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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard R. Davidson., Chief Financial Officer of
Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: April 30, 2007



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Richard R. Davidson      
|Richard R. Davidson          
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.01

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any filings.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SigmaTel, Inc., a Delaware corporation, for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of the undersigned officers of
SigmaTel, Inc. certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his respective knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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
SigmaTel, Inc. for the periods presented therein.

Date: November 6, 2006



/s/ Ronald P. EdgertonRonald P. EdgertonChief Executive Officer


Date: November 6, 2006



/s/ Ross A. GoolsbyRoss A. GoolsbyChief Financial Officer


A signed original of the above certification has been provided to SigmaTel, Inc. and will be retained by
SigmaTel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



53
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3582

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Daniel Arthur Stewart lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

____________ Submitted: September 23, 2024 Filed: October 4, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. After Daniel Stewart pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, see 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), the district court 1 sentenced him to 84 months in prison, an

1 The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.upward variance from the applicable Guidelines range. He raises some challenges to

his sentence, but none convinces us that he is entitled to relief. Stewart maintains that "the district court committed procedural error by selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts and failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence." In his plea agreement, though, he expressly waived any challenges he might have to "all non-jurisdictional issues," which would necessarily include assertions of procedural error. The government has persuaded us that Stewart entered into the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily and that no miscarriage of justice will result from its enforcement, see United States v. Williams , 81 F.4th 835, 839 (8th Cir. 2023), and Stewart doesn't contend otherwise. So we enforce the plea agreement and dismiss his procedural-error contentions. Stewart also says that the chosen sentence is substantively unreasonable, a matter he expressly reserved from his appeal waiver. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Cruz , 38 F.4th 729, 732 (8th Cir. 2022). Stewart's Guidelines range was 30–37 months' imprisonment. According to Stewart, the upward "variance at issue was unreasonable, yielding a sentence that was more than double the highest end of the Guideline range." This wasn't the typical child-pornography-possession case. Stewart conceded that he had made arrangements to have sexual intercourse with someone whom he believed was a thirteen-year-old boy and that officers apprehended him when he arrived at the hotel where he was to meet the boy. (It was only later that police discovered that Stewart possessed child pornography.) The district court also noted, correctly, that as "a former judge, prosecutor, and public defender," Stewart "should be well aware of the magnitude of these crimes and their lasting effect on children." These circumstances led the government to move for an upward variance to the statutory-maximum 120 months. And as the district court pointed out, the enticement -2-offense with which Stewart was originally charged carried a ten-year minimum

sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). We do not believe that an 84-month sentence in the circumstances was an abuse of discretion. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.

______________________________

-3-
#### Paul B. Schmidt, Petitioner, v Thomas P. Ryan, Jr., as Mayor of the City of Rochester, et al., Respondents.

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed without *537costs. Memorandum: On this record, there was substantial evidence that petitioner wrongfully appropriated the property of the Christmas Bureau of Rochester to himself and to third parties who were not intended recipients of the property. We do not find the penalty of demotion in rank to be " ' "so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” ’ ” *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 233). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
LINITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

VS

zuCHARDWEST

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-01 58

Enforcement Activity No. 7655691

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: Mav 10,2023

Bv Administrative Law Judse: Honorable Timothv G. Stueve

Appearances:

Lee Willett

USCG MSU Savannah

For the Coast Guard

Richard West, Pro Se

For Respondent
CON NT ORI) APPRO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about May 3, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated M ay 10 , 2023 , at

Alameda. Califomia

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

BRANDON LEE JACKSON,

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-01 I 8

Enforcement Activitv No. 7650049

CONSENT ORDER

Issued By: Honorable Georqe J. Jordan, Administrative Law Judge

Issued: April 21. 2023

Appearances:

LT LAWRENCE SCHALLES

USCG Sector Charleston

For the Coast Guard

BRANDON LEE JACKSON, pra .se

For Respondent

VS
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On March 20,2023, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against Brandon Lee

Jackson (Respondentl, alleging one count ofUse of, or addiction to the Use of, or

Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs, in violation of 46 C F R $ 16.201(b) and 46

U.S.C. S 7704(b). The Coast Guard alleged that Respondent failed a chemical test for

dangerous drugs, raising the presumption ofuse.

