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

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

          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 Citizens Bancorp (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Lark E. Wysham, 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/ Lark E. Wysham
-------------------------------
Lark E. Wysham
Chief Financial Officer
March 21, 2006
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 Inyx, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Zinn, Acting
      Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and




(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the registrant.









______________




By:
                /s/ David ZinnDavid
                    Zinn,
                  Vice
                    President, FinanceNovember 30, 2006
Exhibit
12.4



Certification
of the Principal Executive Officer pursuant to §302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Certification



I,
Leslie Auld, certify that:



|1. | I
    have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F of Aeterna Zentaris Inc.;and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|2. | Based
    on my knowledge, this 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 report.



Date:
June 18, 2020



|/s/
    Leslie Auld         | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Leslie
    Auld             | 
|Chief
    Financial Officer |
Antonio MIRO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-1045

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 28, 2018.

Marcia J. Silvers, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6741

KEVIN JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD R. GUILLORY, Chief Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; DAVID W. BARNES, Medical Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; FRED SCHILLING, Health Services Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, District Judge. (CA-96-1175-AM) Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: December 18, 1997 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Carlyle Randolph Wimbish, III, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Appellant's "Motion for Writ of Contempt" and supporting affidavits allege, among other things, that he has been denied access to his legal papers and to law books, which prevented him from adequately preparing his informal brief for this appeal. Since this motion was filed, however, Appellant has filed a supplemental brief which supports his posi tion and contains thorough citations to legal authority. We have considered the supplemental brief, so Appellant's appeal has not been prejudiced by any lack of access to materials. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Guillory , No. CA-96-1175-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for writ of contempt. * We also deny Appellant's motion for an order granting him unconditional in forma pauperis status. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1770.

#### DOWDY *v.*THE STATE

'The evidence was sufficient to authorize the conviction.

Accusation of larceny from house, from city court of Washington — rJudge Wynne. March 1, 1909.

Submitted April 13, —

Decided May 4, 1909.

*I. T. Irvin,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. C. Norman, solicitor,*contra.

Powell, J.

The defendant was charged with larceny from the house, in that he stole certain cottonseed from an outhouse of a Mr. Eay. The proof was that he and another negro, named Bradley, went “to the cottonseed house” of Mr. Eay and stole the cottonseed therefrom. The only point made as to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is that the indictment charged an outhouse and the proof showed a cottonseed house. This is not a material variance. The judge who tried the case without the intervention of a jury was authorized, as a trior of the facts, to infer, ■from his general experience and observation, that a cottonseed house is an outhouse. The plaintiff in error cites the case of *Thompson*v. *State,*92 *Ga.*448 (17 S. E. 265), in which it was held that “an allegation in an indictment that a grindstone was ■stolen from a ‘wagon shed-house’ is not supported by evidence showing that the grindstone in question was stolen from *under*a ‘buggy shed-house.’” The italics in the foregoing quotations were inserted by the Supreme Court itself and plainly were intended to emphasize the fact that the larceny did not take place in the house • or from the house, but was *under*a shed. To steal from under a ■shed is not larceny from the house, in this State. *McCabe*v. *State,*1 *Ga. App.*719 (58 S. E. 277).

*160The plaintiff in error also excepts to the admission of testimony that he and the negro Bradley were frequently seen together about Mr. Bay’s place during the period in which the larceny was supposed to have been committed. There was no error in admitting this testimony. *Judgment affirmed.*
Henry J. LAGI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4447

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 14, 2019

Henry J Lagi, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant seeks review of orders denying his motions to dismiss. The orders on appeal are not within the scope of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b), which lists the types of orders a criminal defendant may appeal. Interlocutory orders are not generally appealable by criminal defendants. *Cf.**Hijuelos v. State* , 73 So.3d 364, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (noting "a defendant in a criminal proceeding may not bring a separate appeal, which is independent of the plenary appeal from the judgment and sentence, for review of an order denying a motion to suppress"). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Wetherell, Osterhaus, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




STELLENT, INC.

AMENDMENT TO

OPTIKA IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC.

1994 STOCK OPTION/STOCK ISSUANCE PLAN




     Article Five of the Optika Imaging Systems, Inc. 1994 Stock Option/Stock
Issuance Plan (the “1994 Plan”) adopted by Stellent, Inc. (“Stellent”) in
connection with its acquisition of Optika Inc. was amended and restated in its
entirety by a written action by the Board of Directors of Stellent effective as
of July 28, 2004, to read as follows:



ARTICLE FIVE




Intentionally Omitted




     Except as set forth above, the 1994 Plan remains in full force and effect
without amendment or modification in any respect.
Alejandro D. BENABE-RIVERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-315

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 11, 2018

Alejandro D. Benabe-Rivera, Perry, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
1879.

