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

        Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Alpha
Motorsport, Inc. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Markovitch, Jr.,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, 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
        results of operations of Registrant.



Date:  May 10, 2006          /s/ John Markovitch, Jr.
                              -----------------------------------------
                              By: John Markovitch, Jr., Chief Financial
                              Officer and Principal Accounting Officer












<PAGE>
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING COMPAL, FIH MOBILE, HON HAI PRECISION, WISTRON, AND PEGATRON’S 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING COMPAL, FIH 

MOBILE, HON HAI PRECISION, 

WISTRON, AND PEGATRON’S

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1410

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court rules on FIH Mobile and Hon Hai 

Precision (collectively, “Foxconn”); Compal Electronics; Wistron; and Pegatron’s motion to seal 

as follows. 

Document Portions of Pages Ruling

QX9148 Contractual Upfront Payment spreadsheet 

entries for Compal, FIH Mobile, Foxconn 

Brasil, Pegatron, and Wistron on pages 1, 2, 4

GRANTED.

QDX9351 Foxconn dollar amounts and bars on Slide 14 GRANTED.

QDX9351 Foxconn dollar amounts on Slide 20 GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1422 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 1
# L_2017023EN.01012301.xml

| 28.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 23/123 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 23/123

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/128 of 20 January 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 21 of 26 January 2017
  )

The publication of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/128 is to be considered null and void.

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Scott D. Peters, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GTA-IB, LLC;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

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

(c)           Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| November 14, 2006 |     | /s/ Scott D. Peters                     |     |     |
|-------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------|----------|----------|
|              |     | Scott D. Peters                         |     |     |
|              | * * | *Secretary and Chief Financial Officer* | * * | * * |

 

----
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
333-74413,  No. 333-83937,  No. 333-39918, No. 333-45362, No. 333-48752, and No.
333-62860  on Form S-3 and in  Registration  Statements  No.  333-83935  and No.
333-41186  on Form S-8 of  MediaBay,  Inc.  of our report  dated  April 15, 2003
(which  report  expresses an  unqualified  opinion and  includes an  explanatory
paragraph  relating  to a change  in  method  of  accounting  for  goodwill  and
intangible  assets in 2002 as  described  in Note 3),  appearing  in the  Annual
Report on Form 10-K of MediaBay, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
April 14, 2004
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MARCH 7, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. N o. 07- 1535 0 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N os. 07-000 49-CV- DH B-1 & 05-14034 BK C-SD InRe: QUEBBIE BRINS ON, D e b t o r .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ QUEBBIE BRI NSON , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant , ve rs us CHAPTER 1 3 TRUS TEE, Barnee C. Baxter, Chapter 13 T rustee, De fendant-Appellee
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern District of G eorgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 7, 200 8) Befo re CARNES , BARKETT andFAY , Cir cu itJu dg es . PE R CU RIA M: T he j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s a ff

irm ed f or the r eas on s se t f

orth i n it s O RD E R d at ed

O ct obe r 11, 200 7. AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (333-68800), Form S-3D (333-130627) and on Form S-8 (333-49990) of West
Pointe Bancorp, Inc. of our Report dated March 17, 2006, on the consolidated
financial statements of West Pointe Bancorp, Inc. which report is incorporated
by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of West Pointe Bancorp, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2005.


                                              /s/ CROWE CHIZEK AND COMPANY LLC
                                              Crowe Chizek and Company LLC


Indianapolis, Indiana
March 27, 2006
# **Exhibit 32.2**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, E. Wayne Stallings, Chief FinancialOfficer of Tri-S Security Corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify inaccordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.               The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Companyfor the period ended June 30, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               The information contained in the Periodic Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 10, 2005 |                    |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|
|                        |                    |
|                        | /s/E. Wayne Stallings   |   |
|                        | E. Wayne Stallings,     |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Nathaniel WILBANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-5203

