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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. § 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Education Realty Trust, Inc. (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Randall H. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Trust, certify, in my capacity as an officer of the Trust, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Trust.





Date: March 7, 2011





/s/ Randall H. BrownRandall H. BrownChief Financial Officer





In accordance with SEC Release No. 34-47986, this Exhibit is furnished to the SEC as an accompanying document and is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933.
#### P.F. LAZOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George INGLE, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-15882.

D.C. No. CV-96-01681-MCE/KJM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 12, 2004.

Decided May 11, 2004.

Allison Claire, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

James Ching, William V. Cashdollar, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner, and frequent Ninth Circuit litigator, P.F. Lazor appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Lazor seeks expungement of a disciplinary violation from his prison file, contending that the disciplinary conviction adversely affects his chances for parole.

The government argues that because Lazor never served time in the disciplinary unit or lost any “good time” credits as a *740result of the violation, the case no longer presents an active case or controversy and is therefore moot.

We agree with the district court that the case is not moot. This violation has affected Lazor’s parole determination in the past, and there is no showing that it will not be of consequence in the future.

Lazor claims that his Due Process rights were violated both by the allegedly retaliatory nature of the prison’s investigation of his escape attempt and by the failure of the hearing officer to provide notice of the charges against him and to allow him to present a defense. Findings of a prison disciplinary board will generally be sustained where there is “some evidence” to support them. *Superintendent v. Hill,*472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Here the record contains ample evidence showing that Lazor had a full and fair opportunity to participate in the hearing process and supporting the disciplinary board’s findings against him.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Scott L. HUSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2432

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 15, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            1895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       15
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1913
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               71
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1913
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    28
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        7
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    81
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (60)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (60)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (60)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.73)
        

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-08-00587-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MANUEL VILLARREAL, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 156th District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Manuel Villarreal, attempts to appeal his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO

right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On November 18, 2008, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant

has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to

whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the

existence of any amended certification.

On April 7, 2009, the trial court held a status hearing on appellant’s right to appeal.

The trial court found that it was a plea bargain agreement, that the court did not exceed it,

and that appellant did not have the right to appeal. On April 14, 2009, counsel filed a letter

brief with this Court. Counsel’s response does not establish that the certification currently

on file with this Court is incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 30th day of April, 2009.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10354

Summary Calendar

IN RE: RANDAL FRANKLIN CARAWAY

Petitioner-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-MC-3

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Randal Franklin Caraway, Texas prisoner # 756105, appeals the district

court’s denial of his motion to perpetuate testimony pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.

27. He argues that the district court did not provide sufficient facts and reasons

to allow this court to conduct meaningful review. He argues that he was not

seeking discovery; rather he was seeking to perpetuate and obtain “known

testimony.” Caraway argues that he has met all the requirements under Rule

27 for perpetuating testimony and that he cannot file his complaint at this time

because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies.

Caraway has not shown that perpetuation of the testimony of the

identified witnesses in his case is necessary to preventtestimony from being lost

or to prevent a failure or delay of justice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 27(a)(3); Hibernia

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10354

2

Nat’l Bank v. Robinson, 67 F. App’x 241 (5th Cir. 2003); Ash v. Cort, 512 F.2d

909, 911 (3d Cir. 1975). He has not shown that exhaustion of his administrative

remedies will take an unusually long time or that there is a reasonable

likelihood that these witnesses may become unavailable before he exhausts his

administrative remedies. After exhausting his administrative remedies,

Caraway may file a complaint and seek discovery after the court completes its

judicial screening of the case. Therefore, Caraway has not shown that the

district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 27 motion to perpetuate

testimony. See Shore v. Acands, 644 F.2d 386, 388 (5th Cir. 1981).

