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


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Report of HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 11, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory Ray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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









Date: March 4, 2011
By: /s/ Gregory RayGregory RayChief Financial Officer, Vice President, Business Management and Secretary
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
Exhibit 32.2   Certification of the Principal Accounting 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 of Sunburst Acquisitions III, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended February 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Scott MacCaughern, the Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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/ Scott MacCaughernPrincipal Accounting Officer Date: September 21, 2007
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 10-2 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 10-2 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 10-2 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 3 of 3
September 1, 2006
Via E-Mail

Office of the Acting Secretary
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W. c
Washington, D.C. 20581 y

Re: Rule Certification. NYMEX Submission 06.102: Notification
that NYMEX After Hours Trading Will Migrate to CME
GLOBEX® on August 6, 2006.

Dear Ms. Eileen Donovan:

The New York Mercantile Exchange ("NY MEX" or the "Exchange") is notifying the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) of a change in trading
hours for the NYMEX Division’s physically-delivered futures contracts. This change, which will
be effective beginning on September 4 for trade date September 5, 2006, will coincide with the
launch of these contracts for side-by-side trading on the CME GLOBEX® electronic trading
platform during Regular Trading Hours (RTH).

The aforementioned changes will include the physically-delivered Crude Oil, Natural
Gas, Heating Oil, Unleaded Gasoline, Propane, Platinum and Palladium Futures Contracts. The
change of trading hours was communicated through Exchange Notice to Members 06-419 dated
August 3, 2006 (attached), which also informed members of the migration of the aforementioned
contracts to CME GLOBEX® from NYMEX ACCESS® for after-hours trading on August 6,
2006.

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6,
the Exchange hereby certifies that the attached notification complies with the Act, including
regulations under the Act.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Nancy Minett, Vice
President, Compliance, at (212) 299-2940, or the undersigned at (212) 299-2897.

Very truly yours,

Thomas F. LaSala
Senior Vice President
Compliance and Risk Management
ce: Thomas LaSala
Brian Regan


Notice No. 419
08/03/2006

NYMEX Confirms After Hours Trading Will Migrate to CME Globex on August 6

The New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. confirmed today that it will migrate its after hours
energy futures contracts from NYMEX ACCESS, the exchange's after-hours electronic trading
system, to the CME Globex electronic trading platform, which operates virtually 24 hours each
trading day, beginning on August 6 for trade date August 7.

The migration will include the physically delivered crude oil, natural gas, heating oil, gasoline
and propane futures, as well as the platinum and palladium futures contracts, all of which will
trade only prior to the opening and following the market close of the NYMEX floor.

Last night, NYMEX announced that it will offer the same physically delivered energy futures
contracts on CME Globex during its regular open outcry trading hours, beginning on September
4 for trade date September 5. The contracts will trade side by side in conjunction with NYMEX
trading floor hours, and they will be fungible with the floor-traded NYMEX contracts.

Should you have any questions or require any further information, please contact

exchangeinfo@nymex.com
(106 So. 41)

#### PARKER v. GILBERT.

(6 Div. 352.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 22, 1925.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1925.)

Appeal and error <&wkey;l068(3) — Technical errors in receiving or rejecting evidence, or in giving or refusing charges, held without prejudice to defendant.

Where plaintiff in detinue was under undisputed evidence entitled to recover property sued for, or its alternate value, technical errors in receiving or rejecting evidence, or in giving or refusing charges, *held*without prejudice to defendant.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Bessemer Division; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge.

Detinue by H. A. Gilbert against M. F. Parker. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326.

Affirmed.

Pinckney Scott, of Bessemer, for appellant.

Goodwyn & Ross, of Bessemer, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE, J.

The action is in detinue in Code form.

Under the undisputed evidence, plaintiff was entitled to recover the property sued for, or its alternate value, and also the several other items found. Accordingly, if there was technical error in any of the adverse rulings complained of, whether in receiving or rejecting evidence or in giving or refusing charges, it is wholly without influence upon the result, and without prejudice to defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
Clear All

        30 June 2023    

                    United States hands over command of NATO maritime task group to United Kingdom                 
                TARANTO, Italy (June 30, 2023) – Commodore Paul Stroude of the Royal Navy has assumed command of Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2) in Taranto, Italy on June 30, 2023. Commander of Allied Maritime Command (MARCOM), Vice Admiral Mike Utley CB OBE, presided over the handover ceremony.            

        17 May 2023    

                    NATO Task Group demonstrates flexibility and strength in the Mediterranean Sea                 
                CAGLIARI, Italy -- Over the past few weeks, Standing NATO Maritime Group Two (SNMG2) has engaged in multiple activities throughout the Mediterranean, showcasing its reach and seamless integration with Allied navies.            

        02 February 2023    

                    Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 Strengthens Ties in Montenegro                 
                BAR, Montenegro – Standing NATO Maritime Group Two (SNMG2) concluded a port visit in Bar on Jan. 28.            

        10 January 2023    

                    Standing NATO Maritime Group Two Sets Sail With New Flagship                 
                ROTA, Spain - Standing NATO Maritime Group Two (SNMG2) departed Naval Station Rota on Friday, January, 6th 2023 after a scheduled change of flagship to the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS James E Williams (DDG 95).            

        14 December 2022    

                    Standing NATO Maritime Group Two (SNMG2) Transfers Flagship in Rota                 
                Standing NATO Maritime Group Two (SNMG2) transferred its flagship as scheduled from U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98) to U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS James E. Williams (DDG 95) at Naval Station Rota on Tuesday.            

