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

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of THOMAS PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                    |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Diana M. Laing
|                         |  |  |  |                    |  | Diana M. Laing         
|                         |  |  |  |                    |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall
not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
PINE v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. #1552, et al.

335A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 3, 2018

Ms. Holly M. Stott, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. #1552, et al

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. #1552, et al

Mr. David A. Shelby, Salisbury, Attorney at Law, for Pine, Patricia

Ms. Linda Stephens, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. #1552, et al

Mr. Vernon Sumwalt, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of June 2018 by Plaintiff to Substitute New Brief with Corrected Brief:

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



Exhibit 32
 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 Company.
   /s/ Curt Hecker

Curt Hecker
    
    
    
    /s/ Doug Wright

Doug WrightChief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Chief Financial Officer
PREFERRED CONCRETE POLISHING, INC., Plaintiff, v. Anthony PIKE and Jennifer Pike, Defendants.

No. COA17-1092

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4539 

To require the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, when issuing a 

research paper, to include all studies, data, and other analyses on which 

the paper was based. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2014 

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

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 

when issuing a research paper, to include all studies, 

data, and other analyses on which the paper was based. 

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 ‘‘Bureau Research 

5 Transparency Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESEARCH PAPER TRANSPARENCY. 

7 Section 1013 of the Consumer Financial Protection 

8 Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5493) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4539 IH

1 ‘‘(h) RESEARCH PAPER TRANSPARENCY.—Any time 

2 the Bureau, either through the research unit established 

3 by the Director under subsection (b)(1) or otherwise, 

4 issues a research paper that is available to the public, the 

5 Bureau shall accompany such paper with all studies, data, 

6 and other analyses on which the paper was based.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
RL BB ACQ I-GA CVL, LLC v. WORKMAN, et al.

A16A1512

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

November 20, 2018

Michael Anthony Shaw, April Reeves Freeman, Christopher Hollis Ezell, Stephen Paul Dronby, Ben H. Harris, for Appellant.

Brent William Herrin, Gus H. Small, Benjamin S. Klehr, Atlanta, for Appellee.

GOBEIL, Judge.

In *Workman v. RL BB ACQ I-GA, LLC* , 303 Ga. 693, 814 S.E.2d 696 (2018) (" *Workman II* "), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed in part and affirmed in part the judgment of this Court in *RL BB ACQ I-GA, LLC v. Workman* , 341 Ga. App. 127, 798 S.E.2d 677 (2017) (" *Workman I* "). Accordingly, we vacate Divisions 1 and 6 of our earlier opinion and in their stead, we adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own. In light of the foregoing, we hold as follows:

*5741. Because neither Honey Workman nor any of the Workman LLCs1 (collectively, the "Third Parties") were parties to the underlying litigation, they were not entitled to an award of attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 for conduct involved in post-judgment discovery. See *Workman II* , 303 Ga. at 697-698 (1), 814 S.E.2d 696. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the trial court's order awarding the Third Parties costs and fees under that statute.

2. For the reasons explained in *Workman I* , we reverse that part of the trial court's order awarding the Third Parties the expenses and fees they incurred in preparing for and attending Honey Workman's deposition. *Workman I* , 341 Ga. App. at 136-137 (3), 798 S.E.2d 677. We also reverse that part of the trial court's order barring RL BB ACQ I-GA CVL, LLC ("Rialto") from deposing Honey Workman for a period of five years. Id. at 137-138 (4), 798 S.E.2d 677.

3. Also for the reasons explained in our original opinion, we reverse that part of the trial court's order awarding the Third Parties the expenses they incurred in pursuing their motion for sanctions. Id. at 138-139 (5), 798 S.E.2d 677.

4. We affirm that part of the trial court's order awarding the Third Parties $18,394.63 in attorney fees and costs incurred in obtaining the protective order at issue. See OCGA §§ 9-11-26 (c), 9-11-37 (a) (4) (A) ; *Workman II* , 303 Ga. at 698-701 (2), 814 S.E.2d 696.

*Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

Ellington, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur.

