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





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In connection with the annual report of Energizer Resources Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard E. Schler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and





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





Dated: May 14, 2012


/s/ Richard E. SchlerRichard E. Schler, Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 28, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01821]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 
National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) Participant 
Letter(s) of Interest (LoI)

    The Department of Commerce will submit the following information 
collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the 
general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and 
continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of 
our information collection requirements and minimize the public's 
reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the 
Federal Register on October 4, 2024 during a 60-day comment period. 
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments.
    Agency: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 
Commerce.
    Title: National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) 
Participant Letter(s) of Interest (LoI).
    OMB Control Number: 0693-0075.
    Form Number(s): None.
    Type of Request: Regular, extension of a currently approved 
information collection.
    Number of Respondents: 120.
    Average Hours per Response: 2 hours per response.
    Burden Hours: 240 Hours.
    Needs and Uses: New collaborative projects to address specific 
cybersecurity challenges. Technology providers having an interest in 
participating in an announced project are invited to submit Letters of 
Interest (LoI) in participation. NIST provides a LoI template to 
technology providers that express a desire to participate in a project.
    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.
    Frequency: Once per announcement.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    This information collection request may be viewed at 
www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view the Department of 
Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of 
this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 
Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently 
under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search 
function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB 
Control Number 0693-0075.

