inspection activity, it has come to our 

attention that Maine's regulation for reducing volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from fixed roof petroleum storage tanks 

(Chapter 111 "Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor Control") requires 

complete inspections to be conducted annually. This requirement 

is consistent with the April 1978 version of EPA's model VOC 

rules. However, the current version of EPA's model VOC rules 1 

requires complete inspections to be conducted once every 5 years 

in the case of a double seal system and once every 10 years in 

the case of a single seal system, or whenever the tank is emptied 

for non-operational reasons. The current model rule inspection 

frequency is consistent with the inspection requirements 

contained in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for 

petroleum storage vessels (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb). 

Tank inspections which involve the degassing and refilling of a 

storage tank cause VOCs to be emitted to the atmosphere. EPA has 

estimated the quantity of VOC emissions resulting from this 

activity (see Enclosure). For example, the degassing and 

refilling of a 150 foot diameter tank is estimated to generate 

approximately 6 tons of VOC. 

EPA, therefore, recommends that the state's regulation be updated 

to reflect the language in the current version of the model VOC 

rules which is consistent with the NSPS. In the interim, with 

respect to enforcing the state's existing regulation, EPA is most 

concerned with facilities that are not meeting the industry 

1 "Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably 

Available Control Technology" (June 1992) 

ro RecyclediRecyclable n.- "1\ P~nted with SoyiCanola Ink on paper tt.t 

'Cl<;7 oontalns atlaut 75% recycled fiber 
2 

standards set by the American Petroleum Institute, which 

recommend that complete inspections be conducted at least 

every 10 years. 

If you have any questions on this issue, please contact 

Anne Arnold of my staff at (617) 565-3166. 

Sincerely, ~} 

~ Air Quality ~on';;:;Znager Planning Unit 

cc: Mike Mendel, ME DEP 

Enclosure
**Exhibit 11.1****Computation of Earnings Per Share**     The following table sets forth the computation of dilutive earnings per share (“EPS”) for thethree months and nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004.                   **Three Months Ended**  **Nine months Ended**   **September 30,**  **September 30,**   **2005**  **2004**  **2005**  **2004** **Numerator:**                 Net income as reported for basic EPS $187,197  $17,068  $388,611  $992,692 Adjustments to income for diluted EPS  —   —   —   56,520                               Net income for diluted EPS $187,197  $17,068  $388,611  $1,049,212                               **Denominator:**                Weighted average shares for basic EPS  17,583,061   14,725,187   16,432,965   13,555,811 Effect of dilutive securities:                Stock options  1,281,751   642,795   899,062   952,136 Warrants  732,324   509,820   390,003   806,119 Conversion of debt instruments  —   —   —   793,088              Adjusted weighted average shares andassumed conversions for EPS  19,597,136   15,877,802   17,722,030   16,107,154                               Basic EPS $0.01  $0.00  $0.02  $0.07              Diluted EPS $0.01  $0.00  $0.02  $0.07
_____________ No. 95-3789WM

_____________ Arthur S. Clay, * *

Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. James Anthony (Tony) Gammon, * Superintendent, Farmington * [UNPUBLISHED] Correctional Center, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: June 4, 1996 Filed: June 24, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. In198 9 a jury found Arthur S. Clay guilty of forcible rape. Th e Mis souri Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence, and th e denial of his motion for postconviction relief. State v. Clay , 812 S.W.2d 872, 876 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). In 1994 Clay filed his 28 U.S.C. § 225 4 petition. Raising a due process violation for t he first time, Clay argued he sho uld have been sentenced by the jury instead of the trial cour t because h is earlier conviction had been expunged in 1980. See Mo. Rev . Stat. §§ 557.036.4, 558.016.2 (1986). The district court denied relief. Although the district court correctly denied Clay's petition on the merits, we conclude Clay's claim is procedurally barred. Having failed to prese nt this federal claim in the state courts, Clay has shown neithe r cause to excuse his procedural default and

### -2-

actual prejudice resulting from the alleged denial of due process nor a fundame ntal miscarriage of justice. Clay's claim is thus barred from federal review. See Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). We affirm the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
August 8, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NORMAN CRITTENDEN, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00465-CV V.

