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 theAnnual Report of Scheid Vineyards Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-KSB forthe period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael S. Thomsen, the ChiefExecutive Officer and President of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that based on my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 
| * * | */s/* *Michael  S. Thomsen* | * * |
|----------|----------------------------------|----------|
|     | Michael S. Thomsen               |
|     | Chief Financial Officer          |
|     | April 7, 2006                    |

 

----
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Rudy Alvarado Garcia, * From the 441st District

 Court of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CR41780.

Vs. No. 11-13-00360-CR * October 8, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
# C_2019139EN.01001601.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Martin Wächtler v Finanzamt Konstanz

(Case C-581/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the free movement of persons - Transfer by a natural person of his domicile from a Member State to Switzerland - Taxation of unrealised capital gains with respect to shares in a company - Direct taxation - Freedom of movement of self-employed persons - Equal treatment)

(2019/C 139/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Wächtler

Defendant: Finanzamt Konstanz

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, must be interpreted as precluding a tax regime of a Member State which, in a situation where a natural person who is a national of a Member State and who pursues an economic activity in the territory of the Swiss Confederation transfers his domicile from the Member State whose tax regime is at issue to Switzerland, provides for the collection, at the time of that transfer, of the tax payable on unrealised capital gains with respect to shares owned by that national, whereas, if domicile is retained in that Member State, the collection of the tax takes place only at the time when the capital gains are realised, that is on a disposal of the shares concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10617 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

GUADALUPE MACEDO

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 129

- 3

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Guadalupe Macedo, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence for conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute methamphetamine

. Macedo sought a modific ation of

his sentence based on Amendment 79 4 to the Sentencing Guidelines. For the

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 29, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10617 Document: 00514741686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2018No. 18

- 10617

2 first time on appeal, Macedo argues that he is eligible for relief because he was

sentenced after Amendment 794 became effective. 1
This court reviews de novo a district court’s authority to reduce a

sentence purs uant to § 3582(c)(2), United States v. Jones , 596 F.3d 273, 276
(5th Cir. 2010), as well as its denial of a motion to reconsider its authority

, United States v. Rabhan , 540 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 2008).

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modi fication of a defendant’s
sentence if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing
range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United

States v. Doublin , 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009 ). Macedo is correct that h e
was sentenced after the effective date of Amendment 794

. He is therefore
ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) , and the district court did
not err in denying his motion

. Accordingly, t he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED , and
Macedo’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

1 Macedo also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion because Amendment 794, though not listed in U.S .S.G. § 1B1.10, is a clarifying amendment and therefore can be applied retroactively. A clarifying amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines can be applied retroactively on direct appeal, but it cannot be applied retroactively in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding un less it is expressly listed in § 1B1.10(d). United States v. Drath , 89 F.3d 216, 217

- 18 (5th Cir. 1996)

. Case: 18-10617 Document: 00514741686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2018
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer of**

**Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**(Adopted by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

** **

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advance America, Cash AdvanceCenters, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30,2008, 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 to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

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

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

 

November 4, 2008

 

----
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41181

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WARREN D. FRIDAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-CR-118-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Warren D. Friday, prisoner # 769616, appeals the revocation

of his supervised-release term, which was part of his sentence

for his conviction for possession of marihuana. The Government’s

motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED. Friday

argues for the first time on appeal that his release date was

incorrectly calculated, and the violations of supervised release

to which he pleaded true occurred after his term of supervised

release had expired. He contends that the district court
No. 97-41181

-2-

therefore lacked jurisdiction to impose on him a ten-month

sentence for the alleged violations of the terms of his release. 

Questions of fact that could have been resolved by the

district court can never be plain error. United States v. Vital,

68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995). The determination of release

dates involves factual, not legal, questions. United States v.

Marshall, 910 F.2d 1241, 1245 (5th Cir. 1990). This court need

not address Friday’s claim. Id. 

This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is hereby DISMISSED. 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. 

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ON APPEAL DENIED. APPEAL

DISMISSED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Lance COWANS

NO. 2018-K-1302

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

CLARK, J., would grant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS -- Page Solo

TRM/chr

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

BRENDA J. WILSON §

§

VS. § ACTION NO. 4:05-CV-007-Y

§

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, §

Commissioner of Social Security §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

On February 15, 2006, the United States magistrate judge issued

his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in the abovestyled and numbered cause. The magistrate judge's order gave all

parties until March 8 to serve and file with the Court written

objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation.

No written objections have been received from either party. See

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th

Cir. 1996). As a result, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

de novo review is not required. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed

the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation for

error and has found none.

Thus, after consideration of this matter, the Court concludes

that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge should be

and are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that decision of the Commissioner is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED April 28, 2006.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00007-Y Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 140
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
  
 **STATEMENT
        REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-QSB/A of Shineco, Inc.
          (the
          "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
          and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yuying Zhang,
          Chief Executive Officer, and Dan Liu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
          certify that:
  ·
                the
                    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                    or 15(d) of
                    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                    and
 
 ·
                information
                    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                    the
                    financial condition and results of operations of the
                    Company.
   **/s/
          Yuying Zhang**
 Yuying
          Zhang
 Director,
          President and Chief Executive Officer
 
 June
          5,
          2007
  
 **/s/
          Dan Liu**
 Dan
          Liu
 Chief
          Financial Officer
 
 June
          5,
          2007
 
 
 This
          certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 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
          Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Jesse DONOFRIO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4237

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer ofAdvance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advance America, Cash AdvanceCenters, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John I.Hill, 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| May 16, 2005 |                                                    |
|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|              | /s/  JOHN  I. HILL                                 |
|              | John I. Hill                                            |
|              | *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer* |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 3-04-CR-0052-K

NO.3-06-CY-1778-K

YS.