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 4, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Skip to main content
          Skip to FDA Search
          Skip to in this section menu
          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government

					Here’s how you know
          			Dot gov**The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 
			U.S. Food and Drug Administration
				
        Search
            Menu
							
						Search FDA
									
									Submit search 
		Featured
							Contact FDA
	                FDA Guidance Documents
	                Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts
	                Press Announcements
	                Warning Letters
	                Advisory Committees
	                En Español

					Products
            Food
							Drugs
							Medical Devices
							Radiation-Emitting Products
							Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics
							Animal and Veterinary
							Cosmetics
							Tobacco ProductsTopics
            About FDA
							Combination Products
							Regulatory Information
							Safety
							Emergency Preparedness
							International Programs
							News and Events
							Training and Continuing Education
							Inspections and Compliance
							Science and ResearchInformation For
            Consumers
	            Patients
	            Industry
	            Health Professionals
	            Federal, State and Local Officials 
 In this section:

                Drug Shortages

Drug Shortages

                        Drug Shortages | Additional News and Information
          Frequently Asked Questions about Drug Shortages
          Drug Shortages Infographic Home
          Drugs
          Drug Safety and Availability
          Drug Shortages
          Graphic -  A Drug Supply Chain ExampleDrug Shortages Graphic -  A Drug Supply Chain Example
  
  	
    Share
    Post
    Linkedin

    Email
    PrintFrom Supplier to PatientA Drug Supply Chain Example: From Supplier to PatientPDF Version (PDF, 661KB)Return to Drug Shortages page

                                                                                  Content current as of:
      05/05/2016Drug Shortages

          
                        Drug Shortages | Additional News and Information
          Frequently Asked Questions about Drug Shortages
          Drug Shortages Infographic
 
 Footer Links
    FDA Archive
          About FDA
          Accessibility
      Visitor Information
          Website Policies / Privacy
          No FEAR Act
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
      FOIA
          HHS.gov
          USA.gov
    Contact FDA
      Follow FDA on Facebook
      Follow FDA on X
      Follow FDA on Instagram
      Follow FDA on LinkedIn
      View FDA videos on YouTube
      Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
    FDA Homepage
    Contact Number
      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) Back toTop
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2051

REGINALD EVANS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUMTER COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:23-cv-03918-JFA)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Danny Calvert Crowe, CROWE LAFAVE LLC, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2051 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Evans appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of 

the magistrate judge and remanding this case to state court. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Evans v. 

Sumter Cnty. Election Comm’n, No. 3:23-cv-03918-JFA (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2023). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2051 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John M. Piecuch, as Chief Executive Officer of MMI Products, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended January 1, 2005 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: April 1, 2005 |                               
|-------------------- | ------------------------------
|                     | By:  /s/John M. Piecuch       
|                     | John M. Piecuch, President    
|                     | and Chief Executive Officer of
|                     | MMI Products, Inc.            































A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MMI Products, Inc. and will be retained by MMI Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN C. ETTER, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00184 WHA

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER

SEAL

Both sides in this civil action have filed administrative motions to file under seal, in

connection with plaintiff John C. Etter’s motion for class certification, limited portions of both

parties’ expert reports and certain exhibits in their entirety. Because the underlying motion for

class certification was more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, compelling

reasons are required to warrant sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d

1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th

Cir. 2006). This order resolves both administrative motions.

Defendants Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Property

and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, and Allstate

Insurance Company of California (collectively, “Allstate”) move to file Exhibit 5 to Vickie E.

Turner’s declaration entirely under seal and limited portions of Sonya Kwon’s expert report

pursuant to defendant Louis Odiase’s confidentiality designations (Dkt. No. 63). Odiase’s
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

supporting declaration explains that Exhibit 5 reflects Odiase’s customer list and contain

personal information of third parties and the redacted portions of Sonya Kwon’s expert report

contain specific references to the information in Exhibit 5 (Dkt. No. 65 ¶ 3–4). Compelling

reasons having been shown, Allstate’s administration motion is GRANTED. 

