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

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

| (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. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    |   |  /s/                  Nancy J. McGurk                                     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  |   |  Nancy                  J. McGurk                                         |
| Title: |   |  Chief                  Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  |   |  May                  12, 2006                                            |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6066

In Re: WILLIAM HAMILTON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(9:00-cr-00263-SB-7)

Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: July 17, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit

Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Hamilton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
*Hamilton also claims several pro se motions filed during his

criminal proceedings remain pending. Those motions were disposed

of by virtue of the criminal judgment. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Hamilton petitions for a writ of mandamus

claiming there was undue delay by the district court in disposing

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The Government filed a

response noting that on May 8, 2007, the district court entered an

order disposing of several of Hamilton’s motions, dismissed many of

his claims, and ordered that counsel be appointed and a hearing be

held to consider one of Hamilton’s claims. In light of the court’s

action, we deny as moot Hamilton’s petition for a writ of

mandamus.* We also deny his motions for clarification and for

summary judgment. We grant his motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Caple, Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 166]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Klein, J.), rendered May 28, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The plea proceedings were conducted to ensure that the defendant’s plea was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. At sentencing, the defendant moved *pro se*to withdraw his plea, offering only vague references to the stress he was allegedly under and headaches with which he was allegedly afflicted at the time of the plea proceedings. The sentencing court afforded the defendant every opportunity to elaborate on his motion to withdraw his plea. On appeal, the defendant concedes that he “floundered” when he was asked to be more specific as to the basis of the motion, but argues that his assigned counsel had a duty to assist him and did not make any effort to support his application. He argues further that the sentencing court should have assigned new counsel to assist him with his motion to withdraw his plea. We do not agree.

An attorney assigned to represent a defendant in a criminal case has no duty to participate in a baseless *pro se*motion to withdraw a plea of guilty which was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made *(see, People v Friedman,*39 NY2d 463; *People v Sosa,*258 AD2d 312, 313; *People v Kelsch,*96 AD2d 677, 678-679; *People v Sutton,*39 AD2d 820). The sentencing court went to great lengths to ascertain the basis for the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, and the only basis articulated by the defendant with any specificity was frivolous. Counsel had no duty to support such a motion.

*636Assigned counsel did not argue in opposition to the defendant’s motion, become a witness against him, or make any statements which were adverse to him *(see, People v Wilder,*246 AD2d 750; *cf., People v Cruz,*244 AD2d 564; *People v Humbert,*219 AD2d 674; *People v Kellar,*213 AD2d 1063). Rather, counsel attempted to clarify the circumstances surrounding the plea proceedings *(see, People v Richards,*227 AD2d 419). He did not contradict any assertions made by the defendant, and said nothing which could have been determinative in the sentencing court’s denial of the motion *(see, People v Nawabi,*265 AD2d 156). Therefore, the court properly denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea without assigning new counsel.

The defendant’s remaining contention did not survive his waiver of his right to appeal *(see, People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733). In any event, it is without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7650

CHARLES LOMAX,

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 Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(8:05-cv-03034)

Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 22, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Lomax, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Derrick K.

McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charles Lomax seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely and without merit.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

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

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lomax has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
**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 Eternal Energy Corp. on Form 10-Q for
      the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, Kirk Stingley, 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 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.




August
      13, 2008




*/s/
      Kirk Stingley*


Kirk
      Stingley,


Chief
      Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
#### David LaCORNU, Appellant, v. Barbara LaCORNU, Respondent.

No. WD 61594.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Catherine Earnshaw-Hobbs, Lee’s Summit, for Appellant.

James M. Roberts, Blue Springs, for Respondent.

Before JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Chief Judge, Presiding Judge, JAMES M. SMART, JR., Judge, and RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Judge.

ORDER

David LaCornu (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s judgment in a dissolution of marriage action filed against Barbara La-Cornu (“Wife”). He raises four points on appeal regarding the trial court’s maintenance award, its division of marital property, and the valuation of certain marital assets.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1815

AYAZ ANWAR KHATTAK, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00507-LMB-JFA) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ayaz Anwar Khattak, Appellant Pro Se. R. Joseph Sher, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Ayaz Anwar Khattak appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing with prejudice his civil action filed under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Khattak v. United States, No. 

1:08-cv-00507-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. filed June 19, 2008, entered 

June 20, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of WPT Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, StevenLipscomb, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The Reportfully 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.

 
| Date: May 9, 2008 |   | /s/ Steven Lipscomb                   |
|------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Steven Lipscomb                       |
|                   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# Official Journal L 92/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 92 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6417 March 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 92

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6417 March 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/462 of 15 March 2021 fixing the definitive allocation of Union aid to Member States for school fruit and vegetables and for school milk for the period from 1 August 2021 to 31 July 2022 and amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/467
  (notified under document C(2021) 1571) | 1 |
| | | RULES OF PROCEDURE |
| | * | Decision of the Steering Committee on internal rules concerning restrictions of certain rights of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data in the framework of activities carried out by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency | 6 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/462 of 15 March 2021 fixing the definitive allocation of Union aid to Member States for school fruit and vegetables and for school milk for the period from 1 August 2021 to 31 July 2022 and amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/467
  (notified under document C(2021) 1571)