KENNETH E. PERKINS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant Kenneth E. Perkins has filed a motion to correct, vacate, or set aside his 110-

month sentence on federal gun charges. In his sole ground for relief, defendant contends that he

received ineffective assistance of counselbecause his attorneyfailed to appeal his conviction. After

conducting a preliminary review of the motion, the court scheduled an evidentiary hearing and

appointed counsel to represent defendant. At the conclusion ofthe hearing held on March 8, 2007,

the government conceded that defendant is entitled to an out-of-time appeal. Accordingly, the

magistrate judge recommends that defendant's motion be granted.

RECOMMENDATION

Defendant'smotion to correct, vacate,orset asidehissentence should be granted. Defendant

should be granted an out-of-time appeal.

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner

provided by law. Any partymay file written objectionsto the recommendation within 10days after

being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(I); FED.R. CIv. P. 72(b). The failure to file

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon

 

 Case 3:04-cr-00052-K Document 73 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 228
grounds of plain error. SeeDouglass v. UnitedServicesAutomobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417(5th

Cir. 1996).

DATED: March 15,2007.

LAN

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cr-00052-K Document 73 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 229
S. Con. Res. 3 Agreed to January 3, 2025

One Hundred Nineteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty five 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. HONORING JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. 

(a) LYING IN STATE IN ROTUNDA.—In recognition of the long 

and distinguished service rendered to the Nation and to the world 

by the late James Earl Carter, Jr., the 39th President of the 

United States, his remains shall be permitted to lie in state in 

the rotunda of the Capitol from January 7, 2025 until January 

9, 2025. The Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the 

Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, shall take all necessary steps for the accomplishment of that purpose. 

(b) USE OF CATAFALQUE.—The Architect of the Capitol is 

authorized and directed to transfer the catafalque which is situated 

in the Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center to the rotunda 

of the Capitol so that such catafalque may be used in connection 

with services to be conducted there for the late James Earl Carter, 

Jr., 39th President of the United States. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 192 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 192

  To amend title 49, United States Code, to require Amtrak to include 
   information on base pay and bonus compensation of certain Amtrak 
                  executives, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Rouzer (for himself and Mr. Graves) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 49, United States Code, to require Amtrak to include 
   information on base pay and bonus compensation of certain Amtrak 
                  executives, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Amtrak Executive Bonus Disclosure 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AMTRAK REPORTS AND AUDITS.

    Section 24315(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``, and make available to the public on 
        the website of Amtrak,'' after ``submit to Congress''; and
            (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
            ``(2) provide the annual base pay and any bonus 
        compensation paid to a member of the executive leadership team 
        (including the chief executive officer, president, and 
        officers) of Amtrak, including the criteria and metrics used to 
        determine any such bonus compensation; and''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

D. D. H., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-2551 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 25, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Kimberly Phillips Todd, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 1 of 17 PageID 342
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 2 of 17 PageID 343
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 3 of 17 PageID 344
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 4 of 17 PageID 345
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 5 of 17 PageID 346
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 6 of 17 PageID 347
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 7 of 17 PageID 348
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 8 of 17 PageID 349
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 9 of 17 PageID 350
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 10 of 17 PageID 351
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 11 of 17 PageID 352
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 12 of 17 PageID 353
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 13 of 17 PageID 354
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 14 of 17 PageID 355
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 15 of 17 PageID 356
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 16 of 17 PageID 357
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 104 Filed 02/03/04 Page 17 of 17 PageID 358
Franklin Andre NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3518

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 26, 2019

AFFIRMED.
Case 3:03-cr-00379-O Document 37 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 124
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 8, 2023

NO. 03-22-00437-CR

Rick Allen Selman, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-30108 Summary Calendar

MERE’S WRECKER SERVICE INC.; TIMOTHY KASSINGER

Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants

VERSUS

ABID HUSSAIN HEMANI; SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS INC. Defendants-appellants-Cross-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana

(93-CV-1617) August 21, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

This suit arises out of an accident between an eighteen wheel

tractor trailer and the wrecker which was extricating the tractor

trailer rig from a bog. Both sides claim various damages from the

other, and the resolution of the case turns on the credibility

decisions made by the experienced trial judge who heard the

witnesses. Although, in the “Statement of Facts” section of their2

brief, Appellants complain that the amounts awarded Appellees were

“generous”, in the “Argument” section of their brief they discuss

only the trial court’s liability determination.

We have carefully considered the briefs, the trial judge’s

written ruling and the record and we fi nd no reversible error on

any point. The trial judge considered all the evidence carefully,

made the requisite credibility determinations and reached a result

which we cannot say is erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment is

AFFIRMED largely for the reasons given by the trial court.

AFFIRMED.