On March 20, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe

case under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

After carefully reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I find that it is

fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. $

20.502.

2
ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDER-ED that the Settlement

Agreement is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential is

REVOKED. However, the revocation is stayed until June 20, 2024, to permit

Respondent to complete a rehabilitation program and prove cure in accordance with the

Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERE,D that Respondent complete the terms of the

Settlement Agreement prior to the termination of the stay. If Respondent satisfies the

requirements, this order will reflect an outright suspension for the period ofdeposit to

permit Respondent to complete and prove cure in accordance with the stipulated order

contained in the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDER-ED that this Consent Order shall constitute full, frnal,

and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. GEORGE J. JORDAN

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Done and dated April2l,2023,

at Seattle. WA

3
PD-0477-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 5/26/2015 5:30:38 PM Accepted 5/28/2015 2:35:56 PM 

### No. PD-0477-15 ABELAp?!IJ In the Court ofCriminal Appeals At Austin**-♦-** 

# ^CdsZ^ No. 01-13-00991-CR *+0 U'^

- I'V In the Court ofAppeals for the First District ofTexas at Houston

No. 1315240 In the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas



### JOSE FRANCO CAMPUZANO Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee 

### c

APPELLANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW

FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS May 28, 2015 ABELACOSTAt CLERKTO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

### APPELLANT, pursuant to Tex. R. APP. P. 68.2(c) moves for an extension of time within which to file its petition for discretionary review. In support of its motion, appellant submits the following: 

### 1. Appellant was charged with the felony offense ofintoxicationassault. 

### 2. Ajury convictedappellant of the charged offenses and sentenced him to 5 years community supervision on October 15,2013. 

### 3. A unanimous panel of the First Court of Appeals rendered judgment in 

### an unpublished opinion on March 26, 2015, affirming appellant's conviction and sentence. 

### 4. After one extension was granted, appellant's petition for discretionary review is due on May 26, 2015. 

### 5. Appellant seeks a short extension, in accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(c), untilJune 2,2015, to file its petition fordiscretionary review. 

### 6. The following facts are relied upon to show good cause for the requested extension: 

### a. Counsel has been delayed in completing the petition due to the 

### recent flooding in the Houston area on May 24, 2015. High water resulted in school closures, as well as counsel's inability to travel into 

### the city to heroffice to complete thepetition. 

### b. Appellant's petitionis notfor purposes ofdelay, but so thatjustice may be done.WHEREFORE, the Appellant prays that this Court will grant the requested extension until June 2, 2015. Respectfully submitted, /s/Mandy Miller Attorney for appellant 2910 Commercial Center Blvd., Ste. 103-201 Katy, TX 77494 SBN 24055561 PHONE (832) 900-9884 FAX (877) 904-6846 

### mandy@mandymiUerlegal.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### Pursuant to TEX. R. App. P. 9.5, this certifies that on May 25, 2015, a copy of 

### the foregoing wasdelivered to the following addresses:

Melissa Hervey 

### Harris County District Attorney's Office hervey melissa@dao.hctx.net
Lisa McMinn State Prosecuting Attorney lisa.mcminn.@spa.state.tx.us

/s/Mandy Miller
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5717 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to plan, design, and construct a facility and to 

enter into agreements relating to education programs 

at the National Zoological Park facility in Front Royal, 

Virginia, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5717 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Smithsonian Conserva3 tion Biology Institute Enhancement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FACILITY FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PRO5 GRAMS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Board of Regents of the 

7 Smithsonian Institution is authorized to plan, design, and 

8 construct a facility on National Zoological Park property 

9 in Front Royal, Virginia for the purpose of conducting re10 search and educational programs. 

11 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

12 authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection 

13 (a)— 

14 (1) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 

15 and 2011; and 

16 (2) $3,000,000 in the aggregate for all suc17 ceeding fiscal years. 

18 SEC. 3. AGREEMENTS FOR HOUSING AND OTHER SERVICES. 

19 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Board of Regents of the 

20 Smithsonian Institution is authorized to enter into agree21 ments for the provision of housing and other services to 

22 the participants in the programs referenced in section 2. 

