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

Exhibit 32

# 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 Cognos Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), we, Robert G. Ashe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Tom Manley, Senior Vice President, Finance & Administration and 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 our
knowledge:

(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.

|January 5, 2006 |  | /s/ Robert G. Ashe                                  
|--------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                |  |                                                     
|Date            |  | Robert G. Ashe,President and Chief Executive
Officer

|January 5, 2006 |  | /s/ Tom Manley                                                                                                                                              
|--------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                |  |                                                                                                                                                             
|Date            |  | Tom Manley
Senior Vice President, Finance & Administration and    Chief Financial Officer 
    (Principal Financial
Officer    and Chief Accounting Officer)

This certification is being submitted
solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code. This certification is not to be deemed filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section, nor will the certification be deemed incorporated by reference in to any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to
the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

71
A00A1781.

#### JOHNSON v. NELSON-RIVES REALTY, INC.

(538 SE2d 536)

Phipps, Judge.

Landlord Nelson-Rives Realty, Inc. brought this action to dispossess its tenant Johnson because of his failure to pay rent. Nelson-Rives also sought judgment for past due rent in the amount of $1,900 and future rent accruing at the rate of $15 per day. Johnson answered denying that he owed any rent, and he filed a counterclaim seeking to recover $4,000 expended by him as a result of Nelson-Rives’s failure to repair the property. Following trial, the court entered judgment granting Nelson-Rives a writ of possession and dismissing Johnson’s counterclaim with prejudice.

Johnson has filed a pro se appeal. His appellate brief consists of the following statements: “My landlord failed to repair the property. And I did some of the repair on the property so this has lowered the rent claimed. Work cost $3000.00.” Johnson’s brief contains no citations to the record, as there is no transcript of the trial. We must *639therefore assume that the judgment is correct and affirm.1 Because no reasonable grounds for a reversal have been presented, and because it appears that this appeal was taken solely for the purposes of delaying Nelson-Rives’s recovery of the property and allowing Johnson to remain in possession without paying rent, we grant Nelson-Rives’s motion for imposition of a $1,000 penalty for frivolous appeal.2 Such penalty shall constitute a money judgment in favor of Nelson-Rives against Johnson.3

Decided August 22, 2000.

Hoke Johnson, *pro se.*

*Joanna M. Campbell, William S. Dominy,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Johnson, C. J., and Smith, P. J., concur.*

1

*Reid v. Royal Creek Apts. L.P.,*239 Ga. App. 536, 537 (521 SE2d 210) (1999).

2

 See *JarAllah v. American Culinary Federation,*242 Ga. App. 595, 596 (3) (529 SE2d 919) (2000); OCGA § 5-6-6; Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b).

3

 Court of Appeals Rule 15 (c).
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION (CEO)



EFT HOLDINGS, INC.



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
EFT Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jack Jie Qin, principal executive 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:



| | (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:  June 20, 2012 | By:                         | /s/ Jack Jie Qin
|-------------------- | --------------------------- | ----------------
|                     | Jack Jie Qin               
|                     | Principal Executive Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0175. KYJUANE L. CHATMAN v. THE STATE.

In 2004, Chatman was convicted of rape, aggravated sodomy, kidnapping, and

false imprisonment. The trial court imposed life sentences on the rape and aggravated

sodomy counts, twenty years for kidnapping, and ten years for false imprisonment.

1

The trial court ordered that all of the sentences were to run concurrently. We affirmed

Chatman’s convictions on appeal. See Chatman v. State, 283 Ga. App. 673 (642 SE2d

361) (2007). In October 2014, Chatman filed a motion to modify his sentence,

arguing that the state did not give notice of its intent to sentence him as a recidivist.

The trial court denied the motion and this application followed.

An appeal lies from the denial of a motion to correct a void sentence when the

defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void or illegal. See

Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Under Georgia law,

a sentence is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow. A

sentence that falls within the prescribed statutory limits, however, is legally

authorized and is not subject to review by this Court.” (Punctuation and citation

omitted.) Few v. State, 311 Ga. App. 608 (716 SE2d 644) (2011). Under OCGA § 16-

6-1 (b), a person convicted of rape, whether or not he is a recidivist, may be punished

by “imprisonment for life without parole, by imprisonment for life, or by a split

sentence that is a term of imprisonment for not less than 25 years and not exceeding

life imprisonment, followed by probation.”

1 Chatman also pled guilty to marijuana possession for which he received a

sentence of 12 months.

December 19, 2014
Because Chatman’ssentence was within prescribed statutory limits, he has not

raised a colorable void sentence claim. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review

his claim. His application, therefore, is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/19/2014
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40321

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-GARCIA;

AMELIO MENDEZ,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(USDC No. L-95-226)

_________________________________________________________________

December 19, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Amelio Mendez appeals the denial of his motion for judgment of

acquittal on counts two (conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana) and four

(possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of

marijuana); Antonio Hernandez-Garcia, on those counts and count
No. 96-40321

- 2 -

three (importing more than 100 kilograms of marijuana). We

conclude, when all reasonable inferences are viewed in a light

supporting the jury’s verdict, sufficient evidence exists for all

convictions.

Concerning Hernandez-Garcia’s challenge to his sentence, we

lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s refusal to grant a

U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 downward departure, unless it was the result of a

violation of law or a misapplication of the Guidelines. E.g.,

United States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995).

Hernandez-Garcia has not demonstrated either factor was present. 

Hernandez-Garcia also claims that the district court erred in

failing to grant him a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 reduction for minor or

minimal role in the offense. But, it was not clear error to find

that he was not "substantially less culpable than the average

participant". U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (backg'd).

