alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The undersigned, Sherry L. Couturier, CFO of Hammonds Industries, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Annual Report of Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008.






The undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above annual report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of Hammonds Industries, Inc. and results of its operations.






Date: February 23, 2010


Sherry L. Couturier


CFO /s/ Sherry L. Couturier
Barbara Lynn FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. William John MARKIE, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2530

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 Winland Electronics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lorin E. Krueger,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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
Company. Dated: May 5, 2004/s/ Lorin E. KruegerLorin E. KruegerChief Executive Officer
Valentin SPATARU, Appellant, v. Rick RAMSAY, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-671

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

Valentin Spataru, in proper person.

Purdy, Jolly, Giuffreda & Barranco, P.A., and Gregory J. Jolly (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before LAGOA, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Santa Rosa Cty. v. Administration Com'n, Div. of Admin. Hearings*, 661 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 1995) (observing that "Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment, what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the *possibility* of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical 'state of facts which have not arisen' and are only 'contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future.' " (quoting *764*LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc.*, 406 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) ) (additional citations omitted) ) ); *Behm v. Campbell*, 925 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that defendant's plea of no contest, accompanied by a withhold of adjudication of guilt, nevertheless established probable cause for the defendant's arrest and precluded a collateral challenge of the legality of that arrest by way of a civil suit for false arrest).
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 Our Glass, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. Date: February 28, 2011 /s/ Cosmo Palmieri Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of MHI Hospitality Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. Zaiser, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, 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 Corporation.

Date: March 26, 2008



By:

/s/    WILLIAM J.
ZAISERName:

William J. ZaiserTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
#### Gurmeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70764, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 14, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

Mohinder Singh, Walnut Creek, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Susan K. Houser, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WALLACE, KOZINSKI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

The IJ did not err in rejecting petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner was not credible. *Pal v. INS,*204 F.3d 935, 937-38 (9th Cir.2000).

*172The IJ’s questioning of petitioner during his hearing did not violate petitioner’s right to due process because such questioning is permissible and petitioner has not demonstrated prejudice. *AntonioCruz v. INS,*147 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir.1998).

Nor did the BIA’s decision to streamline petitioner’s case violate due process, *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003), or contravene 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7). .

PETITION DENIED.

**

 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.
IN the INTEREST OF H.R., a child.

G.L.R., Jr., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3926

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 15, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Official Journal C 164A/24 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 164A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6024 May 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 164A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6024 May 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2017/C 164 A/01 | Vacancy Notice ECA/2017/7 — 1 lawyer post — experience in European law required — Presidency — Legal Service (Function group AD, Grade AD 7-AD 9) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Court of Auditors

2017/C 164 A/01

Vacancy Notice ECA/2017/7 — 1 lawyer post — experience in European law required — Presidency — Legal Service (Function group AD, Grade AD 7-AD 9)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                               1902
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     1902
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1902
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                        1,001,050
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1902
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       800
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                          800
<EPS-BASIC>                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0


</TABLE>
U.L. COLEMAN COMPANY, LTD. v. Keitha Dickson GOSSLEE

No. 2018-C-0239

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 16, 2018

Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

*181I would grant this writ, for the well-articulated reasons assigned by Judge Brown and Judge Bleich in their dissents in the court of appeal. Specifically, it is clear that U.L. Coleman and Keitha Dickson Gosslee had a complex and evolving-or devolving-professional relationship. The trial judge adroitly evaluated and analyzed the evidence, making credibility determinations of the principals of this matter, Coleman and Gosslee, and made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. In my view, there was abundant evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion in light of the testimony. I would therefore grant this writ and reinstate the trial court's judgment.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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 registrant, 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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.




---



##### 



/s/ Thomas R. Venables
Richard L. RESPESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2989

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18

OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Shimoda Marketing, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael B. Cranfill, Chief Executive Officer 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:



(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/ Michael B. Cranfill



MICHAEL B. CRANFILL

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

Shimoda Marketing, Inc.