Sheleen Dumas,
Departmental PRA Compliance Officer, Office of the Under Secretary for 
Economic Affairs, Commerce Department.
[FR Doc. 2025-01821 Filed 1-27-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
```
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 ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

The Court hereby informs the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that petitioner timely filed his

notice of appeal by placing it in the prison mail system on April 18, 2007. The Court returns the

case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings on the timely-filed notice of

appeal.

SIGNED this 30th day of November, 2007.

 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Janine Louise SKAGGS v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO.

2170021

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 13, 2018 Reh. denied March 13, 2018

Dismissed.
**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 annual report ofInspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas R. Staab, II, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, 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 containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: February 25, 2011
| 1.   | NetSol Technologies, Ltd.; Lahore, Pakistan. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | NetSol Connect (Pvt) Limited; Karachi, Pakistan. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | NetSol Technologies Europe, Ltd; Horsham, England. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | NetSol Abraxas, Inc.; Adelaide, Australia. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | NTPK (Thailand) Co. Ltd.; Bangkok, Thailand |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------|

| 6.   | NetSol Technologies (China); Beijing, China |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------|

| 7.   | NetSol-Innovation (Pvt) Limited; Lahore, Pakistan. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------|

| 8.   | NetSol Technologies North America; Emeryville, California. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|

| 9.   | Vroozi, Inc.; Calabasas, California |
|----------------|-------------------------------------|
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s the s e appe a l s a r e s ui t abl e f or ** d e c is io n w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MOHA MM AD S AL AME H, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. P E T E RC A R L S O N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N os . 08- 56040 08- 57068 D . C . N o . 2 : 9 8 - c v - 0 8 4 9 3 - S V WM LG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n V . W i l s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 29, 2010 ** B e f o r e : A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , a n dG R A B E R , C ir c u it J u d g e s . M o h a m m a d S a la m e h , af e d e r a l p r is o n e rw h o is c u rr e n tlyh o u s e din C ol orado, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entfol l ow i ng a bench tri al i n h i s B i v e ns a c t i on a l l e gi ng de f e nda nt s vi ol a t e d hi s E i ghth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s by



# FI LED JU L 20 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 57068 2 usi ng exce ss i ve force . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s l e ga l c onc l us i ons a nd r e vi e w f orc l e a re rr ori t s f

i ndi ngs o f f a c t. Fr i e nds of

Y os e m i te V

al le yv . N or ton , 3 4 8 F .3 d7 8 9 , 7 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e r e vi e w f

ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s a w a r d of c os t s t o a p rev ai l i n g p arty. Sa v e O u rV a lle yv . So u n d

T r a n s it , 3 3 5 F .3 d9 3 2 , 9 4 4 n .1 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc l e a r l ye rrw he n i tm a de c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i ons an d co n cl u d ed , b ased o n th o se fi n d i n g s, th atd efen d an tS w an so n d i dn o tu se e xc e s s i ve f

or c e w he n tr a ns f

e rr i ng S a l a m e h. Se e H

uds on v . McMi l l i an , 503 U . S . 1, 7 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( th e c o r e ju d ic ia l in q u iryin a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t e x c e s s iv e f o r c e c la im i s w hether the “ forc e w as appl i ed i n a go od -f ai th eff ortt o m ai nt ai n o r r es t ore d is c ip lin e , o rm a lic io u s lya n d s a d is tic a llyto c au s e h a rm ” ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng S a l a m e h’ s m ot i on t o re- t ax cost s a ft erconsi deri ng S al am eh’ s f i nanci al si tuat i on and h i s abi l i ty t o p ay a w a r d e d c o s ts . See Save O ur V al ley , 335 F . 3d a t944- 45. S a la m e h ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . AF F I RME D.
EX PARTE Karen MURPH

(In re: Karen Murph v. Herbert L. Murph)

2170588

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 20, 2018

Dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 1851

HESMAN TALL, Plaintiff

– Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Stephanie A. Gallagher , District Judge. ( 8:20

- cv - 03698

- SAG )

Submitted : May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023

Before NIEMEYER , RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit J udges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Hesman Tall , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1851 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Hesman Tall appeals the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s calculation of the amount of underpayment of supplemental security income due to Tall.

“ In social security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as does the district court. That is, a reviewing court must upho ld the determination when [the Commissioner] has applied correct legal standards and the [Commissioner’s] factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Brown v. Comm’ r Soc. Sec. Admin. , 873 F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal q uotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.” Pearson v. Colvin , 810 F.3d 204 , 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The Commissioner applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Tall’s claim for benefits, and the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the Commissioner’s decision

. Tall v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin. , 8:20

- cv - 03698

- SAG (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2022)

. We dispense with oral argument because the fac ts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1851 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Order filed July 28, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00952-CV

____________

GIOVANNY LAGUAN, Appellant

V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION A/K/A FANNIE 

MAE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15-CCV-055845

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due July 15, 2016. No brief or motion for extension of 

time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before August 12, 2016, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
----

| Date:     November      14, 2008 | /s/      Daniel      R. Herndon        |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                                      | Name:                                  | Daniel      R. Herndon |
|                                                      | Title:                                 | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                                      |                                   |   |
|                                                      |                                   |   |
| Date:     November      14, 2008 | /s/      Clyde      D. Patterson  |
|                                                      | Name:                                  | Clyde      D. Patterson |
|                                                      | Title:                                 | Executive      Vice President |
|                                                      |                                   | (Principal      FinancialOfficer) |

----
STATE of Louisiana v. Kendrick Damone HARRISON

NO. 2018-K-1110

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

CLARK, J., would grant.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Pegasus Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John F. Davis, III,
Chairman and 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 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

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



/s/ JOHN F. DAVIS, III


John F. Davis, III
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
March 17, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-554

In Re: STEPHEN MICHAEL O'KANE, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-145) Submitted: June 13, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996 Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Michael O'Kane, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Stephen Michael O'Kane petitions this court for an extraordinary writ or a writ of mandamus. O'Kane, a federal prison inmate,is preparing to challenge his guilty plea to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344 (West Supp. 1996). He asserts that, because of amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), he must file his § 2255 motion by June 27, 1996. But O'Kane alleges that he must have certain documents from the district court and the government before he can file his motion. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for N. Dist. , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). The writ is not available as a substitute for an appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Petitioner bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no other means of obtaining relief and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We conclude that O'Kane has not borne this burden. As there is no 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion pending, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1988) does not entitle him to a free transcript at government expense. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321-22 (1976). The district court will examine the files and records of the case when the motion is filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Rule 4(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. O'Kane is not required to set forth his claims in great detail in filing the § 2255 motion. Rule 2(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Motions. We do not have authority under 28 U.S.C.3 § 1651 (1988) to direct O'Kane's defense counsel to provide him with counsel's records. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). Therefore, while we grant O'Kane leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his motion for mandamus or other extraordinary writ. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Order entered June 6, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01694-CR

FRANCISCO ALVAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-73175-P

ORDER

The Court GRANTS court reporter Lisabeth Kellett’s June 4, 2013 request for extension 

of time to file the reporter’s record. We ORDER Ms. Kellett, as official court reporter, to file 

the complete reporter’s record by JULY 3, 2013. Because the record is already two months 

overdue, no further extensions will be granted.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

Lisabeth Kellett, official court reporter, 203rd Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all 

parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of SmartMetric, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Colin Hendrick, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.



/s/ Colin Hendrick
Colin Hendrick, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
SmartMetric, Inc.
August 2, 2005
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CEO AND CFO FURNISHED PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. § 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Valley Commerce Bancorp
(the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
Donald A. Gilles, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Roy
O. Estridge, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:





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





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








Date:
      May 15, 2009
              /s/ Donald A. GillesDonald
      A. GillesPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
      May 15, 2009
              /s/ Roy O. EstridgeRoy
      O. EstridgeChief
      Financial Officer








This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.






33
Exhibit 10.10  


July    ,
2003 



EarlyBirdCapital, Inc.

600 Third Avenue

33rd Floor

New York, New York 10016 



	Re:
	Millstream Acquisition Corporation




Gentlemen: 


        This
letter will confirm the agreement of the undersigned to purchase warrants ("Warrants") of Millstream Acquisition Corporation ("Company") included in the units ("Units") being sold
in the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Each Unit is comprised of one share of Common Stock and two Warrants. The shares of Common Stock and
Warrants will not be separately tradeable until 90 days after the effective date of the Company's IPO unless EarlyBirdCapital, Inc. ("EBC") informs the Company of its decision to allow
earlier separate trading ("Separation Date"). 


        The
undersigned agrees that this letter agreement constitutes an irrevocable order for EBC to purchase for his account during the twenty-day period commencing on the
Separation Date up to 1,000,000 Warrants at market prices not to exceed $0.65 per Warrant ("Maximum Warrant Purchase"). EBC agrees to fill such order in such amounts and at such times as it may
determine, in its sole discretion, during the twenty-day period commencing on the Separation Date. The undersigned may notify EBC that all or part of his Maximum Warrant Purchase will be
made by an affiliate of the undersigned (or another person or entity introduced to EBC by the undersigned (a "Designee")) who (or which) has an account at EBC and, in such event, EBC will make such
purchase on behalf of said affiliate or Designee; provided, however, that the undersigned hereby agrees to make payment of the purchase price of such purchase in the event that the affiliate or
Designee fails to make such payment. 



	 	 	Very truly yours,
	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 Arthur Spector
STATE of Louisiana v. Kedrick K. ANDERSON

NO. 2018-KO-1848

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

Denied.