AFFIRMED.
John Phillip BRYANT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-595

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

John Phillip Bryant, Wewahitchka, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the April 22, 2016 judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2012-CF-32675-A, in the Circuit Court in and for Brevard County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
James DUMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-622

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Donnie HARPER v. Kelly HARPER

2150712

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2556 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2556

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on oysters (other than 
                    smoked), prepared or preserved.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on oysters (other than 
                    smoked), prepared or preserved.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. OYSTERS (OTHER THAN SMOKED), PREPARED OR PRESERVED.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.07 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to oysters (other than smoked), 
prepared or preserved) is amended by striking the date in the effective 
period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 Certification
I, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2004-45;
1.  Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and 4.  The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.
In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.
Date: March 29, 2005   By: /s/ Ellen Z. LamaleName: Ellen Z. LamaleTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary
Exhibit 32.0

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of BV Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of the Company as of and for the period covered
by this Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Carolyn M. MrozCarolyn M. MrozPresident and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 22, 2006By:

/s/ Edmund T. LeonardEdmund T. LeonardChairman of the Board and Chief Financial OfficerSeptember 22, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT ERIN DEHART,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 16 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit
32.1








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





I, David
Zaikin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Siberian Energy Group Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31,
2009 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 Form 10-K
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Siberian Energy Group Inc.





By:/s/ David
Zaikin


David
Zaikin


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)





April 15,
2010
KPMG Auditores Independentes

   Av. Barão de Itapura, 950 - 6o

   13020-431 - Campinas, SP - Brasil

   Caixa Postal 737

   13012-970 - Campinas, SP - Brasil

   Central Tel 55 (19) 2129-8700

   Fax 55 (19) 2129-8728

   Internet www.kpmg.com.br
    Auditors' Letter Regarding Change in Auditor   March 24, 2014. Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 20549   Ladies and Gentlemen:  We were previously principal auditors for CPFL Energia S.A. and, under the date of March 24, 2014, we re-issued our report on the consolidated financial statements of CPFL Energia S.A. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011. We had originally issued our report as of March 29, 2012, reporting on these consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011. We had also re-issued our report on these consolidated financial statements on April 9, 2013. On November 7, 2011, CPFL formally notified the regulator / market that under CVM  Instruction 308/99 the principal auditors would be changed as from the first quarter of 2012.  We have read CPFL Energia S.A. statement included under item 16F of its Form 20F dated March 24, 2014, and we agree with such statement.  Very truly yours,  /s/ KPMG Auditores Independentes   KPMG Auditores Independentes São Paulo, Brazil
Samar M. NASHAGH, Appellant, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; and the Hillsborough County Developmental Services Department, Previously Known as Hillsborough County Planning and Growth Management Department, et al., Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-5106

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Carlos PAVILUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4401

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Pavilus (the defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence, entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of lewd or lascivious molestation. He argues that the trial court erred by 1) conducting an insufficient competency hearing; 2) failing to make an independent competency determination; and 3) failing to enter a written order on competency. The record refutes the defendant's arguments that the trial court conducted an insufficient competency hearing and failed to make an independent determination of his competency. *See* *Davis v. State*, 239 So.3d 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Nevertheless, because the trial court failed to enter a written order reflecting its oral finding of competency announced at the hearing, we remand for the entry of a written order, *nunc pro tunc* to the date when the oral ruling was made. *See* *Wriden v. State*, 238 So.3d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.

SAWAYA, PALMER, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.2**CONSENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Prospectus Supplement to RegistrationStatement No. 333-136147 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-136148 on Form S-3 andRegistration Statement No. 333-136145 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 8, 2007, relating tothe financial statements of Place Portfolio Lessee, LLC as of and for the year ended December 31,2006, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Education Realty Trust, Inc., filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on or about February 29, 2008, and to the reference to WindhamBrannon, P.C. under the heading “Experts” in the Prospectus Supplement, which is part of thisRegistration Statement.At May 10, 2007, we are no longer independent with respect to Place Portfolio Lessee, LLC underRule 3523 of the independence standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board due toindividual tax services provided for an executive of Place Portfolio Lessee, LLC./s/ Windham Brannon, P.C.Atlanta, Georgia
Exhibit 31.2**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Joe V. Olree, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Landmark Land Company, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered 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 financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: November 13, 2006 /s/ JOE V. OLREE         Joe V. Olree    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer