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

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osprey Ventures,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter and six month period ended
November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Periodic Report), I, James Yiu Yeung Lung, 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: January 13, 2009

/s/ James Yiu Yeung Lung

James Yiu Yeung Lung Chief Financial Officer

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2490 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2490

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief 
     Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL FEASIBILITY 
              STUDY.

    Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(xx) Chief standing bear national historic trail.--The 
        Chief Standing Bear Trail, extending approximately 550 miles 
        from Niobrara, Nebraska, to Ponca City, Oklahoma, which follows 
        the route taken by Chief Standing Bear and the Ponca people 
        during Federal Indian removal, and approximately 550 miles from 
        Ponca City, Oklahoma, through Omaha, Nebraska, to Niobrara, 
        Nebraska, which follows the return route taken by Chief 
        Standing Bear and the Ponca people.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 26, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2490

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief 
     Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes.
```
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 of Retail Opportunity Investments Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John B. Roche, 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, as amended; and




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




Date: December 16, 2009
By:
/s/ JOHN B. ROCHEJohn B. RocheChief Financial Officer
#### Allen JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden of the Perry Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 06-6330.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 2006.

Decided: June 1, 2006.

Allen Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Allen Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29111-29112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13393]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2310-113]


Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

May 23, 2001.
    An environmental assessment (EA) is available for public review. 
The EA was prepared for Pacific Gas & Electric's (licensee) application 
for the Drum-Spaulding Project to lower the spillway of the Rock Creek 
Dam by 2.5 feet to accommodate a Probable Maximum Flood event of 2,200 
cubic feet per second.
    In summary, the EA examines the environmental impacts of: (1) 
licensee's proposed action: lowering the Rock Creek Dam spillway 2.5 
feet; and (2) no-action. These alternatives are described in detail in 
the EA.
    The EA concludes that the licensee's proposal to lower the Rock 
Creek Dam spillway 2.5 feet is the preferred alternative. The EA 
concludes that implementation of this alternative would not constitute 
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment.
    This EA was written by staff in the Office of Energy Projects 
(OEP). Copies of the EA can be obtained by contacting

[[Page 29112]]

the Commission's Public Reference Room at (202) 208-1371.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-13393 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Nodal Exchange, LLC Rulebook Appendix C: Reporting Levels, Accountability Levels and Position Limits

Physical Commodity 

Code Contract Name

Reporting 

Level

Spot Month Position Limit 

(lots)

Single Month Accountability Level 

(lots)

All Month Accountability Level 

(lots)

Aggregation 

Group*

CFTC Referenced 

Contract

WYA PJM.CITIZENS_month_on_dac 25 62 62 744 0

WYB PJM.CITIZENS_month_off_dac 25 40 40 480 388 0

WYC PJM.CITIZENS_month_2x16_dac 25 62 62 744 388 0

WYD PJM.CITIZENS_month_7x8_dac 25 40 40 480 388 0

WYE PJM.DUNCANNON_month_on_dac 25 137 137 1,644 0

WYF PJM.DUNCANNON_month_off_dac 25 124 124 1,488 389 0

WYG PJM.DUNCANNON_month_2x16_dac 25 137 137 1,644 389 0

WYH PJM.DUNCANNON_month_7x8_dac 25 124 124 1,488 389 0
N OTE : This o rder is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PHI APPLIED PHYSICAL SCIENCES, INC., Appellant,

v.

JOHN MCHUGH, SECRETARY OF THE ARM Y, Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 1627

______________________

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in No. 56581, Administrative Judge Robert T.

Peacock.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before R ADER

, Chief Judge

, L OURIE and T ARANTO

, Circuit Judges

.

R ADER

, Chief Judge

.
O R D E R

The Secretary of the Army (“Secretary”) moves to dismiss this appeal as untimely. PHI Applied Physical Sciences, Inc. (“PHI”) has not responded. Case: 13-1627 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 12/11/2013PHI APPLIED PHYSICAL SCIENCES v. ARMY 2

On April 30, 2013 , the Armed Services Board of Co ntract Appeals (“ASBCA”) issued it s underlying decision in

PHI ’s case

. PHI received ASBCA’s decision on May 6, 2013. PHI’s notice of appeal was received by this court on September 6, 2013; 123 days after PHI received the

decision.

A contractor must file a notice of appeal from an ASBCA decision within 120 days after receipt of the

decision

. See 41 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(1)(A). This filing period is mandatory and jurisdictional. See Placeway Const. Corp. v. United States , 713 F.2d 726, 728 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“ We have no authority to waive this statutorily imposed period and thus we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal .” ). Because PHI’s appeal was not filed within 120 days, we must dismiss

. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court

s26

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 11, 2013 Case: 13-1627 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 12/11/2013
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13340]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee, Review 
of F32s, K grants and R03s.
    Date: June 21-22, 2001.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Pooks Hill Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Yujing Liu, Ph.D, MD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Res., 45 
