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

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

In connection with theAnnual Report of BIO-key International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Colatosti,Co-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)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)            The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.
| BIO-KEY INTERNATIONAL, INC. |   |                               |   |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                             |   |                               |   |   |   |   |
| By:                              |   | /s/  THOMAS J. COLATOSTI |   |   |   |   |
|                             |   | Thomas J. Colatosti                |   |   |   |   |
|                             |   | Co-Chief Executive Officer         |   |   |   |   |
|                             |   |                               |   |   |   |   |
| Date: June 19, 2006         |   |                               |   |   |

 

----
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 on Form 10K of ATEL Capital  Equipment Fund
VII, LP, (the  "Partnership")  for the period  ended  December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
and  pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, Paritosh K. Choksi,  Chief Financial  Officer of
ATEL Financial Services, LLC, general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify
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 Partnership.

Date:        3/29/2005



/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi
---------------------------
Paritosh K. Choksi
Executive Vice President of General
Partner, Principal financial officer of registrant
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6746

METAPHYZIC EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL, f/k/a Antonio Edward 

McLean,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00052-REP-RCY)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Metaphyzic El-ectromagnetic Supreme-El, Appellant Pro Se. Alice 

Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Metaphyzic El-Ectromagnetic Supreme-El seeks to appeal the 

district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(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 petition 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 

Supreme-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny the motion for 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
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Development of Radiation/Nuclear Medical Countermeasures (MCMs) and Biodosimetry Devices.                    

*Date:*                         July 28-29, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G42, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sandip Bhattacharyya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G42, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 292-0189,                         *sandip.bhattacharyya@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 23, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-13801 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Frontier Staffing, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, Clarence Downs, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

     (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/ Clarence Downs
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Clarence Downs, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: AUGUST 19, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5291 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5291

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain light absorbing 
                              photo dyes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

 Mr. Ferguson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain light absorbing 
                              photo dyes.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN LIGHT ABSORBING PHOTO DYES.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.29.34 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 4-[4-[3-[4-
(Dimethylamino)phenyl]-2-propenylidene]-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-
pyrazol-1-yl]benzenesulfonic acid, compound with N,N-diethylethanamine 
(1:1); 4-[3-[3-Carboxy-5-hydroxy-1-(4-sulfophenyl)-1H-pyrazole-4-yl]-2-
propenylidene]-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1-(4-sulfophenyl)-1H-pyrazole-3-
carboxylic acid, sodium salt, compound with N,N-diethylethanamine; 4-
[4,5-dihydro-4-[[5-hydroxy-3-methyl-1-(4-sulfophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-
yl]methylene]-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]benzenesulfonic acid, 
dipotassium salt; 4-[4-[[4- (Dimethylamino)-phenyl]methylene]-4,5-
dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-pyrazol-l-yl]benzenesulfonic acid, potassium 
salt; 4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-4-[(phenylamino)methylene]-1-(4-sulfophenyl)-
1H-pyrazole-3-car-boxylic acid, disodium salt; and 4-[5-[3-Carboxy-5-
hydroxy-1-(4-sulfophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]-2,4-pentadienylidene]-4,5-
dihydro-5-oxo-1-(4-sulfophenyl)-1H-pyrazole-3-carboxylic acid, 
tetrapotassium salt) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) appies to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEER

         As an independent engineering consultant, I hereby consent to the use
of my report entitled "Evaluation of Proved Oil and Gas Reserves to the
Interests of Costilla Energy, Inc. Relative to the Baimaclia and Victorovca Gas
Fields in Cantemir County and the Valeri Oil Field in Vulcaneste County of the
Republic of Moldova, Eastern Europe, Effective January 1, 1998, Pursuant to the
Requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Project 8.0128" and data
extracted therefrom (and all references to me and my Firm) included in or made a
part of this Form 10-K Annual Report and to the incorporation by reference of
this Form 10-K Annual Report (including the use of my report and references to
me and my Firm herein) into those certain Registration Statements on Form S-8
filed by Costilla Energy, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission, file
numbers 333-16513, 333-16515, and 333-16517 covering the Bonus Incentive Plan of
Costilla Energy, Inc., the Outside Directors Stock Option Plan of Costilla
Energy, Inc., and the 1996 Stock Option Plan of Costilla Energy, Inc.,
respectively, and file numbers 333-38747 and 333-38751 covering additional
shares under the Outside Directors Stock Option Plan and the 1996 Stock Option
Plan, respectively.


