alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**


Certification





I, David D. Stovall, Chief Executive Officer of Habersham Bancorp, certify that:





1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Habersham Bancorp;





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 annual 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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15e) for the registrant and we have:





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





b)
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; and,





c)
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 case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





5.
The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.




Date: August 11, 2004/s/ David D. StovallDavid D. StovallChief Executive Officer
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2735 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on helium. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. CASEY 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 helium. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. HELIUM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.47 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 helium) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

7 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         345,887
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,268
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,155
<PP&E>                                         284,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                  98,913
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,595,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          351,173
<BONDS>                                        202,579
<COMMON>                                          5152
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,595,535
<SALES>                                         83,085
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,085
<CGS>                                           16,413
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               295,853
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                140,718
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            140,718
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   140,718
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
----

**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**

| 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 conditions and results of operations of                Registrant. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                November 19, 2007 | /s/                Tami J. Story     |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    | Tami                J. Story                           |
|                                    | Principal                Accounting Officer            |

----

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00866-CR

Guillermo GARIBALDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023CR4384

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 22, 2023

DISMISSED

On September 20, 2023, appellant Guillermo Garibaldo filed a “Notice of AppealNegotiated Plea.” After Garibaldo filed his notice of appeal, the district clerk filed a copy of the 

clerk’s record showing Garibaldo entered into a written plea bargain agreement with the State 

pursuant to which he pled nolo contendere to family violence assault by strangulation. The clerk’s 

record further shows the trial court imposed a sentence in accordance with the agreement and 

signed a certification stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” 

and “the defendant has waived the right to appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 
04-23-00866-CR

- 2 -

“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised 

by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to 

appeal; or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” Id. We must dismiss 

an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made 

part of the record.” Id. R. 25.2(d). 

Here, the clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed 

the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by Garibaldo. It also does not 

include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate the trial court gave 

Garibaldo permission to appeal. Thus, the record supports the trial court’s certification this is a 

plea-bargain case and Garibaldo does not have a right to appeal. See id. R. 25.2; Dears v. State, 

154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals should review clerk’s record to 

determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). 

On October 2, 2023, we ordered Garibaldo to file a response establishing an amended 

certification showing he has the right to appeal has been made part of the appellate record. We 

cautioned Garibaldo failure to satisfactorily respond to this order within the time provided would 

result in the dismissal of this appeal. Garibaldo did not file a response by the ordered date. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish
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 this Amendment No. 1
to theannual report of
China Housing & Land Development, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for
the period ended December
31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date
hereof (the Report ), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
of his knowledge:





i.       
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





ii.       
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and will be furnished to the SEC or our staff uponrequest.








/s/ William
Xin


William Xin


Chief Financial
Officer


April 13, 2009








This Certification of Chief Financial
Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is not
“filed”for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Actof
1934 but is instead furnished as provided by applicable rules of the Securities
Exchange Commission.”
**Exhibit99.2**

 

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Brooktrout, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert C. Leahy, VicePresident of Finance and Operations of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|  Date: November  14, 2002 | By:    | /s/ ROBERT C.  LEAHY                            |
|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                           |   | Robert C. Leahy                                 |
|                           |   | *Vice  President of Finance and Operations*     |
|                           |   | *(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS, 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 Report of LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth C.
Donahey, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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) To the best of my knowledge information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: February 6, 2006

                                          /s/ Kenneth C. Donahey
                                          --------------------------------------

                                          Kenneth C. Donahey
                                          Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                          and President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,245
<SECURITIES>                                     1,951
<RECEIVABLES>                                      691
<ALLOWANCES>                                        33
<INVENTORY>                                        516
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,828
<PP&E>                                          62,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,358
<BONDS>                                            422
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           345
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,455
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,908
<SALES>                                          1,834
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,184
<CGS>                                            1,542
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    852
<INCOME-TAX>                                       241
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                611
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       611
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13


</TABLE>
# AGENCY:

National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

# ACTION:

Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

# SUMMARY:

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is withdrawing the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting comments on the implementation of the Low-Power Television and Translator Upgrade Program (Upgrade Program). After reviewing and considering the comments received following two public meetings, the agency has decided not to proceed with regulations to implement the Upgrade Program. NTIA will establish and implement the Upgrade Program through a Notice of Availability of Funds (NOFA) to be published shortly.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

April 20, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        William Cooperman, Upgrade Program, Director Broadcasting Division, telephone: (202) 482-5802; fax: (202) 482-2156. Information about the Upgrade Program also can be obtained electronically via the Internet at                         *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/​lptv*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

Section 3009 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 21 (2006), required the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to implement and administer the Low-Power Television and Translator Upgrade Program (Upgrade Program). The Upgrade Program is intended to provide reimbursement to eligible low-power television broadcast stations, Class A television stations, television translator stations, or television booster stations for equipment to upgrade from analog to digital in eligible rural communities. On October 9, 2008, NTIA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Public Meetings, 73 Fed. Reg. 59,586 (2008), to announce two public meetings (October 24 and October 28, 2008) about the Upgrade Program and to provide an opportunity for public comment on the issues to be discussed at these public meetings.

                    NTIA received 24 public comments on the Upgrade Program through mid-November 2008. Information provided at the October 24, 2008, public meeting and the comments received are available on NTIA's Web site at                     *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/​lptv/​upgrade.html.*                     After reviewing and considering the comments received, NTIA has decided not to proceed with regulations to implement the program. NTIA will issue a NOFA that provides detailed information concerning the implementation of the program in the                     **Federal Register**                    . The comments received will be fully discussed in the NOFA.                

Dated: April 14, 2009.

Anna M. Gomez,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.

[FR Doc. E9-8989 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-60-S
#### Brian K. BURKHOLDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L.E. BRUCE; Attorney General of the State of Kansas, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-3259.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 11, 2004.

Brian Burkholder, Lansing, KS, pro se.

Jared S. Maag, Kristafer R. Ailslieger, Office of the Attorney General, Topeka, KS, for Respondents-Appellees.

*281Before EBEL, ANDERSON, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner-appellant, proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted a certificate of appealability to consider whether the state trial court had violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights (1) by denying petitioner’s motion to substitute counsel the day before his trial for burglary and theft, or (2) by denying his motion in the alternative to proceed *pro se*in that trial.

Petitioner alleges that the state trial court abused its discretion by finding his request to substitute counsel on the eve of trial untimely and by not making further inquiry into why he had requested new counsel. Petitioner also asserts that the district court committed reversible error when it determined that he was not competent to represent himself because he was illiterate and admitted that he did not understand the charges against him. We affirm the denial of petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.

We review a district court’s conclusions of law *de novo*and its findings of fact, if any, for clear error. *LaFevers v. Gibson,*182 F.3d 705, 711 (10th Cir.1999). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(l)-(2), no writ of habeas corpus shall issue unless the decision of the state court either was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or ... was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the standards applicable to petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, we hold that petitioner has raised no ground for a writ to issue in this case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the denial of a writ of habeas corpus for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.