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 Terra Firma Technologies,  Inc. f/k/a
Highriver  Acquisition  Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the year
ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Thomas W. Schlosser,  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 results of  operation of the
Company.


Date: July 30, 2007                          By: /s/ Thomas W. Schlosser
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Thomas W. Schlosser
                                                Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Terra Firma Technologies, Inc. f/k/a Highriver Acquisition Corp. and
will be retained by Terra Firma Technologies,  Inc. f/k/a Highriver  Acquisition
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
. 313 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Railroe Condn~rsion of mxer 

Aurtln, Taxes 

~cprstete corn- 

. 

939, you stete 

nit& Transport 

CORF-y, Ino. , ioa in Cklahome 

0dcilt3a ltl tNa 

e e r3tenaara 

inmrance to potebt ita 

(I provision8 or sootion 

uler :%ealon of the i‘ortpsea by the Torty-third 

tar c0nt0naa that sinar 

otion of the Interstate 

hot be required to file mob 

tlon imurenae. 

etate or recta, you ask the opinion of 

the queetioa shother euoh operator la 

done of Seation 13 of the Aot above 

eating the proteation of elnployeer of a 

notor oarrlrr by teking out work&en*8 aompenaatlon lasurMOO. 

Seotlon 13 of the hot rofarred to, lnciofer as it 

coaaerns the qcestlon or workuen~r aompenratlon tnruranoo, 

provider am r0ii0wf8 I 
sbilroea Com.las1oa 0r ToxaIl, m&3 a 

*Each motor aerrier shall also protoot his 

ofiployoao by taking out wor'mea'a aoqennaetion 

lnsurenoo, afther as prorided by the I:‘orkmn*s 

Compensation Laws of the State of Texe8, or la 

a reliable lnearanco oompeny authorized to writs 

workon’ oomp.snaatlon lmureaoo epprovad bT the 

COn;;ai8GiOA.* 

The porsr'~onforrod upon the Congress by the Constltutlon of the United Staten to reeulato ao~%eroo batwren 

the atatoe, :whFhen exerted, oxalunes and aupsroeaoa atete 

lsglslrtion in.-roapat to the aeao matter. Congress, in 

exerting its poser to reeulato euch phase oi intaretato oomceroo, nay alrcmaoribo ite rogulatlon in such manner as to 

leave a Fert .of the aubjoot to atata notion. The purr088 

of Con&rosa exclusively to roecleto mey be implied, but not 

unloas the Fedora1 Loaaure, when feSrly interpreted, 1s 

plain17 lnoonsiatont v:ith atete roguletion of the ae&!# izetter. 

cllvery t. ~Cuyahoge Vellop Failway Compenp, 292 U. 3. 57, 64 

6. ct. 573, 34, 78 L. Ed. 1123, 

There 10 nothing iA the Foderel Llotor Carrier Aat, 

49 0. IZ* C. A., foctiona 301~E27, -ronotely suggesting a 

purpose to rugulato the liability of erglogore engaged in 

la W-18 tppi0r lnteretate ao~orae to their employees.~ 

As Congrese hee Aot ~000 rlt to iAVeae this field 0r reeulatlon of intoratete domerae by motor aarrlers, the authority or the State or Terae over th B subjeot ren;niAs unimpalrod, and the provisions or Section 13, above quoted, are eppliooble to intereteta uommo~ carrier oortlfloato holders. 

StAto ox rol :‘;eahingMn r.otor coach Co. V. Kelly, Dlrootor 

or the Deportment 0r Labor and Induatrisa, (Sup. Ct. or 

Eeahington) 74 Tao. (24) 16. 

30 trust that ‘the foregoing atiliabntl~ anairora 

your laquiry. 