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 69 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 69

     Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
    dedication and devotion of law enforcement personnel should be 
recognized and that calls to ``defund'', ``disband'', ``dismantle'', or 
              ``abolish'' the police should be condemned.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2023

Ms. Malliotakis (for herself, Mrs. McClain, Mr. Feenstra, Ms. Salazar, 
Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Carl, Ms. 
 Tenney, Mr. D'Esposito, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Guest, Mr. Issa, Mr. 
Moore of Alabama, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Kean of New Jersey, Mr. Gimenez, Mr. 
    Moolenaar, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Finstad, Mr. Baird, Mr. 
   Reschenthaler, Mr. Ciscomani, Mrs. Harshbarger, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. 
Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Owens, Mr. Bost, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Mrs. 
Chavez-DeRemer, Mr. LaLota, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Stauber, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. 
    Williams of New York, and Mr. Calvert) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
    dedication and devotion of law enforcement personnel should be 
recognized and that calls to ``defund'', ``disband'', ``dismantle'', or 
              ``abolish'' the police should be condemned.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the House--
            (1) recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion 
        demonstrated by the men and women of law enforcement who keep 
        our communities and our Nation safe; and
            (2) condemns calls to ``defund'', ``disband'', 
        ``dismantle'', or ``abolish'' the police.
                                 <all>
```
SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. TRUE BUILDERS, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2001

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. PORCELLI, P.A., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FEDERAL INSURANCE CO., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1730

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
FRANCE v. NC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

234P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Corey Eugene France, Taylorsville, For France, Corey

Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, For NC Department of Public Safety

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of June 2019 by Plaintiff for Leave for Joinder of Appeals:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

Davis, J., recused
CERTIFICATION

      I, Alfonso Knoll, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Daleco
Resources Corporation for the period ending June 30, 2005 ("quarterly report").

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

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

      4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

            (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

            (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            (c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

      5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

            (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and

            (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

      6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date August 15, 2005                      /s/ Alfonso Knoll
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Alfonso Knoll
                                          Chief Executive Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation
Docket No. 

### FAA- Directorate Identifier: 20 15
- CE
- 039-AD



### Add the work hours. p a rts co st , and number 

## ol US. r egisturedproduct:s to the 

### rahlu h e/ow. W hun you ar c .f

iuished. dick 

### on The ·· U pdate 

### Fie ld:s ., huttnn To 

### aWollwtiwl/ y .fi/1 in The 

### totals. 

### Update Fields 

# I

Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance)

replacement) Work
- hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost Do not include on- (include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet condition cos ts h ere access , te sting , (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### "n

**·w~t11m.** 

### rt:pa ir. t'h.:. A one -time inspection in accordance with .5 work
- hours 0 35 Piper SB 1213A
This in stalls the Piper MOD kit in accordance 2 work-hours $20 .95 380 with Piper SB 1 188

The known number of products in compliance: 0 Total Costs of compliance for 

### U.S. fleet: $78,426.00 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if known) $ \\

**:1r···m·~** On-Condition Costs: 

## @ Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., In spection , (i nclude access, (@$85/hour) testing, and close- replacement) u p) Inspection If the inspection reveals a misrouted cable Reroute the cable i n 2 $21.00 accordance with Piper SBI2 13A



## 8

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvio us. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) : 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action "? 

# 0 YES* 

## 0 NO IZI *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? 

# 0 YES* 

## 0

**NO ~**  

### *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a sign ificant economic impact on a s ubstantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer . 

# G YES 0 NO IZI Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrasta te aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 

# G YES* 0

**NO~** 

### *Explanation:



## 9
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Carlton Parfitt, Director and the Chief Financial Officer of Shotgun Energy Corporation, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (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: November 16, 2007



/s/ Carlton Parfitt

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

Carlton Parfitt

Director and Chief Financial Officer
Anthony Q. LAWRENCE v. STATE

CR-15-0403

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDOM POLYMER STRUCTURE:
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 538 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 538

 Expunging the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John 
                                 Trump.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2023

  Ms. Greene of Georgia (for herself and Ms. Stefanik) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expunging the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John 
                                 Trump.

Whereas President Trump was wrongfully accused of misconduct in House Resolution 
        755, Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for 
        high crimes and misdemeanors, as demonstrated by the information 
        revealed in an unclassified FD-1023 FBI document: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President 
Donald John Trump is expunged, as if such Articles had never passed the 
full House of Representatives, as the facts and circumstances upon 
which such Articles were based did not meet the burden of proving the 
commission of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'', as set forth in section 
4 of article II of the Constitution.
                                 <all>
```
Nevis JENNINGS, Jr. v. STATE

CR-15-1295

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Order entered January 15, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00510
- CV JACOLBY ANDERSON, Appellant

V. LONESTAR PATENT SERV ICES, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 00393
- E



### O RDER In his brief on the merits, appellant asserts error in the failure of the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law despite his timely

- filed r equest. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 298. Accordingly, on the Court’s own motion, we ORDER the Honorable Mark Greenberg, Judge of County Court at Law No. 5, to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law WITHIN TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order.
W e ORDER John Warren, Dallas County Clerk, to file, WITHIN TWENTY
- FIVE DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant may file an amended brief within th irty days of the filing of the supplemental clerk’s record.We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Judge Greenberg, Mr.

Warren, and all parties.
We ABATE this appeal to allow Judge Greenberg to comply with this order. The appe al will be reinstated in thirty days or when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed, whichever

occurs sooner. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
[No. 52681-2-I.

Division One.

June 1, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Keina Young, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-07218-4, Deborah D. Fleck, J., entered June 25,2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Environmental Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that: 

1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company complies in all material respects 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  

/s/ Greg Holsted

Greg Holsted, Chief Financial Officer

Date: December 16, 2005