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 amended quarterly report of SiriCOMM, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4, 2005 (the "Report"), I, J.
Richard Iler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ J. Richard Iler
-------------------------
J. Richard Iler
Chief Financial Officer
September 30, 2005


A signed original of this certification 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.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Vincent A. Rego, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Encore WireCorporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), for theregistrant and have;
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this quarterly report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
20

 

 a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 7, 2004     /s/ VINCENT A. REGO   Vincent A. Rego *Chairman of the Board and* *Chief Executive Officer*
21
Michael E. HARRIS, petitioner, v. Peter J. MESSITTE, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, et al.

No. 15-9906.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 14-005 (ESH) ) JAMES W. GREENE, JR., ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) ORDER In a hearing before Magistrate Judge Ka y on February 3, 2014, defendant James W. Greene, Jr., entered a plea of guilty. On Febr uary 21, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation advising th e Court to accept defendant = s plea. Counsel have as of this date stated that they have no objection to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the recommendation of the magistrate judge and accepts defendant’s guilty plea. SO ORDERED.
/s/ ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge Date: March 10, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       
<S>                            <C>
<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from ESI 
Tractebel Acquisition Corp.'s balance sheet as of December 31, 1998 and 
statement of operations for the period January 12, 1998 (Date of Formation)
to December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 
financial statements.

<CIK>                          0001059027
<NAME>                         ESI Tractebel Acquisition Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-12-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JAN-12-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                1
<CASH>                                  $0
<SECURITIES>                            $0
<RECEIVABLES>                           $0
<ALLOWANCES>                            $0
<INVENTORY>                             $0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        $0
<PP&E>                                  $0
<DEPRECIATION>                          $0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    $220,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   $4
<BONDS>                           $220,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   $0
<PREFERRED>                             $0
<COMMON>                                $0
<OTHER-SE>                              $8
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      $220,152
<SALES>                                 $0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   $15,182
<CGS>                                   $0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           $0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        $0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 $15,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        $12
<INCOME-TAX>                            $4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     $8
<DISCONTINUED>                          $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         $0
<CHANGES>                               $0
<NET-INCOME>                            $8
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           $0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           $0

        

</TABLE>
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 18

- BG

- 573

IN RE SCOTT M. MARINELLI

20 18 DDN 28

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg. No. 480602

BEFORE: Easterly and McLeese , Associate Judges, and Ruiz , Senior Judge.

O R D E R (FILED

— June 30, 2022)

On further consideration of the court’s May 29, 201 8 , order suspending respondent Scott M. Marinelli and staying this matter; the certified copy of the order

from the state of New Jersey suspending Mr. Marinelli from the practice of law in that state for two years and until further order of that court ; th e court’s April 19

, 2022, order lifting the stay and directing Mr. Marinelli to show cause why the

functional reciprocal discipline of a two

- year suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed ; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel ; and it appearing

that Mr. Marinelli has not filed either a response to the court’s show cause order or

h is D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) affidavit

, it is

ORDERED that Scott M. Marinelli is hereby suspended from the practice of

law in the District of Columbia for two years with reinstatement condi tioned on a showing of fitness

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and In re Fuller

, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) ( explaining that a rebuttable presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the exceptions is established). It

isNo. 18

- BG

- 573

FURTHER ORDERED that

, for purpos es of reinstatement

, Mr. Marinelli ’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM
#### Peter M. MACE, Appellant v. Larry A. DOMASH, Appellee.

No. 09-7062.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 15, 2010.

Valeriano Diviacchi, Diviacchi Law Office, Boston, MA, for Appellant.

Douglas Scott Brooks, Libbyhoopes, P.C., Boston, MA, Adam Augustine Carter, Law Office of Adam A. Carter, Robert Scott Oswald, Employment Law Group, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. For the reasons stated below, it is

' ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.

Peter Mace alleged the existence of an oral contract for services rendered to Larry Domash. Mace claimed that the parties had agreed that Mace would help establish a start-up insurance company, assist with Domash’s divorce and custody litigation, and provide Domash with emotional support, in exchange for Domash reimbursing Mace for related expenditures and reasonable living expenses. Domash denied the existence of any such contract and refused to pay Mace. Mace sued. In his complaint, Mace sought recovery of damages for breach of contract and quasi-contract. The District Court entered judgment against Mace on both claims: (i) it dismissed the quasi-contract claim at the summary judgment stage, and (ii) it allowed the breach of contract claim to go to trial but thereafter granted judgment as a matter of law to Domash.

Mace challenges both rulings. As to the first, Mace repackages his quasi-contract claim on appeal as a distinctly different claim for reliance damages. He did not preserve that argument before the District Court, and we therefore do not consider it on appeal. *See Edmond v. U.S. Postal Serv. Gen. Counsel,*949 F.2d 415, 421-22 (D.C.Cir.1991) (theories presented on appeal must have been adequately raised and preserved below). As to the breach of contract claim, the District Court correctly concluded that, for purposes of D.C. law, Mace failed to provide adequate evidence *3of an enforceable oral contract with sufficiently definite terms. *See Steven R. Perles, P.C. v. Kagy,*473 F.3d 1244, 1249 (D.C.Cir.2007) (valid and enforceable contract must include intention to be bound and agreement as to all material terms); *Rosenthal v. Nat’l Produce Co.,*573 A.2d 365, 369-70 (D.C.1990). We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. R. 41(a)(1).
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 PLX Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arthur O. Whipple, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of 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
      at the dates and for the periods indicated.
  This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
  Date: August
7, 2008
  By: /s/ Arthur O.
Whipple


Arthur O.
Whipple
 Chief Financial
Officer
  36
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo Antonio BOLANOS GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-40705

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alfredo Antonio Bolanos Gomez (Bolanos) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Bola-nos has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for *404leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 3, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                         2,780
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (165)
<INVENTORY>                                    3,029
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,824
<PP&E>                                         1,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (931)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,264
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,598
<SALES>                                        4,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,228
<CGS>                                          2,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,389)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (208)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,181)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,181)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.42)
        


</TABLE>
ARCHANGEL DIAMOND CORPORATION LIQUIDATING TRUST, petitioner, v. OAO LUKOIL.

No. 16-151.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

*447Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7589

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NORMAN L. TALLEY, a/k/a Storm,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,

Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00038-1; 3:13-cv-01754)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman L. Talley, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Steven Loew, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia; 

Joseph Franklin Adams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Norman L. Talley seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

its subsequent order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Talley 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 717

(October Term, 1934).

#### Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank *v.*Radford.

October 14, 1935.

295 U. S. 555.
From: Bob Martin [mailto:rmat@optonline.net] 

Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:29 AM 

To: Dunn, Michael 

Subject: unlimited positions for index funds 

very disapointing no group contributed more to inflated prices and non convergence SRW 

I suspect that they were not mentioned because CME unwilling to lose fee income .. 

exempt because hedging risk ... who isnt? 

a sham ... only enriches foreign banks and Pimco types 

another excuse .. hedge versus stock market 

that was debunked in 2008/2009 

they hurt pensions .endowments etc 

call me if you care .. or is it business as usual ... just fees 

bobmartin-
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; 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 552(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: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Initial Review Group, Ethical, Legal, Social Implications Review 
Committee.
    Date: July 12-13, 2001.
    Time: 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Hyatt Regency Hotel, 100 Bethesda Metro Center, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Rudy O. Pozzatti, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome 
Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301 402-0838.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 83.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: June 14, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-15463 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```


[Federal Register: January 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3001]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ja05-37]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, February 18, 2005.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-1117 Filed 1-14-05; 11:48 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```