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

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sierra Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul H. Palmer, 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: 

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
I would like to apply for a drone license to take aerial photos of farm land and residential properties for 

Real Estate listings. 

Michael Collins 

79 Mohawk Trl 

Buffalo Grove IL 60089 

847‐331‐1078 

mcollins78.mc@gmail.com 

technology@nsbar.org
---

CONSENT

Each of the undersigned hereby consents to the use of its name
and references to, and the use of information derived from, the technical report
dated December 6, 2011 entitled Technical Report Carbon Creek Coal Property
British Columbia, Canada in the following documents, which are being filed as
exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the annual report on Form 40-F of
Cardero Resource Corp. (the Company) being filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission and which is being incorporated by reference
into the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-151385) of the Company:

| | 1. | The Companys annual information form for the fiscal year
      ended October 31, 2011; and         
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                     
| | 2. | The Companys managements discussion and analysis for
      the fiscal year ended October 31, 2011.

DATED January 30, 2012

|Norwest Corporation |                       | (signed) *Lawrence D. Henchel*
|------------------- | --------------------- | --------------------------------
|                    |                       |                                 
|Per:                | (signed) Kirk Weber |                                 
|Name:               | Kirk Weber            |                                 
|Title:              | Vice President        |                                 

---
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 VioSolar Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending July 31, 2007, and as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rick Walchuk, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.











By: _/s/ Rick Walchuk___________

Name: Rick Walchuk

Title: President, Director and Chief Executive Officer









Date:

February 15, 2008
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JERRY ARMSTRONG,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

SISKIYOU COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-17801

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01046-GEBGGH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jerry Armstrong appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was unlawfully arrested for

violating the terms of his parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

FILED

MAR 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-17801

We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant

Stewart because Armstrong failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to

whether Stewart unlawfully arrested Armstrong without legal grounds to do so and

conspired to put him back into custody. See Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d

1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 1996) (“mere allegation and speculation do not create a

factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment”). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant

Tharsing because he is protected by qualified immunity. See Burns v. Reed, 500

U.S. 478, 495 (1991) (qualified immunity “provides ample protection to all but the

plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Monell claim

because Armstrong failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether

Tharsing’s direction of Armstrong to the halfway house was pursuant to a

municipal policy, custom, or practice, or because of a failure to train officers to

avoid issuing such directives. See Galen v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652,

667-68 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth required elements of a Monell claim). 
3 09-17801

We do not consider Armstrong’s arguments raised for the first time on

appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Armstrong’s motion to amend is granted. His motion for default judgment

is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
Guillermo CALDERON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3882

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00100-CV

Saprina Robledo, Individually and as Next Friend of B.J.R., Appellant

v.

H.E.B. Grocery Company, LP, Appellee

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. D-1-GN-13-002668, THE HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was originally due on July 12, 2018. On August 3, 2018, this 

Court sent a notice to appellant informing her that her brief was overdue and that a failure to file 

a satisfactory response by August 13, 2018, would result in the dismissal of this appeal for want 

of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: August 23, 2018
* The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3934

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District Luis Lira, also known as Luis Joel * of Minnesota. Lira-Lopez, also known as Joel Lira- * Lopez, also known as David Machuka- * [UNPUBLISHED] Hernandez, also known as Manuel * Machuka-Perez, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 26, 2004 Filed: August 31, 2004

___________ Before SMITH, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Luis Lira appeals the sentence the district court * imposed after Lira pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and illegally reentering the United States-2- following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Lira’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the court should have sentenced Lira below the statutory minimum. We conclude the district court committed no error in not departing below thestatutory minimum sentence, because the government had not filed a substantialassistance motion and Lira did not qualify for safety-valve relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1); United States v. Chacon , 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003). Having conducted an independent review under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and finding no nonfrivolous issues, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2463 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2463

 To suspend temporarily the duty on fireworks (Class 1.4G), other than 
                     display or special fireworks.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on fireworks (Class 1.4G), other than 
                     display or special fireworks.

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

SECTION 1. FIREWORKS (CLASS 1.4G), OTHER THAN DISPLAY OR SPECIAL 
              FIREWORKS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Fireworks (Class    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        1.4G), other than                                                  31/2015.......
                        display or
                        special fireworks
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3604.10.90)......

    (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>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2895 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2895

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3,5-triazine, 2,4,6-tris(2-
                            propenyloxyl)-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3,5-triazine, 2,4,6-tris(2-
                            propenyloxyl)-.