1

The relevant facts, including a detailed description of the parties involved in both the underlying litigation and the current appeal, may be found in *Workman I* . See 341 Ga. App. at 127-132, 798 S.E.2d 677.
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 Defense

###### Department of the Navy 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice of open meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

The Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) will meet to discuss National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) activities. All sessions of the meetings will remain open to the public. 

# DATES:

The meetings will be held on Thursday, October 27, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Friday, October 28, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. In order to maintain the meetings time schedules, members of the public will be limited in their time to speak to the Panel. Members of the public should submit their comments one week in advance of the meetings to the meeting Point of Contact. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meetings will be held at the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, 1201 New York Ave., NW., Suite 420, Washington, DC 20005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Melbourne G. Briscoe, Office of Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street Suite 1425, Arlington, VA 22203-1995, telephone 703-696-4120. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice of open meetings is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The purpose of the meetings is to discuss NOPP activities. The meetings will include discussions on ocean observations, current and future NOPP activities, and other current issues in the ocean sciences community. 

Dated: September 26, 2005. 

I.C. Le Moyne Jr., 

Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05-20103 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
|   | (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**/*"                Michael P. Kurtanjek                                                              |   |   |        |
| Michael                P. Kurtanjek, President                (Principal                  Executive Officer) |   |   |        |

----
#### Alan FROMAN, Appellant, v. Robert KIRLAND, Appellee.

No. 4D02-3503.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 9, 2003.

Edward R. Curtis of Curtis & Curtis, P.A., and Bruce Botsford of Bruce Bots-ford, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Albert G. Caruana, Dirk Lorenzen and Lisa Mullins of Caruana and Lorenzen, P.A., Miami, and Bruce S. Rogow and Beverly A. Pohl of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Chong v. Milano,*623 So.2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); *Khawly v. Reboul,*488 So.2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

WARNER, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO STEVIA FIRST
CORP 2012 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (“First Amendment”)
effective as of April 11, 2013, hereby amends the STEVIA FIRST CORP. 2012 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (the “Plan”) approved
by the directors and shareholders of Stevia First Corp. on the 3rd day of February 2012.


 


WHEREAS, this First
Amendment was approved by a majority of the shareholders who submitted votes at the Stevia First Corp. annual shareholders meeting
on April 11, 2013, and approved by the board of directors of Stevia First Corp. on February 7. 2013.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the
Plan is amended as follows:


 


		1.	Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby replaced in its entirety by the following:



 


(a)Subject to the provisions of Section 10,
below, the maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be issued pursuant to all Awards (including Incentive Stock Options) is
ten million (10,000,000) Shares. The Shares to be issued pursuant to Awards may be authorized, but unissued, or reacquired
Common Stock.


 


		2.	The first sentence of Section 6 (g) of the Plan is hereby
replaced in its entirety by the following:



 


Following the date that the exemption
from application of Section 162(m) of the Code described in Section 18 (or any exemption having similar effect) ceases
to apply to Awards, the maximum number of Shares with respect to which Options and SARs may be granted to any Grantee in any fiscal
year of the Company shall be one million (1,000,000) Shares.


 


		3.	All capitalized terms not defined herein have the same
meaning as in the Plan.



 


		4.	Any and all provisions of the Plan not expressly modified
herby shall remain in full force and effect.



 


IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned
hereby certifies this First Amendments effective as of the date first written above.


 


 





	 	By: 	/s/ Richard McKilligan
	 	Name: 	Richard McKilligan
	 	Title: 	Secretary
STATE v. Derrick Thomas BAILEY

438P13-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Derrick Bailey, for Bailey, Derrick.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Seth H. Edwards, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of July 2018 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A - 14(B) AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kahiki Foods, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code 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.


/s/ Alan L. Hoover
------------------------
Alan L. Hoover
President
February 14, 2006

/s/ Alan L. Hoover
------------------------
Alan L. Hoover
Acting CFO
February 14, 2006

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be
deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise
subject to the liability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.




                                       24
SPENCER v. The STATE.

A16A0118

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

December 12, 2017

Thomas James Thomas, for Appellant.

