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 on Form 10-QSB of Optionable,  Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned  hereby
certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of the undersigned's
knowledge and belief, that:

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

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


Date:  July 25, 2005                              /s/ Marc-Andre Boisseau
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  Marc-Andre Boisseau
                                                  Chief Financial Officer



[A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Optionable,  Inc.  and will be retained by  Optionable,  Inc.  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
O pinion filed November 30 , 2016



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _ ____ 

### No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 20 5

- CV

_______ _ ___ 

### JOSHUA OGLE , Appellant

V.

BRENDA KAY JOHNSON , INC. A ND CASEY EQUIPMENT, LTD. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 139,276

- C

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The parties have filed in this court a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. In
the motion, the parties state that the y have reached a n egotiated agreement and

r equest that we dismiss this appeal with prejudice and order each party to bear its

own costs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed

.

November 30, 2016 PER CURIAM

P anel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J.

, and Bailey, J

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001040573
<NAME> COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              41
<SECURITIES>                                        57
<RECEIVABLES>                                       90
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (17)
<INVENTORY>                                         31
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   220
<PP&E>                                           2,667
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,021)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              490
<BONDS>                                          2,555
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         267
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,058
<SALES>                                          2,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,073
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   (1,990)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (265)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (177)<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                        44
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (112)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (17)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (129)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN> 
<F1> Loss before income tax benefit and other items excludes the effect of 
minority interests, net of tax, of $21.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

United States of America, ) Case No. CR | L -0020 CRB
)
Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
v. ) UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT Ta
)
) & a)
Deon Grant ) APR,
Defendant. ) agSUs, eon
Noy mig ua kg

; 7 aH oS. Lisss $00,
For the reasons stated by the parties on the record ondipry 2 , 2017, the Court excludes time

Speedy Trial Act from frprs\ 12, _, 2017 to dea (eiw >2017 and finds that the ends of justic d
by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the “public and the defendant i in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A). The Court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factor(s):

Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)().

______ The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [check applicable reasons] ____ the number of
defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact
or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the trial
itself within the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel,
taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, given
counsel’s other scheduled case commitments, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

J Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ALDI \p00 4 vbw Slay

JA ee E SCOTT CORLE
ited a es Magistrate Judge

STIPULATED: Grdermsberenn, Kyo.
Attorney for Defendant Assistant United States Attorney
EXHIBIT 23.4






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS






We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-35245, 333-55838, 333-116528 and 333-137273) of Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), relating to the 1997 Incentive Plan of the Company, and the Registration Statements on Form S-3
(Registration Nos. 333-142345, 333-142346 and 333-159237) of the Company (collectively, the “Registration Statements”) of the information contained in our reserve report that is summarized as in our summary letter dated February 20, 2009, relating to the oil and gas reserves and revenue, as of December 31, 2008, of certain interests of the Company.






We hereby consent to all references to such reports, letters and/or to this firm in each of the Registration Statements and each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement relates, and further consent to our being named as an expert in each of the Registration Statements and each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement
relates.











LaRoche Petroleum Consultants, Ltd.


/s/ William M. Kazmann


William M. Kazmann






August 14, 2009
**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 Southridge Enterprises, Inc. on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending May
      31 ,
      2008,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”), I, Stephen Smith, CFO 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.





By:
            /S/
                Stephen SmithStephen
                SmithChief
                Financial Officer and Director(Secretary,
                Treasurer and Principal Financial
                Officer)





July
      14,
      2008





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.
Tracy GROENENDAAL and Ronald Soriano, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. REFLECTION ISLES MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1204

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 20 / Friday, January 31, 2025 / Presidential Documents 8651 

Memorandum of January 21, 2025 

Keeping Americans Safe in Aviation 

Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation [and] the Administrator 

of the Federal Aviation Administration 

Every day, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), within the U.S. Department of Transportation, oversees safety for more than 45,000 flights 

and 2.9 million airline passengers. These Americans trust the FAA’s public 

servants with their lives, and it is therefore imperative that they maintain 

a commitment to excellence and efficiency. 

During the prior administration, however, the FAA betrayed its mission 

by elevating dangerous discrimination over excellence. For example, prior 

to my Inauguration, the FAA Diversity and Inclusion website revealed that 

the prior administration sought to specifically recruit and hire individuals 

with serious infirmities that could impact the execution of their essential 

life-saving duties. 

