alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 72.

#### Broad-Grace Arcade Corp. *v.*Bright, Mayor, et al.

Argued November 30, December 1, 1931.

Decided December 7, 1931.

*Mr. Andrew D. Christian*for appellant.

*Mr. Collins Denny, Jr.,*with whom *Messrs. John R. Saunders,*Attorney General of Virginia, and *Edwin H. Gibson*were on the brief, for appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

The order denying an interlocutory injunction is affirmed *(Alabama*v. *United States,*279 U. S. 229, 231; *United Fuel Gas Co.*v. *Public Service Commission,*278 U. S. 322, 326; *National Fire Insurance Co.*v. *Thompson,*281 U. S. 331, 338), but without prejudice to the power and duty of the District Court, as specially constituted, to inquire and determine whether the court has jurisdiction (Judicial Code, § 37; U. S. Code, Title 28, § 80) both in relation to the amount involved in the controversy *(Chase*v. *Wetzler,*225 U. S. 79, 85, 86; *North Pacific Steamship Co.*v. *Soley,*257 U. S. 216, 221), and with respect to the right of the complainant to maintain this suit in equity *(Fenner*v. *Boykin,*271 U. S. 240, 243, 244; *Cline*v. *Frink Dairy Co.,*274 U. S. 445, 451-453).
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

















In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q as of and for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric J. Dosch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of 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.






















/s/ Eric J. Dosch


Eric J. Dosch


Chief Financial Officer


Secretary and Treasurer


August 13, 2010
crypto.com | Derivatives N.A.

crypto.com | Derivatives N.A.

200 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60606

External Communication - Disclose with care

20220916(4)

September 16, 2022

Via CFTC Portal Submissions

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

3 Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington D.C. 20581

RE: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments: Nadex Amends Strike Widths - Submission Pursuant to 

Commission Reg. §40.6(d)

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (“Act”), and Section 40.6(d) of 

the regulations promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) under the Act 

(the “Regulations”), North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. (“Nadex”, the “Exchange”) d/b/a crypto.com | 

Derivatives N.A., hereby provides notice that it amended the strike widths of various contracts during the week of 

September 12, 2022 due to increased or decreased volatility, as the case may be, in the underlying markets upon 

which the Nadex contracts are based. Amended strike widths are reflected in Exhibit A.

Nadex hereby certifies that the additions and amendments contained herein comply with the Act, as 

amended, and the Commission Regulations adopted thereunder. No substantive opposing views were expressed to 

Nadex with respect to these additions. Nadex hereby certifies that notice of these events was posted on its website 

at the time of this filing.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 

(312) 884-0927 or by email at jaime.walsh@nadex.com.

 Sincerely, 

Jaime M. Walsh

Head of Legal
crypto.com | Derivatives N.A.

200 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60606

External Communication - Disclose with care

20220916(4)

EXHIBIT A

Week of September 12, 2022

Contract Trade Date of Change Strike Width Adjusted 

From

Strike Width Adjusted To

20-Minute Wall Street 30 (Wide) 

Binary

September 12, 2022 8 16

20-Minute Wall Street 30 (Narrow) 

Binary

September 12, 2022 6 12

2-Hour Wall Street 30 Binary September 12, 2022 24 48

20-Minute US 500 (Wide) Binary September 12, 2022 1.5 3

20-Minute US 500 (Narrow) Binary September 12, 2022 1 2

2-Hour US 500 (Wide) Binary September 12, 2022 3 6

20-Minute US Tech 100 (Wide) Binary September 12, 2022 4 8

20-Minute US Tech 100 (Narrow) 

Binary

September 12, 2022 3 6

2-Hour US Tech 100 (Wide) Binary September 12, 2022 12 24

20-Minute US SmallCap 2000 (Wide) 

Binary

September 12, 2022 1.4 2.8

20-Minute US SmallCap 2000 

(Narrow) Binary

September 12, 2022 1.2 2.4

2-Hour US SmallCap 2000 (Wide) 

Binary

September 12, 2022 2.8 5.6

Daily Wall Street 30 Binary September 12, 2022 40 80

Daily US 500 Binary September 12, 2022 6 12

Daily US Tech 100 Binary September 12, 2022 24 48

Daily US SmallCap 2000 Binary September 12, 2022 4 8

Daily Crude Oil Binary September 12, 2022 0.4 0.8

Daily Gold Binary September 12, 2022 3 6
Exhibit-32.2 -- Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 906)

I am the Chief Financial Officer of Total Nutraceutical Solutions, a Nevada
corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this certificate in connection
with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 and
filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-Q").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  May 20, 2009
        ------------
                                           /s/ Frank Arnone
                                           ---------------------------
                                               Frank Arnone
                                               Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28407-28408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13064]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-106791-00]
RIN 1545-AY55


Liabilities Assumed in Certain Corporate Transactions

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed regulations relating to liabilities assumed in 
certain corporate transactions.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, May 31, 
2001, at 10 a.m., is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy R. Traynor of the Regulations 
Unit, Office of Special Counsel, (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on January 4, 
2001 (66 FR 748), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for May 
31, 2001 at 10 a.m., in room 4718, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is proposed 
regulations under section 301 of the Internal Revenue Code. The public 
comment period for these regulations expired on May 10, 2001.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to 
submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. 
As of May 15, 2001, no one

[[Page 28408]]

has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for May 
31, 2001, is cancelled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization & 
Strategic Planning).
[FR Doc. 01-13064 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
153 So. 268

#### BIRMINGHAM WATER WORKS CO. v. WILLIAMS.

6 Div. 384.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 21, 1933.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1934.