Very trnly yours 

ATTOiILURT GENERAL OF TKXJU 

R) W. F'r 

Abrrr "-aa.
Order entered March 5, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00190
- CV
CHRIS CARTER AND KAR EN PIERONI, Appellant s V. DALLAS CITY PLAN COM MISSION AND CITY OF DALL AS, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 19
- 07054

ORDER Before the Court is appellants’ March 4, 2020 motion for an extension of time to file their notice of appeal. We GRANT the motion . The notice of appeal filed on February 10, 2020 is deemed timely for jurisdictional purposes.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
Danson EXANTUS-BARR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-603

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 16, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Edward MOZIE, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 3D15-0434

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

Edward Mozie, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for respondent, the State of Florida.

Before SALTER, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, J.

Upon review of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, it is ordered that said petition is dismissed. *See**Baker v. State*, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).
EXHIBIT
    31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





I, Donald
A. Gilles, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended
September, 30, 2008, of Valley Commerce Bancorp;





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;





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





4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:





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





(b.)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c.)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter of 2008 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
and





5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a.) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





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





Date:
November 12, 2008





/s/
      Donald A. GillesDonald
      A. GillesPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer






34
# C_2018063EN.01000902.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir

(Case C-694/17)

(2018/C 063/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pillar Securitisation Sàrl

Applicant:

Defendant: Hildur Arnadottir

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In the context of a credit agreement which, by reason of the total amount of the loan, does not come within the scope of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (1) can a person be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 15 of the Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in the absence of any national legislation applying the provisions of that directive to areas which do not come within its scope, on the ground that the contract was concluded for a purpose that can be regarded as a purpose other than that person’s professional activity?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

1

---
EX PARTE Kevin Andre HARRIS

CR-16-1320

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with this Quarterly Report of Valley High Mining Company (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, John Michael Coombs, CEO, President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Chairman of the Board of the Registrant, hereby 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Dated: July 30, 2007                                /s/ John Michael Coombs
                                                                 -------------------------------
                                                                 John Michael Coombs,
                                                                 CEO, President, CFO, and Chairman of
                                                                 the Board
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 Pricester.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the nine months end September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Edward C. Dillon, 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:
            (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/Edward C. Dillon
-----------------------------
Edward C. Dillon
Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2008


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 Pricester.com, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Nelson Stark, 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:
            (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/Nelson Stark
-----------------------------
Nelson Stark
Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2008
Alirio GRISALES, Appellant, v. Beatriz EBER, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2154

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

Leto | Bassuk, and Brian L. Elstein, Larry Bassuk and Justin C. Leto, Miami, for appellant.

GrayRobinson, P.A., and Jack R. Reiter and Robert C. Weill, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Alirio Grisales appeals final summary judgment entered in favor of Beatriz Eber on his claim for negligence. We affirm. *See**Fuentes v. Sandel, Inc.*, 189 So.3d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; *Clerkin v. Kendall Town & Country Assocs., Ltd.*, 535 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) ; *Cecile Resort, Ltd. v. Hokanson*, 729 So.2d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (noting that owner's insistence that work be completed the next day did not amount to exercise of control over project such that owner owed a duty of care to an independent contractor).

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements listed on pages 15-16 of this Form 10-K and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001039785
<NAME> CONTINENTAL GLOBAL GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                       700
<INVENTORY>                                     31,328
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,038
<PP&E>                                          27,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,893
<BONDS>                                        120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (45,878)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,903
<SALES>                                        211,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               211,720
<CGS>                                          179,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  179,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,728)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,728)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,728)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32








Exhibit
32










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 interim  report of ECOtality, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Jonathan R. Read, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and I, BarryS. Baer, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to18
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 ofoperations of the
      Company.








/s/
      Jonathan R. ReadJonathan
      R. ReadChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      14, 2010/s/
      Barry S. BaerBarry
      S. BaerChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      14, 2010
Amendment to Covenant Not to Compete and Non-Disclosure Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.17 
  
 March 4, 2003 
  
  
 Mr. Charlie Denson 
 c/o Nike, Inc. 
 One Bowerman Drive 
 Beaverton, OR 97005 
  
 Dear Charlie: 
  
 This letter shall serve as an Amendment to your Covenant Not To Compete and Non-Disclosure
Agreement between you as an employee and Nike dated March 26, 2001. 
  