Illegal and discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring, including on the basis of race, sex, disability, or any other criteria other 

than the safety of airline passengers and overall job excellence, competency, 

and qualification, harms all Americans, who deserve to fly with confidence. 

It also penalizes hard-working Americans who want to serve in the FAA 

but are unable to do so, as they lack a requisite disability or skin color. 

FAA Federal servants must hold the qualifications and ability to perform 

their jobs to the highest possible standard of excellence. 

I hereby order the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Aviation 

Administrator to immediately return to non-discriminatory, merit-based hiring, as required by law. All so-called DEI initiatives, including all dangerous 

preferencing policies or practices, shall immediately be rescinded in favor 

of hiring, promoting, and otherwise treating employees on the basis of individual capability, competence, achievement, and dedication. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-O0
8652 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 20 / Friday, January 31, 2025 / Presidential Documents 

The Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administrator 

shall review the past performance and performance standards of all individuals in critical safety positions and take all appropriate action to ensure 

that any individual who fails or has failed to demonstrate requisite capability 

is replaced by a high-capability individual that will ensure top-notch air 

safety and efficiency. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, January 21, 2025 

[FR Doc. 2025–02099 

Filed 1–30–25; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3395–F4–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-O0Trump.EPS</GPH>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

J.P. WASHINGTON, ID # 1163427, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-1932-N

) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER OF THE COURT ON RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Considering the record in this case and the above recommendation, and pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c), the Court hereby finds and orders:

IFP STATUS:

(X) the party appealing is GRANTED in forma pauperis status on appeal.

( ) the party appealing is DENIED in forma pauperis status on appeal

for the following reasons:

( ) the Court certifies, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3),

that the appeal is not taken in good faith. In support of this finding, the Court adopts

and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation

entered in this case on . Based upon the Magistrate Judge’s findings,

this Court finds that the appeal presents no legal points of arguable merit and is

therefore frivolous. See Harkins v. Roberts, 935 F. Supp. 871, 873 (S.D. Miss. 1996)

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

( ) the person appealing has not complied with the requirements of Rule 24 of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and /or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) as ordered by

the Court. 

COA:

( ) a Certificate of Appealability is GRANTED on the following issues: 

 

(X) a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. The Court hereby adopts and incorporates by

reference the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, filed on February 16, 2007, in support of its finding that petitioner has failed to make

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2).

DATE: May 16, 2007

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01932-N Document 51 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 287
 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01932-N Document 51 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 288
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 49 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale 

to the Government of Australia of certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2022 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Australia of 

certain defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following proposed foreign military sale to the 

4 Government of Australia is prohibited: 

5 (1) The sale of the following defense articles 

6 and services, described in Transmittal No. 22–28, 

7 submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) 

8 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

9 2776(b)(1)), and published in the Congressional 

10 Record on May 26, 2022: 


PAMTMANN on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 49 IS 

1 (A) The following Major Defense Equip2 ment (MDE): Twenty (20) M142 High Mobility 

3 Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). Thirty 

4 (30) M30A2 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket 

5 System (GMLRS). Thirty (30) Alternative 

6 Warhead (AW) Pods with Insensitive Munitions 

7 Propulsion Systems (IMPS). Thirty (30) 

8 M31A2 GMLRS Unitary (GMLRS–U) High 

9 Explosive Pods with IMPS. Thirty (30) XM403 

10 Extended Range (ER)–GMLRS AW Pods. 

11 Thirty (30) EM404 ER GMLRS Unitary Pods. 

12 Ten (10) M57 Army Tactical Missile System 

13 (ATACMS). 

14 (B) The following non-MDE: Reduced 

15 Range Practice Rocket Pods (RRPRP); Vehic16 ular Intercom System (AN/VIC–3) 3-Station; 

17 radio communication mounts; machine gun 

18 mounts; battle management system vehicle inte19 gration kits; wheel guards; ruggedized laptops; 

20 training equipment publications; spare and re21 pair parts; support equipment; tools; test equip22 ment; technical data; U.S. Government and 

23 contractor support; technical and logistical supVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:49 Jun 06, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ49.IS SJ49

PAMTMANN on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SJ 49 IS 

1 port services; and other related elements of pro2 gram and logistic support. 