                                             W. SCOTT EPLEY, P.E.


Midland, Texas
March 26, 1998
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARALAINI LIKUDILA SEWALE, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72984 

Agency No. A200-545-226 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Karalaini Likudila Sewale, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal.

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of 

law, including claims of due process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-72984 

F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for 

review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that 

Sewale did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her lawful 

permanent resident husband. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks 

jurisdiction to review the agency’s hardship determination). Sewale’s contentions

that the agency did not properly consider or weigh the evidence of hardship are not 

colorable constitutional claims. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 

930 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, there is no support in the record for Sewale’s 

contentions that the agency denied cancellation of removal as punishment for her 

husband’s history of alcoholism or prevented her from receiving a full and fair 

hearing. See id. (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some 

possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Sewale has not established any error in the BIA’s conclusion that the 

regulations governing voluntary departure do not provide for enlargement of the 

five-day bond period. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3). Nor do the regulations allow 

the BIA to reinstate voluntary departure in the absence of proof that the bond has 

been posted. See id.; cf. Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 526-27 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“Congress has unambiguously granted the Attorney General 
3 18-72984 

authority to control the scope of voluntary departure grants in [8 U.S.C.] § 1229c 

and [] he has reasonably exercised his authority in promulgating the regulation” at 

8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i)). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
V 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5318 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of entries of certain 

manufacturing equipment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of entries 

of certain manufacturing equipment. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT EN4 TERED ON OR AFTER MAY 11, 1997, AND BE5 FORE OCTOBER 21, 1998. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 514 and 

7 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520) 

8 or any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after 

9 the receipt of the request described in subsection (b), any 

10 article— 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5318 IH

1 (1) that was entered, or withdrawn from ware2 house for consumption— 

3 (A) on or after May 11, 1997; and 

4 (B) before October 21, 1998; and 

5 (2) with respect to which heading 9902.84.79 

6 (as in effect on December 31, 2001), 9902.84.85, or 

7 9902.84.91 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

8 the United States would have applied if such article 

9 had been entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 

10 consumption, on December 31, 2001, 

11 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if heading 

12 9902.84.79 (as in effect on December 31, 2001), 

13 9902.84.85, or 9902.84.91, whichever is applicable, ap14 plied to such entry or withdrawal, and the Secretary of 

15 the Treasury shall refund any excess duty paid with re16 spect to such entry. 

17 (b) REQUESTS.—Liquidation or reliquidation may be 

18 made under subsection (a) with respect to any entry only 

19 if a request therefor is filed with the Bureau of Customs 

20 and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland 

21 Security, not later than 180 days after the date of enact22 ment of this Act, that contains sufficient information to 

23 enable the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection— 

24 (1) to locate the entry; or 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5318 IH

1 (2) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be lo2 cated. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00068-CR

Johnny Todd Preston

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 415th District Court

of Parker County (CR12-0291)

June 12, 2014

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2010 (the “Report”) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD L. PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurerof the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

/s/ RICHARD L. PETEKA                    

Name: Richard L. Peteka 

Date: November 4, 2010
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00466-CV

KARL WAWAROSKY, Appellant

V.

FAST GROUP HOUSTON, INC., Appellee

Appeal from the 157th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2011-62792).

TO THE 157TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 17th day of February 2015, the case upon appeal to 

revise or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these 

words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed 

by the trial court on September 14, 2012. After submitting 

the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s 

judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the 

Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellant, Karl Wawarosky, 

pay all appellate costs.
The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered February 17, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices 

Massengale and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice 

Huddle.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

May 1, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                         DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                                     5,993
<SECURITIES>                                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                             55,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               3,294
<INVENTORY>                                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                          62,530
<PP&E>                                                                   149,132
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            98,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                           192,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                     44,612
<BONDS>                                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                                               101,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                             192,434
<SALES>                                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         358,594
<CGS>                                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            268,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                           90,261
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              37,786
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                       52,475
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                              52,475
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                               0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                               0.92
        

</TABLE>