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

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer of**

**AdvanceAmerica, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.**

**Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**(Adopted bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AdvanceAmerica, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,J. Patrick O’Shaughnessy, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

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

 
|                 |     | /s/  J. PATRICK O’SHAUGHNESSY |
|----------------------|----------|------------------------------------|
|                 |     |                               |
|                 |     | J.  Patrick O’Shaughnessy     |
| * *             | * * | *Executive Vice President and*     |
| * *             | * * | *Chief Financial Officer*          |
| * *             | * * | * *                           |
| August 6,  2010 | * * | * *                           |

 

----
# C_2019230EN.01000501.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank v European Central Bank, European Commission

(Case C-450/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Article 6(4) - Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Article 70(1) - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Tasks conferred on the European Central Bank (ECB) - Single supervisory mechanism - Performance of those tasks by the national competent authorities - ‘Less significant’ credit institution - ‘Particular circumstances’ justifying a credit institution being considered ‘less significant’)

(2019/C 230/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank (represented by: A. Glos, T. Lübbig and M. Benzing, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou and R. Bax, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

---
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-237

LT Case No. 2022-CF-292

_____________________________ 

DAVIS SOTO-MARTINEZ, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. 

Don H. Lester, Judge. 

Jennifer Cogdill, of Law Office of Jennifer Cogdill, Fleming Island,

for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robert Charles

Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

August 15, 2023 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

LAMBERT, HARRIS, and MACIVER, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
EX PARTE CWI CONSTRUCTION, INC.

(In re: Georgia CLSB, LLC v. CWI Construction, Inc., Gordon Budd Brown, and Robin Leigh Brown)

2170035

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 16, 2017

Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT
32.1






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






The
undersigned, Daniel Dror, Chairman & CEO 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: Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
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:  November
14, 2008


Daniel
Dror


Chairman
& CEO


/s/ Daniel
Dror
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 Sound Revolution Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.
|  

Dated: July 15, 2008
     By: /s/ Penny GreenPenny GreenDirector, Secretary, Chairman, and Chief  Financial Officer


---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 8, 2016

p0405

Order 

Clerk

April 8, 2016

151663 & (170)(175)(176)(178)(180)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151663

COA: 316224

Wayne CC: 12-009631-FC

ROBERT ANTHONY SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions to add issue and to supplement are GRANTED. 

The motion to remand and the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to 

determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under 

the sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). On 

remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If 

the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the 

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, 

however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence 

absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. 

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to stay and 

the motion for guidance are DENIED.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Willie Lee BYRD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2755

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Steven N. Gosney, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIUM.

Appellant appeals his judgment and sentence for armed burglary of a dwelling (Count 1), robbery with a deadly weapon (Count 2), and petit theft of property more than $ 100 but less than $ 300 (Count 4). We affirm the judgment and sentence but remand for the correction of several scrivener's errors. For Count 1, the trial court is instructed to amend the judgment1 and sentence to reflect that Appellant pled guilty to a second-degree felony. For Count 2, the trial court is instructed to enter an order of probation that more clearly reflects what portion of the prison sentence is to be withheld or stayed during the five-year probationary period; however, the probationary period cannot be served concurrently with the incarceration portion of the sentence imposed under Count 1. Finally, for Count 4, the court must amend the sentence to read 364 days instead of 365 days so as to conform to the orally pronounced sentence.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS.

COHEN, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

1

The amended judgment dated August 13, 2018, was not rendered until August 28, 2018, hours after Appellant's counsel filed a notice of appeal which divested the trial court of jurisdiction to amend the original judgment.

--------
STATE of Louisiana v. Devin PERKINS

No. 2018-KH-0299

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

*590Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Cecil WARD, Appellant, v. Jamila GIBBS, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-536

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

VS.

CARLOS CEDILLO-GARCIA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:04-CR-379-G

)

) ECF

)

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this

case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the of the United States

Magistrate Judge, I am of the opinion that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge are correct and are adopted as the findings

and conclusions of the court. 

It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted. Accordingly, defendant’s motion

for modification or reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based

on United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendments Concerning Criminal History
- 2 -

Category, effective March 3, 2008, filed March 5, 2008 (docket entry 37), is

DENIED. 

August 12, 2010.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge
STATE of Louisiana v. Marlo CHARLES

NO. 2018-KH-2074

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).

