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-Q of Active Power, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John K. Penver, Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 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 my 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; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.



/s/ John K. PenverJohn K. PenverVice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryApril 28, 2008
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of **FIRSTBINGO.COM** (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Thomas Sheppard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated this 7th day of April, 2004.

 
/s/ Thomas SheppardThomas SheppardChief Executive Officer
A92A1427.

#### MOHORN v. ROSS.

(422 SE2d 290)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Polly Mohorn, next friend and natural guardian of Terrika Receal Mohorn, filed an action against Carey Lesell Ross, alleging Terrika was injured as a result of the negligent operation of a vehicle by Ross. Ross filed a motion for summary judgment, contending Terrika’s claim is barred under the doctrine of parental immunity.

Terrika is the daughter of Polly Mohorn and Carey Lesell Ross. On December 16, 1988, Ross wrecked a vehicle in which Terrika was a passenger. During February of 1990, Polly Mohorn and Ross were married and Polly and Terrika moved in with Ross. On November 28, 1990, Polly Mohorn sued Ross for Terrika’s alleged injuries. In February of 1991, the couple separated without a divorce and Itoss moved out of the home. Ross periodically visits his daughter and provides support, paying the mortgage and assisting with transportation.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed. *Held:*

The doctrine of parental immunity is implemented to protect domestic tranquility, avoid fraud and collusion, preserve family resources, protect the family unit and preserve parental discipline. *Clabough v. Rachwal,*176 Ga. App. 212, 213 (335 SE2d 648). These objectives become relevant after an action is filed, not at the time a cause of action accrues. See *Morris v. Brooks,*186 Ga. App. 177, 178 (366 SE2d 777).

Polly Mohorn and Ross were married and their family resided in the same household when the case sub judice was initiated. The family separated less than three months later, Ross moving out of the home. Ross now periodically visits his daughter and provides financial support, paying the mortgage and assisting with transportation. These circumstances justify the trial court’s finding that Ross is immune from liability for injuries allegedly sustained by his daughter in the collision.

Although the family is separated, the child’s parents are not divorced and there is no evidence of domestic unrest. On the contrary, the undisputed evidence shows that Ross visits his daughter and supports his family. Consequently, the underlying objectives of preserving domestic tranquility, family resources and parental discipline remain. Further, there remains the possibility of salvaging the family unit. It follows that the trial court did not err in granting summary *444judgment in favor of Ross based on the doctrine of parental immunity. Compare *Segars v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co. of Ga.,*192 Ga. App. 265 (1) (384 SE2d 426).

Decided September 9, 1992.

*Kendall, Dixon & Turk, Alvin L. Kendall,*for appellant.

*Beck, Owen & Murray, Samuel A. Murray,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Sognier, C. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5956 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5956

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the additional 
          standard deduction for individuals age 65 and older.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2010

 Mr. Hinchey (for himself, Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. 
 Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Norton, and Ms. 
 Richardson) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the additional 
          standard deduction for individuals age 65 and older.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN ADDITIONAL STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR AGED.

    (a) In General.--
            (1) Additional amount generally.--Paragraph (1) of section 
        63(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
        striking ``$600'' and inserting ``$2,200''.
            (2) Additional amount for certain unmarried individuals.--
        Paragraph (3) of section 63(f) of such Code is amended by 
        striking ```$750' for `$600''' and inserting ```$2,400' for 
        `$2,400'''.
    (b) Adjusted for Inflation.--Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such 
Code is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or subsection (f)'' each place it 
        appears, and
            (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B)(i), 
        by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)(ii) and 
        inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end of subparagraph 
        (B) the following new clause:
                            ``(iii) `calendar year 2010' in the case of 
                        the dollar amounts contained in subsection 
                        (f).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2



                           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 of Duke Energy Field Services, LLC (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,
Rose M. Robeson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



       /s/ Rose M. Robeson
--------------------------------
Rose M. Robeson
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 21, 2003
Exhibit 32


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), The
undersigned, Kenneth E. Stinson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Michael J. Piechoski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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





 /s/ Kenneth E. Stinson
Kenneth E. Stinson
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2003





 /s/ Michael J. Piechoski
Michael J. Piechoski
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2003
NUMBER 13-20-00209-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE LUIS ALBERTO VASQUEZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa1

Relator Luis Alberto Vasquez filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above 

cause on April 16, 2020. Through this original proceeding, Vasquez contends that the trial 

court abused its discretion by requiring Vasquez “and other defendants to appear at 

pretrial conferences about the status of their case in person, and issuing a judgment nisi 

and a warrant for their arrest if they failed to do so.” Vasquez concedes that trial courts 

typically have great latitude in handling their dockets and deciding how matters are heard; 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

however, concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic demand a modification of this 

general rule for hearings that “are not strictly necessary.”