(notified under document C(2021) 1571)

1

RULES OF PROCEDURE

*

Decision of the Steering Committee on internal rules concerning restrictions of certain rights of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data in the framework of activities carried out by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

6

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 June 2008 – Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30 v Commission**

**(Case C‐448/07 P)**

Appeal – Provision of data relating to the excessive deficit procedure – Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 – European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA 1995) – Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 – Classification of the body ‘Madrid Calle 30’ in the ‘general government’ sector – Eurostat press release – Actionable act

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission press release publishing data relating to government debt and deficit – Implied decision approving the classification of a body in the general government sector of the European System of Accounts
1995 – None (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 3605/93, Arts 8a(1), 8c, 8g, 8h and 8i(1) (see paras 45-53)

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 in Case T-177/06 | Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA | v | Commission | dismissing as inadmissible an action for the annulment of the Eurostat news release No 48/2006 of 24 April 2006 to the extent that it contains a decision of the Commission (Eurostat) on the classification of Madrid Calle 30 in the ‘general government’ sector within the European System of Accounts (ESA 95). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA to pay the costs. |
Order entered June 27, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00382-CR

No. 05-14-00383-CR

VINCENT RAY SETTLES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-00085-J, F14-00086-J

ORDER

The Court GRANTS court reporter Kimberly Xavier’s motion for extension of time to 

file the reporter’s record.

We ORDER Ms. Xavier to file the reporter’s record within FIFTEEN (15) DAYS from 

the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
In the MATTER OF: T.T.E.

No. 238A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 4, 2018

Michelle F. Lynch, Attorney at Law, for T.T.E.

Janelle Varley, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 1st of August 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of September 2018."
STATE v. Christina Shea WALTERS

548A00-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2018

Shelagh R. Kenney, Attorney at Law, Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Durham, for Walters, Christina Shea.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Becton, Charles, et al..

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Retired Members of NC Judiciary.

*667The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 1st of May 2018 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2018."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 2nd day of July 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
GREATER HARVEST GLOBAL MINISTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. BLACKWELL HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC., Defendant.

No. COA17-630

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

AFFIRMED.
| TO      | :   cemalves@timbrasil.com.br; edneves@timbrasil.com.br |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ANALYST | :   RITA CREPALDE                                       |
| FROM    | :   MIDDLE OFFICE GB&M                              |
| COMPANY | :   BANCO ABN AMRO REAL S.A.                            |
| PHONE   | :   3012-6643                                           |
| FAX     | :   5538-6985                                           |
| Ref.    | :   OPERATION CONFIRMATION                              |

| CLIENT         | :   TIM CELULAR AS  |
|----------------|-------------------------------|
|           | CNPJ: 04.206.050/0001-80      |
| OPERATION TYPE | :   RESOLUTION 2770 |
| OPENING DATE   | :   03/09/09        |
| MATURITY       | :   09/08/09        |
| VALUE US$      | :   40.000.000,00   |
| TAX            | :   3.2% APR        |
|           |                          |

| AMOUNT R$ | TAX DUE DATE | (BANK ASSETS / BANK LIABILITIES) |
|-----------|--------------|----------------------------------|

| 95,668,000.00 | 09/08/09 | CDI 131% / DOLLAR + 3.2% |
|---------------|----------|--------------------------|

----

| In Agreement: | (Appears stamp and signature)                |
|---------------|----------------------------------------------|
|          | Mário César Pereira de Araújo |
|          | President                                    |
|          | (stamp and signature(s) of the company)      |
|          |                                         |

|   | TIM CELULAR S/A     |   |
|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   | Marco Chiarucci     |   |
|   | Treasury Manager    |   |
|   | (Appears signature) |   |

----
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS STATE OF TEXAS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE 11/30/2015 

### ANDRADE, NOELVALDEZ 

### On this day, the application for? and presented to the Court.

NOEL VALDEZ At WEST TEXAS ISF #857698 2002 LAMESA HWY 

### BROWNFIELD, TX 79316 ZIP 78701 02 W 0001401623DEC 01 2015 

# 371$ 22B WR-44,017-06 JjHifabeas Corpus has been received Abel Acosta, Clerk 

## >K 

# |.j.i.f-fiffi.j.|tJf-,.f|- J,J

- -11,f.f.f.11.if,|ff|, |.|,ic |ff f f f.r 43B 7S3i£
----

----

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/      Terry L.      Stevens                                        |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry      L. StevensSenior      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| February 11, 2010                                                 |   |

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 15, 2023

No. 04-22-00864-CR

EX PARTE Julian BAZAN

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR1157-W2

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice 

Beth Watkins, Justice 

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED February 15, 2023.

 PER CURIAM

 ATTESTED TO: ______________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-79225 and 333-51034) pertaining to the CorinthianColleges, Inc. 1998 Performance Award Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-51032) pertaining to the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (Form S-8 Nos. 333-115763 and 333-131800) pertaining to the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. 2003 PerformanceAward Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-117889) pertaining to the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Executive Deferral Plan, and (Form S-8 No. 333-124955) pertaining to the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. 2004 New-Hire Award Plan of our reports dated August 20, 2010 withrespect to the consolidated financial statements of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in its Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2010. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Orange County, California 

August 20, 2010