Center Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 594-2372.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 22, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-13340 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 42676/42677

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LARRY BREWER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 579

Filed: August 6, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of five years with two 

and one-half years determinate for failure to register as a sex offender and 

possession of a controlled substances, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

In Docket No. 42676, Larry Brewer pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, 

Idaho Code §§ 18-8304, 18-8307, 18-8308, 18-8309, 18-8311. The district court imposed a 

sentence of five years with two and one-half years determinate. In Docket No. 42677, Brewer 

pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). The 

district court imposed a concurrent sentence of five years with two and one-half years 

determinate. Brewer appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing 

excessive sentences.
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Brewer’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
#### Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, Appellant, v New York State Department of Taxation and Finance et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 3, 2012;

decided January 5, 2012

Reported below, 85 AD3d 415.

Motion by Credit Union Association of New York et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis

MARY ELLEN HINES, f/k/a MARY ELLEN WAGSTAFF

v. Record No. 0750-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM LARRY JOE WAGSTAFF SEPTEMBER 19, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Richard J. Jamborsky, Judge (Mary Ellen Hines, pro se , on brief). (Susan Massie Hicks; Thomas P. Sotelo; Leiner, Hicks & Sotelo, on brief), for appellee.

Mary Ellen Hines contends the trial judge erred by failing to include the closing date of December 31, 1995 in the text of an injunction order barring her from harassing her former husband, Larry Joe Wagstaff. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial judge. Rule 5A:27. In his ruling from the bench, the trial judge extended the injunction against Hines until December 31, 1995. The transcript from that ruling was attached to and incorporated by reference into the order entered March 7, 1995. The order thus contains a closing date for the temporary injunction and is in compliance with Code § 8.01-624.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 Accordingly, we summarily affirm the judgment order.

Affirmed.
[926 NE2d 1228, 900 NYS2d 723]

#### L&L Painting Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, v Contract Dispute Resolution Board of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Decided April 29, 2010

*828APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Georgoulis & Associates PLLC,*New York City *(Michael McDermott*of counsel), for appellants.

*Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,*New York City *(Alan G. Krams*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The City of New York Contract Dispute Resolution Board rationally determined that a discrepancy between a diagram and notes on the contract drawing that is the subject of this dispute created an ambiguity in the contract terms, which petitioner L&L Painting Co., Inc. failed to clarify prior to bidding as the contract required. Therefore, the Board rationally disapproved the claim for additional compensation.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
#### In the Matter of Margaret M. Potter et al., Appellants, v Town Board of Town of Aurora et al., Respondents.

(Appeal *1336No. 2.).

[874 NYS2d 847] —

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J.), entered September 16, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment, among other things, dismissed the petition/complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Potter v Town Bd. of Town of Aurora*(60 AD3d 1333 [2009]). Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for Orion Energy Systems, 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(s) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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 the 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.
  /s/ Scott R. JensenScott R. JensenChief Financial Officer
#### Daniel Marks Cohen et al., Appellants, v Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 25, 2012;

decided April 26, 2012

Reported below, 35 Misc 3d 478.

Motion by Common Cause New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2019

No. 04-18-00710-CR

Daniel WEBSTER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR2112A

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. We 

ORDER appellant to file his brief on or before January 9, 2019.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 15.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors

Advantest Corporation:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-123671, 333-108385, 333-97107 and 333-97103) on Form S-8 of Advantest Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated April 26, 2004, except for note 20, which is as of July 21, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of
Advantest Corporation and subsidiaries, as of March 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended March 31, 2004, which report appears in the
March 31, 2005, annual report on Form 20-F of Advantest Corporation.



/s/    KPMG AZSA & CO.



Tokyo, Japan

July 21, 2005



---

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



| | (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123671)
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-108385)
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-97107)
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------



| | (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-97103)
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------



of our report dated May 17, 2005, except for Note 24, as to which the date is July 21, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Advantest
Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended March 31, 2005.



/s/    ERNST & YOUNG SHINNIHON



Tokyo, Japan

July 21, 2005