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no 

adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel 

is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. Powell v. 

Hocker, 516 S.W.3d 488, 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris, 491 

S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 

701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). A ministerial act does not involve the 

use of judicial discretion; instead, a ministerial act must be positively commanded and so 

plainly prescribed under the law as to be free from doubt. In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d at 333–

34. In other words, the relator must have a clear right to the relief sought, meaning that 

the merits of the relief sought are beyond dispute. In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d at 704. If 

the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should 

be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 

207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Vasquez has failed to 

meet his burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief in this case. In so ruling, we are 

cognizant of the profound and significant legal issues regarding public health and safety 

and due process implicated by this original proceeding. However, in examining the 

specific facts and circumstances presented by this record, we cannot conclude that 

mandamus relief is warranted for Vasquez’s claims, and we do not address here any 
3

claims he might attempt to raise on the behalf of others. Accordingly, we deny the petition 

for writ of mandamus and all relief sought therein. 

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

16th day of April, 2020.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel RUIZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-40005

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 20, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. *375Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Miguel Ruiz, Jr., Coleman, FL, pro se.

Before WIENER, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Miguel Ruiz, Jr., federal prisoner #57857-179, seeks (1) a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen sentencing, which the district court construed as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and (2) authorization, nunc pro tunc, for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, so as to challenge the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute 4.83 kilograms of cocaine. He asserts that the district court improperly applied an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

To obtain a COA, Ruiz must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2); *see also Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When, as here, the district court’s denial of relief is based solely on procedural grounds, a COA may issue “when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Ruiz has not made the requisite showing. Consequently, his motion for a COA is denied.

Before a successive § 2255 motion may be filed in the district court, the putative movant must obtain authorization from this court for the district court to consider the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); § 2255. We may authorize the filing of a successive § 2255 motion only if the movant makes a prima facie showing that his claim relies on either (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proved and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the underlying offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law that was previously unavailable has been made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. § 2244(b)(2); § 2255. Ruiz has not made the requisite showing. Consequently, his motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion is also denied.

COA DENIED; MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit      32.2**

**Stratus      Services Group, Inc.**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18      U.S.C. Section 1350)**

| 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| Dated:                May 15, 2006 |                                                                     |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | By:                /s/ Michael A. Maltzman                               |
|                               | Michael                A. Maltzman                                       |
|                               | Vice                President and Chief Financial                Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10172]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meetings:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research (DMR) #1203.
    Dates & Times: May 1, 2001, 8 a.m.-9 p.m., May 2, 2001; 8 a.m.-1 
p.m.
    Place: Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Florida.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Ulrich Strom, Program Director, Materials 
Research Science and Engineering Centers, Division of Materials 
Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-4938.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning progress of the Collaborative to Integrate Research and 
Education (CIRE) between Florida A&M University and Carnegie Mellon 
University.
    Agenda: Review and evaluate progress of the Collaborative to 
Integrate Research and Education (CIRE) between Florida A&M 
University and Carnegie Mellon University.
    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed may include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.
    Reason for Late Notice: Conflicting schedules of members and the 
necessity to proceed with review of proposals.

    Dated: April 19, 2001.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-10172 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### KEATING, Respondent, v. HAYES, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

June 20, 1894.)

Action by Annie M. Keating against William B. Hayes.

No opinion. Order appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 29 N. Y. Supp. 475. _
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-312-053]

Take notice that on April 17, 2001, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing an Errata Letter Filing in the above-referenced docket.

Tennessee states that the Errata Letter Filing contains a complete copy of a Gas Transportation Agreement between Tennessee and Virginia Power Energy Marketing, Inc. (VEPCO) pursuant to Tennessee's Rate Schedule FT-A (FT-A Service Agreement). Tennessee further states that the copy of the FT-A Service Agreement that was filed on April 11, 2001 in this docket inadvertently omitted certain pages of the agreement.

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to                           ( print page 20977)                        the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                 

*http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10319  Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 of Huifeng Bio-Pharmaceutical Technology, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Sanding Tao, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.





Date:
      March 31, 2009/s/
      Sanding TaoSanding
      Tao,
                  Principal Financial and Accounting Officer