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

SECTION 1. 1,3,5-TRIAZINE, 2,4,6-TRIS(2-PROPENYLOXYL)-.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      1,3,5-Triazine,     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        2,4,6-tris(2-                                                      31/2015.......
                        propenyloxyl)-
                        (CAS No. 101-37-
                        1) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        2933.69.60)......

    (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>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40543 Summary Calendar

JOEL DAVILA, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-96-CV-5

- - - - - - - - - - July 2, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joel Davila, # 611966, appeals the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Davila argues that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary due to counsel’s ineffective assistance, because counsel erroneouslyNo. 96-40543 - 2 -

** Davila did not allege the specifics of this claim in the district court, and so his allegations relating to counsel’s failure to investigate the case, made for the first time on appeal, will not be considered. Alexander v. McCotter , 775 F.2d 595, 603 (5th Cir. 1985).

*** This alleged error is irrelevant in the context of a guilty plea.

  Davila provides no facts or argument for this alleged error in his brief, and so it is not considered. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). informed him that he was charged with simple sexual assault, not aggravated sexual assault. He also contends that counsel failed to investigate the case, **  failed to call witnesses in favor of the defense *** , and failed to pursue “predicatory procedures” that would have effectually preserved errors for appeal. **** Davila has failed to show that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief.
See Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); Armstead v. Scott , 37 F.3d 202, 210 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1709 (1995). The Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6306** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ANDRES WILFREDO TORRIENTE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Spartanburg
. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 7:07

- cr - 01363

- TMC

- 2 )

Submitted : July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Andres Wilfredo Torriente, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Andres Wilfredo Torriente seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003) . When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. a t 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Torriente has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Torriente’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**IN RE: BETTY J. FIEDLER**

**PETITION OF: LATISHA BITTS AND**

**ADAM BUCKIUS :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 95 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 3rd day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000751256
<NAME>                         DYCO OIL AND GAS 1985-2 PROGRAM

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                             24,173
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      23,931
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   48,104
<PP&E>                         22,431,141
<DEPRECIATION>                 22,398,971
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     96,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               6,147
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                         87,156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       96,530
<SALES>                            36,102
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   36,814
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      27,191
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     9,623
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 9,623
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        9,623
<EPS-BASIC>                          2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ASIAN TRENDS MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CLIFFORD CHINA ESTATES, INC.) PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Asian Trends Media Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Clifford China Estates, Inc.) (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Zhi Jian Zeng, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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.

/S/ ZHI JIAN ZENG, JR. Zhi Jian Zeng, Jr. Chief Executive Officer June 17, 2009 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
* The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3778

___________ Michael Bauge, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner * of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 2004 Filed: May 17, 2004

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michael Bauge appeals the district court’s * order affirming the denial of supplemental security income (SSI). After a hearing, during which the administrative law judge (ALJ) posed a hypothetical question to a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ found Bauge was not eligible for SSI because he could perform a range of sedentary, light, and unskilled jobs. For reversal, Bauge argues the ALJ committed error in-2- discounting his subjective complaints; in ignoring the opinion of Clark Borland (with whom Bauge was involved in vocational rehabilitation), who questioned whether Bauge could work competitively; and in omitting from the hypothetical the effects of Bauge's diarrhea and resulting need to leave his work station at unscheduled times. We affirm. The ALJ was entitled to discredit Bauge’s subjective complaints based on his asserted daily activities, seeDunahoo v. Apfel , 241 F.3d 1033, 1038-39 (8th Cir. 2001), and the ALJ also properly relied on other relevant factors, including exaggeration of symptoms, lack of significant work history, and the effectiveness of at least some of Bauge’s prescribed medications, see Jones v. Callahan , 122 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (8th Cir. 1997); Comstock v. Chater , 91 F.3d 1143, 1147 (8th Cir. 1996); Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). As to Borland’s letter, the ALJ did not discuss it in any detail, but confirmed its receipt and stated he had considered all the documents in the record. See Craig v. Apfel , 212 F.3d 433, 436 (8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ is not required to discuss all evidence, and failure to cite specific evidence does not indicate it was not considered). Finally, the ALJ’s hypothetical included the claimant’s need to have access to the restroom and his several gastrointestinal diseases, and the ALJ expressly found Bauge’s subjectivecomplaints not credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the ALJ’s nodisability determination. See Haggard v. Apfel , 175 F.3d 591, 595 (8th Cir. 1999) (hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth impairments ALJ accepts as true). Bauge’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal. We thus affirm the district court.

______________________________