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







CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of Lapis Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tali Dinar, 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, to my knowledge:





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





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.





May 19, 2011
/s/ Tali DinarTali DinarChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Anthony MUNGIN, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-8409.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
# C_2018414EN.01001101.xml

| 15.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 June 2018

in Case E-16/17

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 231/2013)

(2018/C 414/13)

In Case E-16/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of SIGNATURE
HORIZONS GROUP, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ending December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Peggy
A. Evans, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to, and solely for the purpose of complying with, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
         December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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





Dated: May 23, 2003                    /s/ Peggy A. Evans
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief
                                         Operating Officer and Director
Paul David MAZE, petitioner, v. Renea TERRELL, et al.

No. 18-7959.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Kirk E. WEBSTER, petitioner, v. Patrick M. SHANAHAN, Acting Secretary of Defense.

No. 18-808.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
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 of Timeline, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles R. Osenbaugh, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Charles   R. Osenbaugh              |   | Date:  February   13, 2006 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                         |   |                                 |
|   | Charles R.   Osenbaugh,                 |   |                                 |
|   | President   and Chief Financial Officer |   |                                 |
<PAGE>


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I,  Logan  Anderson,  certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report  on Form 10-KSB of Worldbid Corporation for the year ended April 30, 2002
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results  of  operations  of  Worldbid  Corporation.


                                 By:      /s/ Logan Anderson
                                          ----------------------------

                                 Name:    LOGAN ANDERSON

                                 Title:   Chief Executive Officer

                                 Date:    August 12, 2002


I,  Howard  Thomson,  certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report  on Form 10-KSB of Worldbid Corporation for the year ended April 30, 2002
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results  of  operations  of  Worldbid  Corporation.


                                 By:      /s/ Howard Thomson
                                          ----------------------------

                                 Name:    HOWARD THOMSON

                                 Title:   Chief Financial Officer

                                 Date:    August 12, 2002
```

```

----

Updated March 18, 2011
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, John J. Limbert, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
NB&T Financial Group, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of NB&T Financial Group, Inc.; and

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;



|                   |  |  |  |  |  |                    
|------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------
|Date: May 10, 2012 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ John J. Limbert
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | John J. Limbert
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1362

To make satisfactory progress toward completion of high school or a college

program a permissible work activity under the program of block grants

to States for temporary assistance for needy families.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1999

Ms. WOOLSEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To make satisfactory progress toward completion of high

school or a college program a permissible work activity

under the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1362 IH

1 SECTION 1. SATISFACTORY PROGRESS TOWARD COMPLE2 TION OF HIGH SCHOOL OR A COLLEGE PRO3 GRAM MADE A PERMISSIBLE WORK ACTIVITY

4 UNDER THE PROGRAM OF BLOCK GRANTS TO

5 STATES FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR

6 NEEDY FAMILIES.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 407(d) of the Social Secu8 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 607(d)) is amended by striking para9 graphs (10) and (11) and inserting the following:

10 ‘‘(10)(A) in the case of an individual who has

11 not completed secondary school or received a certifi12 cate of general equivalence, satisfactory attendance

13 at such a school or in a course of study leading to

14 such a certificate, but only if the individual is mak15 ing satisfactory progress towards graduation or re16 ceipt of the certificate, as the case may be; or

17 ‘‘(B) in the case of any individual, satisfactory

18 attendance at an institution of higher education (as

19 defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education

20 Act of 1965), but only if the individual is making

21 satisfactory progress towards completing a course of

22 study offered by the institution; and’’.

23 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

24 (1) Section 407(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

25 607(d)) is amended by redesignating paragraph (12)

26 as paragraph (11).
3

HR 1362 IH

1 (2) Section 407(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

2 607(c)) is amended—

3 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘(12)’’

4 each place such term appears and inserting

5 ‘‘(11)’’; and

6 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking subpara7 graphs (C) and (D).

Æ
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 01-30883

_____________________

RICHARD CARMENA; CARL DILLON; JOHNNY HUGGINS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(99-CV-5)

April 10, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This action arises out of claimed race-based discrimination by

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, concerning Appellants not being

selected for promotion to higher-level, skilled jobs. Summary

judgment was awarded Georgia-Pacific. See Carmena v. GeorgiaPacific Corp., No. 99-05-D (M.D. La. 26 June 2001); FED. R. CIV. P.

56. 

No authority need be cited for the fact that review of a

summary judgment is de novo, with such judgment being proper if
2

there are no genuine issues of material fact and if the movant

(Georgia-Pacific) is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Along this line, the district court did not abuse its discretion by

not allowing Appellants additional discovery for use in opposing

summary judgment.

For purposes of our review, we assume arguendo that all of

Appellants’ claims were properly raised in district court and that

none are procedurally barred. In any event, as discussed in part

by the district court, we hold that the claims fail under theories

of disparate treatment and disparate impact. In short, summary

judgment was proper.

AFFIRMED
Trevor LITTLE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7941.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

March 27, 2008

To Whom It May Concern:

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the Annual Report onForm 10-KSB of PTS, Inc. in the Form S-8 dated March 7, 2005, as amended byExhibit 99.1 in the 2007 Form 10-KSB, for the year ended December 31, 2005 forour report dated April 16, 2006 and for the years ended December 31, 2007 and2006 of our reports dated March 27, 2008.