Æ 


PAMTMANN on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
________________

Elizabeth C. Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Original: E-Filed

CC: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Judge Lucy H. Koh

Courtroom 7 - 4th Floor

Civil Minute Order and Trial Log 

Date: January 4, 2019 TIME IN COURT: 6 hrs 53 mins 

Courtroom Deputy Clerk: Elizabeth Garcia

Court Reporter: Lee-Anne Shortridge, Irene Rodriguez

 

CASE NUMBER: 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

TITLE: Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated

Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) present: Jennifer Milici, Daniel J. Matheson, Wesley G. Carson, Kent 

Cox, Nathaniel M. Hopkin, Philip J. Kehl

Defendant(s) Attorney(s) present: Robert A. Van Nest, Justina K. Sessions, Eugene M. Paige

Christina Blais, Matan Shacham, Cody Harris, Kristin Hucek, Gary A. Bornstein, Michael Brent 

Byars, Yonatan Even, Jordan D. Peterson, Ming-Toy Taylor, Derek Sutton, Andrew Huynh. 

Also present: Mark Snyder

 

PROCEEDINGS: Bench Trial 

 

ORDER AFTER HEARING:

Please see trial log for witnesses and exhibits. Refer to the court transcript for official trial time. 

Continued Bench Trial set for January 7, 2019 at 9:00 AM.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1127 Filed 01/04/19 Page 1 of 1
* 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.

1 United States v. Jordan , 232 F.3d 447, 448 (5th Cir. 2000). IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31344 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DEMETRIUS GOODEN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CR-02-ALL-J

-------------------- August 22, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Demetrius Gooden appeals his conditional guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and the ultimate conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law enforcement action de novo

. 1No. 00-31344 -2-

2 529 U.S. 266 (2000).

3 Cf. J.L. , 529 U.S. at 268; United States v. Roch , 5 F.3d 894, 897 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Rideau , 969 F.2d 1572, 1574-75 (5th Cir. 1992).

4 953 F.2d 895, 896 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 24 (1968). Gooden argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because, under Florida v. J.L. , 2 a police officer, acting exclusively on a tip from an anonymous informant, does not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop and subsequent search and seizure. The instant case is distinguishable from J.L. because, inter alia , Gooden reached for his waistband when officers entered the tattoo shop. 3 Moreover, in United States v. Watson , we held that reasonable suspicion existed for an investigative stop when, at 3:30 AM, an officer approached a vehicle in an abandoned parking lot and the individual in the car moved his body as if to conceal or retrieve something on the car floor. 4 Gooden’s challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress is without merit. His conviction is AFFIRMED.
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING HUAWEI’S MOTION TO SEAL

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

HUAWEI’S MOTION TO SEAL 

CERTAIN TRIAL TESTIMONY AND 

EXHIBITS (DKT. 1089)

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1094 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 2
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING HUAWEI’S MOTION TO SEAL

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Before the Court is third-party Huawei Device USA, Inc.’s (“Huawei”) motion to permit 

sealing of certain trial testimony and exhibits that contain Huawei confidential information (Dkt. 

1089). Having considered Huawei’s motion and the accompanying Declaration of Steven M. 

Geiszler, the Court finds that Huawei has provided compelling reasons for sealing the requested 

information. Accordingly, Huawei’s motion is GRANTED. The following documents or portions 

thereof shall not be disclosed publicly at trial.

Document Party 

Claiming 

Confidentiality

Portions to be Sealed Relevant 

Standard 

for Sealing

Disposition

Deposition 

Testimony of 

Nanfen 

(Nancy) Yu 

(“Yu 

Deposition”) 

Huawei 47:17-48:14; 70:3-5; 

70:8-9; 70:12-15; 70:20-

23; 116:7-8; 116:13-16; 

116:19-20; 121:6-11; 

122:5-11; 122:21-123:1; 

132:13-24; 160:22-161:7; 

162:2-5; 185:7-186:4; 

195:23-196:13; 218:2-7; 

218:18-21

Compelling 

reasons

CX-1101 Huawei Pages 2-3 (HuaweiQualcomm-00012572 to 

73)

Compelling 

reasons

JX-022 Huawei Entire document Compelling 

reasons

JX-027 Huawei Entire document Compelling 

reasons

JX-097 Huawei Entire document Compelling 

reasons

JX-098 Huawei Entire document Compelling 

reasons

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _ , 2019

Honorable Lucy H. Koh

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1094 Filed 01/03/19 Page 2 of 2