March 31, 2008
Gustavo A. RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-422

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Julian Christian MCINTOSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3844

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018

Julian Christian McIntosh, DeFuniak Springs, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Julian Christian McIntosh, appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 post-conviction motion alleging six claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse the portion of the order summarily denying ground one and otherwise affirm without discussion.

Appellant was charged with three counts: aggravated assault of Jose Barcia, *277aggravated assault of Brittany DeLemos,1 and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Prior to trial, the State nolle prossed the charge of aggravated assault against Brittany DeLemos, and Appellant was acquitted in a bifurcated jury trial of aggravated assault against Jose Barcia. He was convicted as charged, however, following a separate trial on the count for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

In ground one, Appellant alleges that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call Brittany DeLemos at the second trial, claiming that she would have testified that he did not possess a firearm. Although Ms. DeLemos's proffered testimony could have been impeached with a prior inconsistent statement, Appellant alleges that she would have explained at trial that she lied in her 911 call because, at the time, she was "filled with emotions" and "was desperate" to have Appellant out of her house.2 Given our record, we conclude that Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on ground one unless the trial court on remand is able to attach records conclusively refuting Appellant's claim.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

1

The record indicates that Brittany DeLemos is also known as Brittany McIntosh.

2

Appellant attached an affidavit signed by Brittany DeLemos that is consistent with his allegations.
v237299_ex4-2 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing
Christopher FINLAYSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-305

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCEPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2004-42 (the Trust) I, Nancy H. Forte, a duly elected and acting officer of Citibank, N.A. (Indenture Trustee),
do hereby certify on behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that: 1. I have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the application of
trust money collected by the Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section
6.06 of the Indenture pursuant to which the Trusts notes were issued during the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2004 (the Relevant Year); and 2. Based upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Compliance, dated March 15, 2005,
prepared by the Ernst & Young LLP substantially in accordance with Section 4.05 of the Expense and
Indemnity Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the application of trust money collected by the
Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture was
performed in accordance with the terms of the Indenture throughout the Relevant Year. CITIBANK, N.A., as Indenture Trustee By:
    
    /s/ Nancy H. ForteName: Nancy H. ForteTitle: Assistant Vice President
 Date: March 29, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.2



NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, 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 quarterly report of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 25, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John F. McGrath, Jr., Vice President 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:

(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.



August 3, 2004

/s/ John F. McGrath, Jr.

John F. McGrath, Jr.

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer











Page #
EXHIBIT 32.1





NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, 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 Quarterly Report of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 24, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hubert A. J. Whyte, President and Chief 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.





November 2, 2004







/s/ Hubert A. J. Whyte

Hubert A. J. Whyte

President and Chief Executive Officer
Curt L. WALKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE CO., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2245

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 01, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Karen KARAM and Nicholas Robert Orow, Appellants, v. Gregory A. KARAM, Anthony A. Karam, Copper, LLC, and Bronze, LLC, Appellees.

No. 4D17-1208

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Yves CONSTANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1048

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 1, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The undersigned, Sherry L. McKinzey, CFO of Delta Seaboard International, Inc, a Texas corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Annual Report of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. 
 
 The undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above annual report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of Delta Seaboard International, Inc. and results of its operations.
 
 
 Date: March 31, 2011
 Sherry L. Couturier


CFO


/s/ Sherry L. McKinzey
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20702

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ORLANDO JORGE ESPINOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-93-CR-312-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1997

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Orlando Jorge Espinoza appeals the denial of his motion to

correct judgment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in which he

requested that the judgment against him be corrected to reflect

the guideline amendment which changed his base offense level from

40 to 38, and his total offense level from 45 to 43. The

district court determined that Espinoza’s sentence would not have

been lower if the amendment to the guidelines had been in effect
No. 96-20702

- 2 -

at the time Espinoza was sentenced and denied the motion as

futile. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

refusing relief that would have no effect. See United States v.

Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Espinoza argues he was entitled to a hearing on his motion. 

Absent a factual dispute, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in ruling on the motion without first conducting a

hearing. See United States v. Townsend, 55 F.3d 168, 171-72 (5th

Cir. 1995). 

AFFIRMED.