/s/ Lynda K. Keeton CPA, LLC

Lynda R. Keeton CPA, LLCLas Vegas, NV
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed November 1, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 1906 Lower Tribunal No. F00

- 38717

________________



### Diego Jimenez , Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Carmen Cabarga , Judge. Law Offices of Michelle Walsh, P.A., and Michelle R. Walsh, for appellant

. Ashley Mo ody , Attorney General , and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General , for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE , JJ. EMAS, J.2 Diego Jimenez has previously filed at least seventeen appeals or

or iginal proceedings stemming from his conviction and sentence in circuit court case number F00

- 38717. Here , J imenez appeals the trial court’s order denying hi s “ Motion to Correct an Unlawful Sentence ” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, while styled a motion to correct an illegal sentence, the motion is in fact a challenge to both the conviction and the sentence. A motion under rule 3.800(a) is not available where, as he re, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction (and, only by extension, the “legality” of the sentence). See Ramirez v. State , 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1823, 2022 WL 3903532 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 31, 2022); Planas v. State , 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3 d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State , 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State , 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”) ; Coughlin v. State , 932 So. 2d 1224, 122 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that “a traditional double jeopardy challenge attacks both the conviction and, by default, the sentence, while rule 3.800(a) is limited to claims that a sentence itself is illegal, with out regard to the underlying conviction”).3 Jimenez could have and should have raised the instant claim on direct appeal from his conviction and sentence or , if appropriate, by a timely motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. H is attempt to present such a challenge under rule 3.800(a) (which, unlike rule 3.850, has no time limitation) is unauthorized. Affirmed.
Jamael STUBBS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8673.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Jeremiah L. KING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-1254.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Philadelphia Consolidated Holding
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Craig P. Keller, 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.


Craig P. Keller
------------------------------------
Craig P. Keller
Chief Financial Officer

May 7, 2007
Shawn STEVENSON, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 17-9502.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of Certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of ValueClick, Inc.

|Name of Subsidiary        |  | Jurisdiction  
|------------------------- |  | --------------
|                          |  |               
|AdWare Systems            |  | Kentucky      
|Bach Acquisition Corp.    |  | Florida       
|ClickAgents, Inc.         |  | Delaware      
|Mediaplex, Inc.           |  | Delaware      
|ValueClick Brazil         |  | Brazil        
|ValueClick Canada         |  | Canada        
|ValueClick Europe, Ltd.   |  | United Kingdon
|ValueClick France         |  | France        
|ValueClick Germany        |  | Germany       
|ValueClick Japan Co. Ltd. |  | Japan         
|Z Media, Inc.             |  | Delaware      

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.1

                        PERFORMANCE INTERCONNECT INC.
                        10911 Petal Street, Suite 105
                              Dallas, TX 75238


 June 2, 1999


 Mr. Joe Turek
 M-Wave Inc.
 215 Park Street
 Benseaville, IL 60106

                            VIA FAX: 630/860-5350

 Dear Joe:


 The purpose  of this  letter is  to respond  to your  proposed sale  of  the
 building in Frisco to J. Baxter Brinkman.

 Based upon  the  terms  contained in  your  letter  of May  27,  1999  (copy
 attached).  Performance  Interconnect Corp has  agreed not  to exercise  its
 rights to purchase the building as provided in Section 4.06 (b) of the lease
 with respect to the proposed sale to Mr. Brinkman.

 Please have your  attorney draft a  new note for  $773,479 plus  50% of  the
 sales commissions as soon as possible.

 We will send the documents related to our efforts to purchase the  property,
 which  include  an  appraisal,  a survey,  and preliminary  title  work  via
 overnight delivery.

 Please call if you require anything further.

 Sincerely,

 /s/
 D. Ronald Allen

 DRA/pgr
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Sohaib Abbasi, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Informatica Corporation; and

 

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.

 
| Dated:   April 30, 2015 | /s/ Sohaib Abbasi                       |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                         | Sohaib Abbasi                           |
| * *                     | *Chief Executive Officer and President* |

 

----
Joseph HUGHES, petitioner, v. Dan SCHNURR, Warden

No. 18-8138.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied.
Jerry ANDERSON, II, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 18-7895.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
Derrick REDMOND, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 18-8808.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
Exhibit 23.2 CONSENT OF THE INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM To the Board
of Directors and Shareholders
DAG Media, Inc. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of DAG
Media, Inc. on Forms S-8 (#333-82374 and #333-127424) of our report dated March
13, 2008, on the consolidated balance sheet of Dag Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended, and the adjustment
to the 2006 financial statements to retrospectively apply the change in
accounting for discontinued operations of Shopila Corporation, as described in
Note 10, as appearing in the annual report on Form 10-KSB of DAG Media, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2007. By: /s/ Hoberman, Miller, Goldstein  & Lesser, P.C. Hoberman, Miller, Goldstein & Lesser, P.C. March 13, 2008New York, New York
Luciano GARCIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8451.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 412A/19 N

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 412A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5719 November 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 412A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5719 November 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market |
| 2014/C 412A/01 | vacancy notice for the post of member of a board of appeal | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

2014/C 412A/01

vacancy notice for the post of member of a board of appeal

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 412A/02 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 6 |

2014/C 412A/02

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

6

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN