alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Janus Hotels and Resorts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard A. Tonges, 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/ Richard A. Tonges
---------------------------
Richard A. Tonges
Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2003
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 6, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41547 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAYMOND ALPHONSO DALEY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CV-163 USDC No. 2:01-CR-17-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Raymond Alphonso Daley, a federal prisoner (# 89980-079), moves for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Following a remand by this court pursuant to Thompson v. Montgomery , 853 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1988), the district court determined that Daley had failed to establish that he had filed a timely notice of appeal. The clerk’s office has directed Daley to brief this jurisdictional issue, but he has failed to do so. Daley has effectively abandoned any challengeO R D E R No. 03-41547 - 2 - to the district court’s determination that his notice of appeal was untimely, see Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987), and this court is without appellate jurisdiction. See Dison v. Whitley , 20 F.3d 185, 186 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. Daley’s COA application is DENIED as moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED; COA DENIED AS MOOT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,436
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (707)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         132,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                (51,704)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,011
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,380
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,371
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,402
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,534
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (132)
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,402
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33


</TABLE>
Jerry L. MORGAN, Executor of the Estate of John W. Morgan v. R. Clayton STEINER, M.D., and Moore Surgical Center, P.A.

No. 626P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

James B. Maxwell, Durham, for Estate of John Morgan.

Mark E. Anderson, Raleigh, for Steiner & Surgical Ctr.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of November 2005 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.
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 Stratum Holdings, Inc. (the “registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, D. Hughes Watler, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of this 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 and 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 registrant.








/s/D. Hughes Watler, Jr.


D. Hughes Watler, Jr.


Chief Financial Officer


November 8, 2010
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5748 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit States to exclude 

earned income in determining eligibility for medical assistance for individuals with extremely high prescription drug costs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Mr. MARCHANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit 

States to exclude earned income in determining eligibility 

for medical assistance for individuals with extremely high 

prescription drug costs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ryan Dant Health 

5 Care Opportunity Act of 2008’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5748 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICAID STATE OPTION TO EXCLUDE EARNED IN2 COME IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR IN3 DIVIDUALS WITH EXTREMELY HIGH PRE4 SCRIPTION DRUG COSTS. 

5 Section 1915 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1396n) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

7 subsection: 

8 ‘‘(k) STATE OPTION TO EXCLUDE EARNED INCOME

9 IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH

10 EXTREMELY HIGH PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may provide, 

12 through amendment to its State plan under this 

13 title, that in determining the eligibility for medical 

14 assistance under such plan of an individual described 

15 in paragraph (2) during a year, earned income of 

16 the individual (or any member of the individual’s 

17 household) shall be excluded but only insofar as the 

18 amount of such income in the year does not exceed 

19 twice the amount specified in paragraph (3). 

20 ‘‘(2) INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED.—An individual 

21 described in this paragraph for a year is an indi22 vidual who— 

23 ‘‘(A) is covered under health insurance or 

24 a health benefits plan during the year that has 

25 prescription drug coverage with a maximum 

26 lifetime limit of not less than $1,000,000; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5748 IH

1 ‘‘(B) has exhausted all available prescrip2 tion drug coverage under the plan for the year; 

3 and 

4 ‘‘(C) incurs (or is reasonably expected to 

5 incur) on an annual basis during the year costs 

6 for prescription drugs in excess of the amount 

7 specified in paragraph (3) for the year. 

8 ‘‘(3) AMOUNT SPECIFIED.—The amount speci9 fied in this paragraph— 

10 ‘‘(A) for 2008 or 2009, is $250,000; or 

11 ‘‘(B) for a subsequent year, is the amount 

12 specified in this subparagraph (A) (or this sub13 paragraph) for the previous year increased by 

14 the annual rate of increase in the medical care 

15 component of the consumer price index (U.S. 

16 city average) for the 12-month period ending in 

17 August of the previous year. 

18 Any amount computed under subparagraph (B) that 

19 is not a multiple of $1,000 shall be rounded to the 

20 nearest multiple of $1,000.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
HENDERSON v. HENDERSON

No. COA06-971.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from Davidson (04CVS446).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 881/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 881/2013 of 13 September 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 881/2013                     

# of 13 September 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 September 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, James C. Mastandrea, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
President of Paragon Real Estate Equity and Investment Trust, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Paragon Real Estate
Equity and Investment Trust (the Registrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of
trustees (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: May 10, 2004.By:
   /s/ James C. MastandreaJames C. MastandreaChairman of the Board, ChiefExecutive Officer and President(Chief Executive Officer)
 -1-
STATE v. Darrick Jerome MYERS.

No. 519P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Linda Kimbell, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of September 2006 by Defendant for "Letter of Request to Review N.C. Court of Appeals Opinion":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
STATE v. WALKER, Browning & Hernandez.

No. 16P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2006.

Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Brian Michael Aus, Durham, for Emil E. Browning, Jr.

Daniel L. Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Jason Christopher Walker.

Geoffrey W. Hosford, Wilmington, for Javier A. Hernandez, Jr.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of August 2005 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion for Stay Dissolved by order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of December 2006."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 376/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 376/2013 of 23 April 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 376/2013                     

# of 23 April 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 April 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SS.1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orphan Medical, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John H. Bullion, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, asadopted 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.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ John H. Bullion     |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | John H. Bullion         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | May 10, 2005            |

 

1

----
STATE v. FORTE

No. COA06-595.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04CRS243337).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 3

- 0 0 124

- C V

Style: Xenos Yuen, The Law Offices of Yuen & Associates, P.C.

v. H ung Ho and H.L.L.S.

Date motion filed * : March 29 , 201 6

Type of motion: M otion to exten d time t o fil e reporter ’s record

Party filing motion: Court reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: J anuary 28 , 201 6

Number of previous extensions granted: 1 Current Due date: April 22, 2016

Date Requested: April 20 , 201 6

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

.

 Denied

 Dismissed as moot

 Other: _____________________________________

This appeal was stayed after a notice of bankruptcy was filed and reinstated on December 29, 2015. After

reinstatement, the reporter’s record was due to be filed on January 28, 2016. This Court granted in part the court

reporter’s motion for extension and extended the time to file a reporter’s record to February 2 9 , 2016. When no

reporter’s record was filed, we ordered the court reporter to file a reporter’s reco rd no later April 22, 2016, with

no further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances. On March 29, 2016, the court reporter filed a motion

requesting an extension to April 20, 2016. We dismiss the motion as moot. The reporter’s record remains due

to be filed no later than April 22, 2016, with no further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances.

Judge ’ s signature: /s / Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually

Date: April 5, 2016