23 (b) COSTS.—The housing and other services de24 scribed in subsection (a) shall be provided at no cost to 

25 the Smithsonian Institution. 
3 

•HR 5717 EH

1 SEC. 4. ANIMAL HOLDING FACILITY. 

2 The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution 

3 is authorized to plan, design, and construct animal holding 

4 and related program facilities on National Zoological Park 

5 property in Front Royal, Virginia, to be funded from non6 federal sources. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5717 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsoother purposes. Park facility in Front Royal, Virginia, and for education programs at the National Zoological facility and to enter into agreements relating to nian Institution to plan, design, and construct a
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      11,014,000
<SECURITIES>                                   982,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,109,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   269,000
<INVENTORY>                                    995,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,664,000
<PP&E>                                      12,062,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,069,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,176,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,189,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       155,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,131,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,176,000
<SALES>                                     11,334,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,334,000
<CGS>                                        4,794,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,794,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,899,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,211,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,211,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,211,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

LINDA MAHER , Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM D. MAHER , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2968

[ December 13, 2018 ]

Appeal and cross

- appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Kathleen J. Kroll , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2010

- DR

- 011577

- XXXX

- NB

.
Lydia A. Worden and Jennifer E. Reisler of Beaulieu

- Fawcett Law Group, P.A., Delray Beach, for appellant.

Randall Burks and Robin Bresky of Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton , for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , M AY and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Edwin Kawasaki, Respondent, v Karen Kasting, Appellant.

The court’s award of 65% of the undivided marital assets to the husband and 35% to the wife is amply supported by the record. This was a childless marriage of some 10 years’ duration. The husband’s earnings comprised about 81% of the *1035family income. Each party made significant nonmonetary contributions toward maintenance of marital property and their horse business and each is capable of financial self-support. The court also directed that the husband be responsible for 65% of the marital debts. There is no general requirement that assets be divided equally *(Arvantides v Arvantides,*64 NY2d 1033) and we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in this case *(see, Kobylack v Kobylack,*62 NY2d 399, *on remand*111 AD2d 221; *Michalek v Michalek,*114 AD2d 655). While the court’s consideration of a posttrial ex parte written communication was clearly improper *(see,*Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 7-110; Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 [A] [4]; *Antoci v Antoci,*113 AD2d 857), it is apparent from the court’s written decision that it did not consider defendant’s alleged conduct in arriving at its determination of the respective interests of the parties. Under the circumstances, a reversal is not required *(see, B. G. Equip. Co. v American Ins. Co.,*61 AD2d 247, *affd*46 NY2d 811).

We note that the court delayed in rendering its decision. Defendant has not shown any prejudice resulting from that delay, and a new trial is not warranted *(see, Thayer v Blando,*40 AD2d 886; *Allied Scrap & Salvage Corp. v State of New York,*26 AD2d 880). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — divorce.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5703 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5703

 To permit the advertising and sale of lottery tickets within certain 
                   areas of the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 2010

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To permit the advertising and sale of lottery tickets within certain 
                   areas of the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. PERMITTING ADVERTISING AND SALE OF LOTTERY TICKETS WITHIN 
              CERTAIN AREAS AND SALE OF TICKETS BY BLIND VENDORS WITHIN 
              FEDERAL ENCLAVE.

    (a) In General.--The paragraph under the heading ``Lottery and 
Charitable Games Enterprise Fund'' in the District of Columbia 
Appropriation Act, 1982 (Public Law 97-91; 95 Stat. 1174), as amended 
by section 134(a)(1) of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 
1990 (Public Law 101-168; 103 Stat. 1282), is amended by striking the 
10th proviso.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# AGENCY:

 Food and Drug Administration, HHS. 

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Medical Device Recall Authority” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                     In the                    **Federal Register**                     of November 3, 1999 (64 FR 59775), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0432.  The approval expires on December 31, 2002.   A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/​ohrms/​dockets.                 

Dated: January 10, 1999. 

William K. Hubbard, 

Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning, and Legislation. 

[FR Doc. 00-989 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F