Etter moves to file Exhibit 1 to Robert Biggerstaff’s opening expert report and Exhibits

1–6 to Robert Biggerstaff’s rebuttal expert report entirely under seal and limited portions of

Robert Biggerstaff’s rebuttal expert report pursuant to Odiase’s confidentiality designations 

(Dkt. No. 66). Odiase’s supporting declaration explains that Exhibit 1 to Biggerstaff’s opening

report and Exhibits 1–6 to Biggerstaff’s rebuttal report include personal information of third

parties and Odiase’s proprietary business practices (Dkt. No. 68 ¶ 3). The limited redacted

portions to Biggerstaff’s rebuttal report similarly contain fax numbers of third parties. 

Compelling reasons having been shown, Etter’s administration motion is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2018. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 Golden West Brewing Company, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John C. Power, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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/ John C. Power___________ John C. Power, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer May 20, 2009
1

Case No. 17-CV-00062-LHK 

JUDGMENT

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK MAGADIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00062-LHK 

JUDGMENT

On May 28, 2021 the Ninth Circuit vacated the Court’s judgment and award of damages 

for violations of California Labor Code § 226.7 and reversed the judgment and award of damages 

for violations of California Labor Code § 226. The Ninth Circuit instructed the Court to remand 

the California Labor Code § 226.7 claim to state court and instructed the Court to enter judgment 

for Defendants Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (collectively, “Walmart”) on 

the California Labor Code § 226 claim. Id. The mandate issued on October 27, 2021. ECF No. 

228. 

Initially Plaintiff Magadia pled four causes of action. ECF No. 1-1. He alleged that 

Walmart violated: (1) California Labor Code § 226.7 for failure to pay adequate compensation for 

missed meal breaks; (2) California Labor Code § 226 for failure to provide accurate itemized wage 

statements; (3) California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”) for engaging in 

unfair and unlawful business practices; and (4) California Labor Code § 2698 because Wal-Mart 

Case 5:17-cv-00062-LHK Document 229 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00062-LHK 

JUDGMENT

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

failed to pay adequate compensation for missed meal breaks and failed to provide accurate 

itemized wage statements. ECF No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 24-42. Only the first two were operative claims 

because “the UCL merely extends the statute of limitations for claim (1), and [California Labor

Code § 2698] provides for penalties for underlying violations of the California Labor Code.” ECF 

No. 217 at 1-2.

Accordingly, the Court REMANDS Plaintiff’s first cause of action under California Labor 

Code § 226.7 to the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County. Judgment is entered for 

Walmart on Plaintiff’s second cause of action under California Labor Code § 226. The Clerk shall 

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2021 

_________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00062-LHK Document 229 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                            MERITOR AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                            AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    PERCENTAGE OF VOTING
                                                                     SECURITIES OWNED BY
                                                                     -------------------
     NAME AND JURISDICTION                                        REGISTRANT   SUBSIDIARY
     ---------------------                                        ----------   ----------

<S>                                                               <C>           <C>
Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems, LLC (Delaware)..............       100%

Meritor Light Vehicle Systems, Inc. (Delaware).............       100%

Meritor Automotive Canada Inc. (Canada)....................       100%

Meritor Automotive Limited (England).......................       100%

        Meritor France (France)............................                       100%

Meritor Automotive GmbH (Germany)..........................        99%             1%*

Meritor do Brasil Ltda. (Brazil)...........................                     100%**
</TABLE>


--------------
*     1% of the voting securities of Meritor Automotive GmbH is owned by Meritor
      Heavy Vehicle Systems Limited.

**    100% of the voting securities of Meritor do Brasil Ltda. is owned by
      Meritor Participacoes Ltda., a holding company all of the voting
      securities of which is owned by Meritor Automotive, Inc.

      Listed above are certain consolidated subsidiaries included in the
financial statements of the Company at September 30, 1999.