#### Wall *v.*Crown Cotton Mills.

Action for damages, from city court of Dalton — Judge Route presiding. April 3, 1909.

Submitted June 24, —

Decided October 5, 1909.

*William F. Mann, M. G. Tarver,*for plaintiff.

*Shepard Bryan, Julian McCamy,*for defendant.

Powell, J.

The only meritorious exception in the record is that the court charged the jury as follows: “If you find there are conflicts in the evidence, material conflicts, or conflicts about material matters, you will reconcile those; if you can, so as to make all witnesses speak the truth, without imputing perjury to any one. If you can not do this, then it would be your *duty*to believe that witness or those witnesses who have the best opportunity of knowing the facts about which they testify, and the least inducement to swear falsely.’-’ This was error; and in the light of the conflicting state of the evidence, and of the fact that the testimony of the plaintiff himself entered largely into the conflict, it was reversible error. *Southern Mutual Ins. Co.*v. *Hudson,*113 *Ga.*434 (38 S. E. 964); *Hudson*v. *Best,*104 *Ga.*131 (30 S. E. 688), and cit.

*Judgment reversed.*
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LESLIE T. HOLMES,

 Appellant,

v.

TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-10-00003-CV

Appeal from the

172nd Judicial District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas 

(TC# E-717,301) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on our own motion for determination whether is should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant, Leslie T. Holmes, filed a notice of appeal on

November 30, 2009. By letter dated January 11, 2010, the clerk of this Court notified Appellant

that the clerk’s record in this case was past due, and that the Court had received notice from the

District Clerk that a designation of record or financial arrangements for the appellate record had

not been made. Appellant was further notified of our intent to dismiss the case for want of

prosecution unless, within ten days of the notice, a party demonstrated grounds for continuing the

appeal. Appellant has not responded to the notice. Accordingly, pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3,

we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

February 10, 2010

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Charles R.Poole, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of GlobalSCAPE, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

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

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly  report based on such evaluation; and

c)             disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a)             all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:    August 11, 2006
|   | /s/ Charles R. Poole                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Charles R. Poole                       |
|   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10362

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BARRY LALANE HARRELL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-196-5

Before JONES, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Barry Lalane Harrell appeals the 24-month sentence of imprisonment 

imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that 

the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to 

adequately consider his history and characteristics, focused solely on his 

criminal history, and imposed a sentence above the advisory policy range 

without adequate justification.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10362 Document: 00515283058 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2020
No. 19-10362

2

The record reflects that the district court heard Harrell’s arguments for 

leniency based on his history and characteristics and implicitly considered 

those arguments but determined that the 24-month sentence was appropriate 

based on the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, in view of Harrell’s 

criminal history and supervised release violations. We must give due 

deference to the district court’s sentencing decision and decline to reweigh the 

applicable § 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

With respect to challenges to substantive reasonableness, we have 

routinely upheld revocation sentences exceeding the advisory policy range, 

even where, as here, the sentence equals the statutory maximum. United

States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Under the totality of the 

circumstances, the sentence in this case was not an abuse of discretion. See id.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-10362 Document: 00515283058 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2020
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        This action was issued on December 17, 2024. See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         for relevant dates.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or                         *https://ofac.treasury.gov/​contact-ofac*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:                     *https://ofac.treasury.gov*.                

## Notice of OFAC Action

On December 17, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
      ( print page 104309)    

Lisa M. Palluconi,

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[FR Doc. 2024-30415 Filed 12-19-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
Jack ARONS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0365

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied January 3, 2019

Jack Arons, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Wolf, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Gary A. LESSOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2660

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DISMISSED.
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 Annual Report of Caliber  Energy,  Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Graeme Scott,  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, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/     Graeme Scott
--------------------
Graeme Scott
President, CEO and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


March 25, 2005


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 22

- 3557

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appell ee

v.

Joseph Howard Yennie; Sheila Ann Yennie

Defendants - Appellants

Nick J. Novak; Abraham Algadi; Paul Perry; Grant Friese; Jay Strande; Dean

Weis; Jayne Krause; Peoples State Bank of Plainview; City of Pine Island

Defendant s

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________
Submitted: April 1 7 , 2023 Filed: April 20, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________
Before KELLY

, ERICKSON , and STRAS , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.-2- Joseph and Sheila Yennie challenge the enforcement of a federal tax lien against real property they own

. See 26 U.S.C. § 7403(a). Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that there are no
material facts in dispute and the government is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. 1 See Odom v. Kaizer , 864 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing a grant of summary judgment de novo); Nelson v. Nelson , 183 N.W. 354, 355 (Minn. 1921) (explaining that Minnesota follows the common

- law “rule of separate property rights of both husband and wife” and has not adopted “[t]he doctrine of community property”)

. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. 2 See 8th Cir.
R. 47B.

______________________________

1 We deny both pending motions

.

2 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota

.