JOSEPH FLORES AND MARGARET FLORES, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on February 6, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Norman Crittenden.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Kathy Anderson, Appellant, v Andrew Carduner et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[720 NYS2d 18]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered November 5, 1999, dismissing the complaint as against defendants dog owner and her husband pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered October 18, 1999, which granted their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the dismissal of the complaint as against the dog owner, the motion for summary judgment denied insofar as made on the latter’s behalf, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The action should not have been dismissed as against defendant owner of the dog, which allegedly injured plaintiff by poking its snout in her eye while standing up on its hind-legs, in view of the owner’s admitted knowledge of the dog’s tendency to “rise up” to “greet” people. Whether such an injury was reasonably foreseeable from such behavior is an issue of fact that, if resolved in plaintiffs favor, would make the owner strictly liable for the dog’s “vicious” propensity to rise up, assuming the dog in fact did rise up on this occasion, as alleged by plaintiff but denied by codefendant dog walker. “ *‘A*known tendency to attack others, even in playfulness, as in the case of the overly friendly large dog with a propensity for enthusiastic jumping up on visitors, will be enough to make the defendant liable for *370damages resulting from such an act.’ ” *(Thirlwall v Galanter,*66 Misc 2d 88, 90 [Sandler, J.], quoting Prosser, Torts, at 515 [3d ed]; *see also, Mitura v Roy,*174 AD2d 1020 [4th Dept]; *Lagoda v Dorr,*28 AD2d 208, 209 [3d Dept].) Although plaintiff failed to raise this argument before the motion court, we consider it on appeal since it is readily apparent upon the face of the record and could not have been avoided by the dog owner had it been brought to her attention *(see, Chateau D’If Corp. v City of New York,*219 AD2d 205, 209, *lv denied*88 NY2d 811).

The motion court correctly determined, based on uncontroverted evidence, that no issues of fact exist as to whether defendant dog owner negligently hired codefendant dog walker, whether the dog walker was an employee of the dog owner, or whether the dog owner’s husband and codefendant was a co-owner of the dog. The motion court also correctly determined that dog-walking is not an inherently dangerous activity *(see, Chainani v Board of Educ.,*87 NY2d 370, 381). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL

OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stephen J. Fanning, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Thermage, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Thermage, Inc.



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 12, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Stephen J. Fanning
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                  |  | Stephen J. Fanning                   
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                 |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

I, John F. Glenn, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Thermage, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Thermage, Inc.



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 12, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ John F. Glenn
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Name:             |  | John F. Glenn          
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Title:            |  | Chief Financial Officer
Charles L. HILL, Jr., DC# C08421, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5505

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 18, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 17 March 2005

in Case T-195/98 Ettlin Gesellschaft für Spinnerei und Weberei AG and Others v Council of the European Union (1)

(Dumping - Failure by the Council to adopt a Commission proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Absence of simple majority necessary for the adoption of a regulation - Obligation to state reasons)

(2005/C 132/41)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-195/98: Ettlin Gesellschaft für Spinnerei und Weberei AG and Others, established in Ettlingen (Germany), Textil Hof Weberei GmbH & Co. KG, established in Hof (Germany), Spinnweberei Uhingen GmbH, established in Uhingen (Germany), F. A. Kümpers GmbH & Co., established in Rheine (Germany), Tenthorey SA, established in Eloyes (France), Les tissages des héritiers de G. Perrin — Groupe Alain Thirion (HGP-GAT Tissages), established in Thiéfosse (France), Établissements des fils de Victor Perrin SARL, established in Thiéfosse (France), Filatures & tissages de Saulxures-sur-Moselotte, established in Saulxures-sur-Moselotte (France), Tissage Mouline Thillot, established in Le Thillot (France), Filature Niggeler & Küpfer SpA, established in Capriolo (Italy), Standardtela SpA, established in Milan (Italy), Verlener Textilwerk, Grimmelt, Wevers & Co. GmbH, established in Velen (Germany), represented by C. Stanbrook, QC, and A. Dashwood, Barrister, against Council of the European Union (Agent: S. Marquardt, assisted by G.M. Berrisch, lawyer) supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: initially M. Ewing, subsequently K. Manji) — action for annulment of the Council's decision of 5 October 1998 to reject the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Pakistan, definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998 (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19) and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of these fabrics originating in Turkey, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on 21 September 1998 (document COM (98) 540 final) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh, P. Mengozzi, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 456 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 21
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 456