        29 March 2021    

                    Murky Waters, Crystal Clear Legacy                 
                Boatswain’s Mate 1st Class James E. Williams was not new to war. In his 19 years of active duty service, the Cherokee Indian served in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and his experience was rewarded with more responsibility            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH     Document 16      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH     Document 16      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
================================================================================

                                                                   Exhibit 10.12

                                   Addendum 1




Product Name:        AB KING PRO

Product Description: Fitness Machine to exercise abdominal muscles

Current Units Sold to Date:

Projected Units Sold next 24 months:

Manufacturer:        CirTran-Asia

Sub-Manufacturer:    HL CORP. (SHENZHEN - CHINA)

Marketing Partner Contact Info:



Current Sale Price:  $20.50 USD

Current Cost to Manufacturer:       $18.50

Total Tooling/Development Costs:    $162,199.84

Profit % Per Unit      CirTran-Asia     $ 1.00 USD  50%
                       MCE              $  .50 USD  25%
                       HIPMG            $  .50 USD  25%
                       UKING            $  .00 USD

AB KING Stock Option Schedule

After CirTran receives orders and ships more than 200,000 units,

                       MCE
                       HIPMG
                       UKING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            39,695
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,306
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  41,109
<CASH>                                          23,141
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              29,972
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           2,472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 295,563
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                119,976
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             72,538
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 16,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,700
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,773
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   295,563
<PREMIUMS>                                      22,775
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              3,271
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  55
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  55,316
<BENEFITS>                                      25,223
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     10,237
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            48,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (85)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,293)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (601)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,894)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.39)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  39,154
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             24,450
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                  819
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              18,398
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 9,703
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 36,322
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                            819
        

</TABLE>
#### Florine Johnson et al., Respondents, v Golub Corporation, Appellant.

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McDermott, J.), entered September 30, 1988 in Albany County, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

On June 4, 1986, by service of a summons with notice, plaintiffs commenced this action based upon a fall plaintiff Florine Johnson allegedly suffered while on defendant’s property on June 7, 1983. Defendant immediately served a notice of appearance and demand for complaint, but no complaint was forthcoming. Two years later, defendant moved to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b); the motion, received by plaintiffs’ then attorney on or about June 8, 1988, was made returnable on July 25, 1988. Plaintiffs’ affidavit in opposition, dated August 9, 1988, with proposed complaint attached, was received by defendant’s counsel on or about August 15. Su*804preme Court denied the motion and granted plaintiffs leave to serve their complaint, prompting defendant to appeal. We reverse.

Defendant’s motion should have been granted by default since plaintiffs failed to serve their papers in opposition two days prior to the return date (CPLR 2214 [b], [c]) and there is no reference in the record to the motion having been adjourned *(see, Matter of Gustina,*135 AD2d 1124, *Iv dismissed*72 NY2d 840).

Even if an extension had been granted, defendant was entitled to dismissal for plaintiffs failed to submit an affidavit of merit *(see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells,*64 NY2d 904, 905) or a verified complaint in lieu thereof (CPLR 105 [t]). Moreover, while plaintiffs’ proffered excuse — that because the associate assigned to their case left their prior attorney’s office the demand for the complaint languished in their file unanswered — might suffice to excuse failure to meet the 20-day deadline in CPLR 3012 (b), it does not excuse two years of neglect in producing the complaint *(see, De Vito v Marine Midland Bank,*100 AD2d 530, 531).

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony L. Roland, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: For the first time on appeal, defendant asserts that his statements to the police were obtained in violation of his right to counsel *(see, People v Bartolomeo,*53 NY2d 225). Although this issue was not raised in the suppression court, the record establishes that the police had been advised by defendant at the time of this interrogation of a pending charge against him, but did not inquire whether he was represented by counsel. Because the police failed to inquire, they are bound by what such an inquiry would have revealed *(see, People v Bartolomeo, supra,*at 231-232). On this record, however, defendant has failed to meet his burden to establish that he was in fact represented by counsel on the earlier charge at the time of interrogation *(see, People v Rosa,*65 NY2d 380, 386-388; *People v Kinchen,*60 NY2d 772, 773-774; *People v Ryans,*118 AD2d 741). Accordingly, defendant has failed to establish that his statements were taken in violation of his right to counsel. Further, even if we were to conclude that the suppression court erred in failing to suppress defendant’s statements, reversal would not be required. The proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and there was no reasonable possibility that this error, if any, might have contributed to defendant’s conviction and it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Rivera,*57 NY2d 453, 456; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237).

*1003We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — burglary, second degree, and other charges.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 9-2 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 9-2 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
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 for the quarter ended November
30, 2008 of Sinobiopharma, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Lequn Lee Huang, President, CEO, CFO, Treasurer and director 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, 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.





Date:
      January 14, 2009
              /s/ Lequn Lee HuangLequn
      Lee Huang, President, CEO,
                CFO,
      Treasurer and Director
                (Principal
      Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350,

CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

I, James C. Eckert, of OMNI Energy Services Corp., certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the Periodic Report) which this statement accompanies 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OMNI Energy Services Corp.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 10, 2007



/s/ James C. EckertJames C. EckertChief Executive Officer
Exhibit
32.1


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 for the quarter ended November
30, 2008 of Sinobiopharma, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Lequn Lee Huang, President, CEO, CFO, Treasurer and a director 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, 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.





Date:
      January 14, 2009
              /s/ Lequn Lee HuangLequn
      Lee Huang, President, CEO,
                CFO,
      Treasurer and Director
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ULTA Salon, Cosmetics &
Fragrance, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors
and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: December 13, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Gregg R. BodnarGregg R. BodnarChief Financial Officer