Benners, Burr, McKamy & Forman, of Birmingham, for appellant.

*289J. Reese Murray, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

The argument of plaintiff’s counsel, as set out in the first assignment of error, not only injected in the case the question of the defendant cutting off water from its customers when not able to pay for same (an issue not involved), but also referred to the poverty of the plaintiff and inferentially, at least, to the defendant as “powerful” and was highly Improper. The trial court sustained an objection to same and attempted to eliminate the first part from the consideration of the jury, but gave no positive or affirmative instructions as to the allusion to the poverty of the plaintiff and the “powerful” defendant. Moreover, this is of that class of argument the poisonous effect of which cannot well be eradicated. Pryor v. Limestone County, 225 Ala. 540, 144 So. 18, and cases there cited.

The trial court erred in not granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial and the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

On Rehearing.

ANDERSON, Ohief Justice.

We are cited to several cases to the effect that argument of counsel did not constitute reversible error. The most pertinent one is the case of Alabama Power Go. v. Bruce, 20P Ala. 423, 96 So. 346, but an examination o,/ this ease shows that it is easily differentiated from the case at bar as the argument there was justified as a legitimate reply to certain argument of opposing counsel, the court intimating that it would have been bad had counsel intended directly or indirectly to intimate to the jury that they should render a verdict for the plaintiff because t'he family was poor. Here, we have reference not only to the poverty of the plaintiff but to the defendant as the “powerful.” Moreover, we do not mean to hold that the poisonous effect of so much of the argument as was excluded by the trial court had been or could be entirely removed from the mind of the jury.

Nor can we hold that the argument was not injurious because the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, as matter of law, as the defendant’s evidence tended to relieve it of responsibility for the creation or existence of the hole or opening into which the plaintiff stepped, or that said argument did not augment the amount of damages awarded.

Rehearing denied.

THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ„ concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Cardona, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 474]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered August 8, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of rape in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence that, in an incident that occurred shortly before the charged rapes, defendant showed pornographic pictures to the 13-year-old victim. This evidence was properly admitted to demonstrate defendant’s pattern of increasingly serious sexual conduct toward the victim leading up to the charged crimes *(see People v Rosario,*34 AD3d 370 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 949 [2007]). The evidence constituted highly probative background information that tended to explain the relationship between de*494fendant and the victim and place the events in question in a believable context *(see People v Dorm,*12 NY3d 16 [2009]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments relating to this evidence.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling, which permitted the People to elicit defendant’s prior sexual abuse conviction without mentioning any underlying facts, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]; *People v Rosado,*53 AD3d 455 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 835 [2008]).

The court properly permitted the People to rebut a claim of recent fabrication by introducing a prior consistent statement made by the victim, since this statement predated a particular motive to falsify that had been asserted by the defense *(see People v McDaniel,*81 NY2d 10, 18 [1993]; *People v Whitley,*14 AD3d 403, 406 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 892 [2005]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
# C_2011084EN.01005401.xml

| 17.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/54

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors

(codification)

COM(2010) 610 final — 2010/0302 (COD)

2011/C 84/13

On 10 November 2010, the European Parliament and, on 8 December 2010, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver's seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver's seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors

COM(2010) 610 final — 2010/0302 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 467th plenary session of 19 and 20 January 2011 (meeting of 19 January), by 96 votes with two abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 19 January 2011.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---
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 Republic Airways Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan K. Bedford, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of, and for the period covered by, the Report.








By:/s/ Bryan K. BedfordPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the BoardApril 30, 2013





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Allied First Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Brian K.
Weiss, 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.


Date: September 29, 2003                /s/ Brian K. Weiss
                                        ------------------------
                                        Brian K. Weiss
                                        Vice President and Chief Financial
                                        Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of New Ulm Telecom, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bill Otis, President and 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 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.

|Dated:  May 13, 2005 |  |  | By |  |  | /s/   Bill Otis                                |  | 
|-------------------- |  |  | -- |  |  | ---------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                     |  | 
|                     |  |  |    |  |  | Bill OtisPresident and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

32

---
Order entered January 2 2 , 2020

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00985

- CV

ALAA MOHAMAD WEISS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Count y Criminal Court of Appeals No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. M0474358



### O RDER

Before the Court is the State’s January 16, 2020 second motion to extend time to file its

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than F ebruary 1 8 , 2020

.

We caution the State that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Solomon GLOVER, a/k/a Terry Tyreil Moore, a/k/a Box, a/k/a Tyreil Moore, a/k/a Tyreil Morgan, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6774.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 26, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 3, 2013.

Solomon Glover, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Solomon Glover seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Glover has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-10896 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RAMON RODARTE-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-6-2

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Ramon Rodarte-Mendoza has moved for leave to wit h dr a w a n d has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodarte-Mendoza has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow cons i d e ration at this time of Rodarte-Mendoza’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot b e resolved on direct appeal when the claim[s] [have] not been raised before the district court U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 1 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-10896 Document: 00511681844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2011No. 10-10896

since no opportunity exis t e d t o d e velop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Gulley , 526 F.3d 809, 821 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record r eflected therein, as well as Rodarte-Mendoza’s response. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for le av e t o withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from fur t h e r r e sponsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. Rodarte-Mendoza’s request for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. Cf. United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

2 Case: 10-10896 Document: 00511681844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2011