                          [Report No. 118-81]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3746) to provide for a 
               responsible increase to the debt ceiling.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 30, 2023

     Mr. Cole, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3746) to provide for a 
               responsible increase to the debt ceiling.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3746) to provide for a 
responsible increase to the debt ceiling. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as 
read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, 
are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill, as amended, and on any further 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 Ways and Means or their respective designees; and 
(2) one motion to recommit.
                                                  House Calendar No. 21

118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 456

                          [Report No. 118-81]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3746) to provide for a 
               responsible increase to the debt ceiling.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 30, 2023

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17

                                 ADDENDUM NO. 1

                                     TO THE

                               SECURITY AGREEMENT
                          DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 26, 2002

              (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE "ORIGINAL AGREEMENT")

                                     BETWEEN

                       PLATINUM UNDERWRITERS BERMUDA, LTD

                    (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE "DEBTOR")

                                       AND

                            PLATINUM RE (UK) LIMITED

                (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE "SECURED PARTY")

WHEREAS, the Debtor and the Secured Party are parties to the Original Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, effective January 1, 2004, the parties hereto hereby agree to
amend the Original Agreement as follows:

      Article I Definitions. The definition of "Credit Support Amount" shall be
      deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

      ""Credit Support Amount" means with respect to the Secured Party on a
      Valuation Date and subject to Section 3.07 in the case of a dispute, an
      amount equal to the sum of (a) an amount equal to the product of 20/55
      multiplied by the outstanding reinsurance recoveries owing to the Secured
      Party by the Debtor as at such Valuation Date under the Retrocession
      Agreement, plus (b) an amount equal to the product of 20/55 multiplied by
      the aggregate of the IBNR and unearned premium reserves attributable as at
      such Valuation Date to the Retrocession Agreement, less 100% of the
      amounts owing to the debtor by the Secured Party as at such Valuation Date
      under the Retrocession Agreement, in each such case as shown by statements
      prepared as at such Valuation Date by the Secured Party; provided,
      however, that the Credit Support Amount will be deemed to be zero if the
      calculation of the Credit Support Amount yields a number less than zero."

All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement remain unchanged.

                                                                     Page 1 of 2
<PAGE>

In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Addendum No.1 to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives.

                                            Platinum Underwriters Bermuda, Ltd.

                                            By: /s/ Francois Bertrand
                                                ------------------------------
                                            Name:  Francois Bertrand
                                            Title:  Senior Vice President

                                            Platinum Re (UK) Limited

                                            By: /s/ Les Waters
                                                ------------------------------
                                            Name:  Les Waters
                                            Title:  Senior Underwriter

                                                                     Page 2 of 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 Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K of Encore Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gareth West, the Chief Executive Officer, and I, Alex McKean, the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:


(1) 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.
 
 /s/ Gareth WestChief Executive Officer/s/ Alex McKeanChief Financial Officer
 
 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.
Carolina Marin HERNANDEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1894

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

 I, Robert Waters, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Precise Life Sciences Ltd., a Nevada Corporation (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

 (1) the Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2003 (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
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.

 Dated: May 21, 2003

/s/ Robert Waters
--------------
Robert Waters
President and Chief Executive Officer
Freddie D. PRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81138

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: February 13, 2019

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Freddie Price appeals the denial of his amended Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion. Price alleged he was coerced into pleading guilty by his plea counsel's failure to prepare for trial, rendering the plea involuntary. After an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court of Jackson County denied his claim. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).