 Sections
1(c) and 1(d) shall be amended to read as follows: 
  
 “(c)    Waiver of Non-Compete.  NIKE has the option to elect to waive all or a portion of the Restriction Period or to limit the definition of Competitor; provided, however, unless EMPLOYEE
is terminated “for cause” (which shall only include continual and repeated neglect of duties and acts of dishonesty), any waiver of the Restriction Period must be with the consent of EMPLOYEE. In the event all or a portion of the
Restriction Period is waived, NIKE shall not be obligated to pay EMPLOYEE for any period of time as to which the Covenant Not To Compete has been waived. 
  
 (d)    Additional Consideration.  As additional consideration for the covenant not to compete described above,
should NIKE terminate EMPLOYEE’s employment and the Covenant Not To Compete is enforced, NIKE shall pay EMPLOYEE a monthly payment equal to one-twelfth (1/12) of EMPLOYEE’s then current Annual Nike Income (defined herein to mean base
salary and annual Performance Sharing Plan bonus calculated at 100% of EMPLOYEE’s targeted rate) while the Restriction Period is in effect. If EMPLOYEE voluntarily terminates employment and the Covenant Not To Compete is enforced, NIKE shall
pay EMPLOYEE a monthly severance payment equal to one-twenty-fourth (1/24) of EMPLOYEE’s last monthly Annual Nike Income while the Restriction Period is in effect. 







 Mr. Charlie Denson 
 March 4,
2003 
 Page 2 
  
  
 All other terms and conditions of the Covenant Not To Compete and Non-Disclosure Agreement shall remain in effect as originally agreed.

  

	Sincerely,
	
	/s/    PHILIP H. KNIGHT
	

	 Philip H. Knight
 President &
CEO


  
 ACKNOWLEDGED AND
AGREED to this 10 day of March, 2003. 
  

	
	/s/    CHARLIE DENSON
	

	Charlie Denson
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00264-CR

Montrail Thomas BUTLER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR6323

Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 1, 2021.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
* 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. 07-41227

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAVIER CORTEZ, also known as Raul Cortez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-161-ALL

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Cortez is charged with being an unlawful user of a controlled

substance in knowing possession of a firearm, making a false written statement

to a licensed firearms dealer, and receiving a firearm with an altered or

obliterated serial number. Cortez appeals from an order of the district court

denying his motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 24, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41227

2

The district court’s decision rests upon its conclusion that Cortez has failed

to establish that any condition or combination of conditions will reasonably

ensure the safety of the community if Cortez is released. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (e)

& (f). Absent an error of law, this court will uphold a district court’s pretrial

detention order if it is supported by the proceedings below. United States v.

Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992). The same standard of review

applies to the denial of a motion to reconsider a detention order. United States

v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Analysis of the factors set forth in § 3142(g) indicates that the district

court’s conclusions are supported by the proceedings below. See Rueben, 974

F.2d at 586. The pretrial detention order is AFFIRMED.
Alexander L. GREEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2239

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

Alexander L. Green, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Connolly v. State*, 172 So.3d 893, 903-04 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that "technical defects in a charging document are treated differently than the failure to allege an essential element of the crime. An indictment that wholly omits an essential element of a crime is a fundamental defect that may be raised at any time because the indictment fails to charge a crime when an essential element is omitted. Use or possession of a firearm, however, is not an essential element of second degree murder, but rather, it may serve to allow for a reclassification of the second degree murder from a first degree felony to a life felony or as an enhancement of the sentence imposed") (internal footnote and citation omitted). *See also**Galindez v. State*, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla. 2007) (holding that an *Apprendi*/ *Blakely*1 error is subject to a harmless error analysis); *Robinson v. State*, 215 So.3d 1262, 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

1

*See**Blakely v. Washington*, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) ; *Apprendi v. New Jersey*, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).