John Andrew Pipkin III, William Barney Kennedy, for Appellee.

McFADDEN, Presiding Judge.

In *Spencer v. State,*337 Ga. App. 360, 787 S.E.2d 320 (2016), this court affirmed the appellant's conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol, finding in Division 1 that the trial court had not erred in allowing certain testimony from the arresting officer and in Division 2 that the trial court had not erred in giving a pattern jury instruction instead of a requested charge. The Georgia Supreme Court, in *Spencer v. State*, 302 Ga. 133, 805 S.E.2d 886 (2017) ), reversed the finding in Division 1 of our opinion and reversed the appellant's DUI conviction, but did not address Division 2 of our opinion. Accordingly, Division 1 of our decision in *Spencer,* supra at 337 Ga. App. 360-361, 787 S.E.2d 320, is hereby vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court.

*Judgment reversed.*

Miller, P. J., and McMillian, J., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4544 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow a deduction for 

any fine paid by an owner of professional sports franchise. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2014 

Mr. CA ́RDENAS (for himself, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. RUSH, 

Mr. VARGAS, Mr. GARCIA, and Mr. RUIZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow 

a deduction for any fine paid by an owner of professional 

sports franchise. 

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 ‘‘Stop Penalizing Tax5 payers for Sports Owner Fouls Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR FINES PAID BY OWNER 

7 OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTS FRANCHISE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 162 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4544 IH

1 (q) as subsection (r) and by inserting after subsection (p) 

2 the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(q) FINES AND PENALTIES PAID BY OWNERS OF

4 PROFESSIONAL SPORTS FRANCHISES.—In the case of an 

5 individual who owns (directly or indirectly) a professional 

6 sports franchise, no deduction shall be allowed under sub7 section (a) for any fine or similar penalty paid to the pro8 fessional sports league or association of which the fran9 chise is a member.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

12 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     Exhibit 23





                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
First National Bancshares, Inc.
Bradenton, Florida

We consent to the use of our report dated January 26, 2001 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000 of First
National Bancshares, Inc., in the Annual Report for 2000 on Form 10-K of First
National Bancshares, Inc.



                                          CHRISTOPHER, SMITH, LEONARD,
                                            BRISTOW, STANELL & WELLS, P.A.




FEBRUARY 28, 2001
Exhibit 13.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Tele Norte Leste Participações S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: May 2, 2011 |  | /s/ Luis Eduardo Falco Pires Corrêa  
|                   |  | Name: Luiz Eduardo Falco Pires Corrêa
|                   |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer       
|                   | 
|Dated: May 2, 2011 |  | /s/ Alex Waldemar Zornig             
|                   |  | Name: Alex Waldemar Zornig           
|                   |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 21
- 00295
- CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF VICKI GOINES AND CLIFTON "SONNY" GOINES

From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. D20
- 29209
- CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The parties’ “Agreed Motion for Remand after Remediation” was filed on August 31, 2022. The parties assert they have entered into a mediated settlement agreement, believe no further proceedings in this Court are necessary, and request this Court remand
the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent to the mediated settlement agreement. Although we do not have the authority to do exactly what the parties have requested, we do have the authority to set aside the trial court's judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in accordance with the parties' agreement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(2)(B). Accordingly,In the Matter of the Marriage of Goines Page 2 the "Agreed Motion to Remand after Remediation " is granted to the extent authorized. The Final Decree of Divorce, signed on August 13, 2021 , is set aside without regard to the
merits , and the case is remanded to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in accordance with the parties' Mediated Settlement Agreement. Because the Court was unable to grant the entirety of the parties' motion, the Court has endeavored to implement the substance of the parties' agree d motion to achieve the
same result. If the parties determine that the judgment of the Court does not accomplish the parties' intended result, a timely motion for rehearing must be filed which addresses the manner in which the Court can implement the agre ement of the parties within the limitations of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1; 49.1. There being no agreement as to costs, costs of this appeal are taxed against Clifton “Sonny” Goines.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Befo re Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Motion granted; judgment set aside; case remanded Opinion delivered and filed September 7 , 2022 [CV 0 6]