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

CERTIFICATIONS



The
undersigned, as the chief financial officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certify that the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for
the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
1350(c).



Dated: March 31, 2005



/s/ A. Wayne LewisChief Financial Officer




96
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Walter P.W. Notter, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Clyvia Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2005, and to which this certification
      is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                            

| | By:    | /s/
      Walter P.W. Notter     
| | ------ | ---------------------------------
| |        |                                  
| | Name:  | WALTER P.W. NOTTER               
| |        |                                  
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and Chief
| |        | Financial Officer                
| |        |                                  
| | Date:  | December 23, 2005                

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO\
                 13 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 Logica Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 13 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date: August 14, 2007





/s/ Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre
--------------------------------
Name: Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre
Chief Executive Officer





                                     - 21 -
Order filed, April 29, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00165-CR

____________

ROBERTO ANTONIO LOPEZ MOLINA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1441402

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due April 25, 2016. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Gail Rolen, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000921052
<NAME>                     WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS IV, L.P., SERIES 4
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             675,871
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   675,871
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,575,805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,453,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,575,805
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     7,756
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       19,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   187,528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (199,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (199,455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (199,455)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (17.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
In the MATTER OF: P.R., C.R., Jr., A.R.

No. COA17-901

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 3, 2018

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6175

SAM BARTLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-976-0-20BD) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sam Bartley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advisedAppellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss. To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate and dismiss. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway, J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 23, 2009
jm 

# Order

April 23, 2009

138723 (11)

IN RE PAROLE OF CECIL HAWKINS

___________________ ________________

CECIL HAWKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138723 COA: 289953 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive f ees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisone r pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $8.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this orde r shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $367.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
EXHIBIT 99.16





CONSENT OF EXPERT





I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name, Mark G. Stevens, P.G. and report, Resource statement on the Candelaria project dated May 24, 2001 (the “Report”), and the information contained in my Report, as described or incorporated by reference in: (i) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012, and (ii) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-185498), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.





Dated this 7th day of March, 2013.








Very truly yours,








/s/ Mark G. Stevens


Mark G. Stevens, P.G.
#### In the Matter of Deirdre Ann MURPHY. Petition for Reinstatement from Inactive Status.

No. 177 DB 2002.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 1, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2003, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated June 25, 2003, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that DEIRDRE ANN MURPHY, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Lamar FIELDS, Defendant, and Terrence C. Rushing, Bail Agent, and Agent Associates Insurance, L.L.C., Surety.

No. COA17-966

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

VACATED. REMANDED.
Earl Wayne FORTNER and Henry Fortner, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Johnnie H. Fortner, Sr., Plaintiffs, v. Jonathan A. HORNBUCKLE and Lynda Hornbuckle Fortner, Defendants.

No. COA17-44

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

NO ERROR.
STATE v. Travis Rashad MITCHELL

4P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 8, 2018

Ben G. Irons, II, Attorney at Law, Greenville, for Mitchell, Travis.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of January 2018 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of January 2018."
STATE of North Carolina v. Lannie Ivon FOY, Defendant.

No. COA17-239

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

NO ERROR.
#### Victor B. PERKINS, Appellant, v. Bill HEDRICKS, Appellee.

No. 03-1808.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 3, 2003.

Filed: Aug. 14, 2003.

*583Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal Medical Center detainee Victor B. Perkins appeals the district court’s- pre-service dismissal of his civil filing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal was improper. The exhaustion requirement of section 1997e does not apply, as Perkins appears to be civilly committed and is thus not a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions by a “prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility” under any federal law, until inmate exhausts available administrative remedies); 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(3) (as relevant, term “prisoner” means any person subject to detention who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law); *Page v. Torrey,*201 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir.2000) (person detained civilly for non-punitive purposes is not “prisoner” within meaning of PLRA, and thus administrative-exhaustion rules do not apply).

Accordingly, we (1) grant Perkins in for-ma pauperis status, noting that the inmate-account procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 do not apply to him, (2) remand to the district court for further consideration of Perkins’s claim, and (3) deny his pending motions.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dontail BRINKLEY, Defendant.

No. COA16-572

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 7, 2017

NEW TRIAL.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMerisant Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30,2008 (the “Report”), the undersigned, as Vice President Finance, Controller ofthe Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 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/ Julie  Wool                      |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | Julie Wool                           |
|   | Vice  President, Finance, Controller |
|   | (Principal  Financial Officer)       |
|   | August 13,  2008                |

 

----
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E DWI N G I OV AN NI R I VA S B OL VI T O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70555 A ge nc yN o. A 076- 858- 638 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E d w i n G i o v an n i R i v as B o l v i t o , a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f G u at em al a, p et i t i o n s f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd is m is s in g h is ap p e a l f r o m an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. R e vi e w i ng f oran abus e of

di s c r e t i on, 

# FI LED MA R 29 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 70555 2 I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 894 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. T he B I A pr ope r l yc ons true d B ol vi t o’ s O c t obe r10, 2008, f i l i ng a s am ot i on to r e o p e n . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 793 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . T he agencydi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng B ol vi t o’ s thi rd m ot i on t o reopen as un t i m el y bec ause he fi l ed the m ot i on m ore than n i ne ye ar s a ft erhi s r em ov alorder w a s e n te r e d , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 23 (b)( 4)(i i ) ( m ot i on t o reopen m ustbe fi l ed w i thi n 180 day s of

r e m ova lor de re nt e r e d i n abs e nt i a ) , and B ol vi t o f a i l e d t o s how tha the a c t e d w i th the due di l i ge nc e r e qui r e d t o w arr ante qui t abl e t ol l i ng of the f ilin g d e a d lin e , I

tu rr ib a rr ia , 3 2 1 F .3 da t 8 9 7 ( ap e titio n e rm ayo b ta in e qu itab le t ol l i ng ba s e d on i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l a s l ong a s he “ a c t [ e d] w i th due di l i gence i n d i sc ov er i ng the decept i on , fr aud, or error” ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Alvin J. CHASE, Employee, Plaintiff, v. GREIF INC., Employer, and Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA17-1005

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020161EN.01003702.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2020 — SD v Habitations sociales du Roman Païs SCRL, TE, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Régie des Quartiers de Tubize ASBL

(Case C-104/20)

(2020/C 161/49)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SD

Defendants: Habitations sociales du Roman Païs SCRL, TE, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Régie des Quartiers de Tubize ASBL

Questions referred

Must Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, (1) read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 4(1), 11(3) and 16(3) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, (2) to the extent that they preclude the legislation of a Member State that does not require employers to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured (judgment of 14 May 2019, CCOO, C-55/18, EU:C:2019:402), be interpreted as precluding national legislation, in the present case Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code, which requires a party claiming performance of an obligation to prove that the obligation exists, where that legislation fails to establish that the burden of proof is reversed where workers claim to have exceeded their normal working time and where:

| — | that national legislation, in the present case the Belgian legislation, does not require employers to set up a reliable system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured; and |
| --- | --- |

—

that national legislation, in the present case the Belgian legislation, does not require employers to set up a reliable system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured; and

| — | the employer has not spontaneously set up such a system, |
| --- | --- |

—

the employer has not spontaneously set up such a system,

| — | so that it is impossible in practice for a worker to demonstrate that he has exceeded normal working time?’ |
| --- | --- |

—

so that it is impossible in practice for a worker to demonstrate that he has exceeded normal working time?’

---

(1)  OJ 2003, L 299, p. 9.

(2)  OJ 1989, L 183, p. 1.

---