WEIMER, J., recused.
Kelvin WELLS, et al. v. EAST BATON ROUGE SCHOOL BOARD

NO. 2019-000352

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 11 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 06- 1562 5

D. C. Docket N o. 04-03399 CV -JTC -1 HAL B. PARKERSON, Pl ai nti ff -Appe lla nt,

ve rs us ORIX FINANCIAL SERVIC ES, INC., ORIX USA CORPOR ATION, et al ., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N or the rn D ist ri ct

of G eo rg ia

(J un e 11, 200 7) Before DU BIN A a nd BLA CK, Circuit Judges, and RE ST AN I, * Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:

______________________________ *Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , sitti ng by desig nation.2

T he appe lla nt, H al P ar

ke rs on, appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g

summ ary j udgm ent for the appellees, Or ix Financial Service s, I nc., Or ix USA Co rp . , O ri x C ap ita l M ar

ke ts, L L C, a nd O ri x C om m er ci al A lli an ce Co rp . , on Pa rk er son’ s c la im s of

a ge dis cr im ina tio n, in vio la tio n of the A ge D isc ri m ina tio n Em pl oym en t Act (“ ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 6 23 , et se q. , a nd r et al ia tio n, in vio la tio n of th e ADEA and Tit le VII, 42 U.S.C. 20 00 e, et se q. It is cl ea r to u s, ba se d on the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r an d c onc es sio ns m ad e by counsel at oral argum ent, that the district court review ed the entire re cord that wa s be fo re t he m ag is tra te jud ge when sh e is su ed he r Rep or t an d R eco m m en da ti on . Fu rt he rm or e, w e co nc lud e tha t P ar ke rs on f ai le d to c ar

ry his bur de n of de m onst ra tin g pr et ex t. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t. AFFIRMED.
# Exhibit 32.1

Each
of Patrick K. Gill, Chief Executive Officer, and James A. Luyk, Chief Financial Officer,
of OAK Financial Corporation, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 which
          this statement accompanies 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
          ended December 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
          financial condition and results of operations of OAK Financial Corporation.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 6, 2009

| |  | /s/ Patrick K. Gill
Patrick K. GillChief Executive Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/ James A. Luyk
James A. LuykChief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this
certification has been provided to OAK Financial Corporation and will be retained by OAK
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon
request.
Maite BENITEZ-ORDOVAS, Appellant, v. ALSCO, INC., and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, Appellees.

No. 1D18-3096

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2019206EN.01000701.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

(Case C-617/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 82 EC - Abuse of a dominant position - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 3(1) - Application of national competition law - Decision of a national competition authority to impose one fine on the basis of national law and another on the basis of EU law - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Principle of ne bis in idem - Whether applicable)

(2019/C 206/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

Interveners: Edward Dętka, Mirosław Krzyszczak, Zakład Projektowania i Programowania Systemów Sterowania Atempol Sp. z o.o. w Piekarach Śląskich, Ommer Polska Sp. z o.o. w Krapkowicach, Glimat Marcinek i S-ka spółka jawna w Gliwicach, Jastrzębskie Zakłady Remontowe Dźwigi Sp. z o.o. w Jastrzębiu Zdroju, Petrofer-Polska Sp. z o.o. w Nowinach, Pietrzak B.B. Beata Pietrzak, Bogdan Pietrzak Spółka jawna w Katowicach, Ewelina Baranowska, Przemysław Nikiel, Tomasz Woźniak, Spółdzielnia Kółek Rolniczych w Bielinach, Lech Marchlewski, Zakład Przetwórstwa Drobiu Marica spółka jawna J.M.E.K. Wróbel sp. jawna w Bielsku Białej, HTS Polska Sp. z o.o., Paco Cases Andrzej Paczkowski, Piotr Paczkowski spółka jawna w Puszczykowie, Bożena Kubalańca, Zbigniew Arczykowski, Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcji Handlu i Usług Unipasz Sp. z o.o. w Radzikowicach, Janusz Walocha, Marek Grzegolec

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, must be interpreted as not precluding a national competition authority from fining an undertaking in a single decision for an infringement of national competition law and for an infringement of Article 82 EC. In such a situation, the national competition authority must nevertheless ensure that the fines are proportionate to the nature of the infringement.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

---
# C_2019148EN.01000501.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 March 2019 — BMB sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Ferrero SpA

(Case C-693/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community design - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 25(1)(e) - Invalidity proceedings - Design representing comfit boxes for sweets - Declaration of invalidity)

(2019/C 148/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BMB sp. z o.o. (represented by: K. Czubkowski, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents), Ferrero SpA (represented by: M. Kefferpütz, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders BMB sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BMB sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---
# C_2018142EN.01001501.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus — Estonia) — Collect Inkasso OÜ and Others v Rain Aint and Others

(Case C-289/17) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European enforcement order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification - Minimum standards for uncontested claims procedures - Rights of the debtor - No indication of the address of the institution to which a notice may be addressed contesting the claim or before which an appeal against the decision may be brought))

(2018/C 142/20)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Referring court

Tartu Maakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS

Applicants:

Defendants: Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(a) and Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that a court judgment delivered without the debtor having been informed of the address of the court to which to respond or before which to appear, or, as appropriate, before which an appeal can be lodged against such a decision, cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

1

---