alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Monadnock Community Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Donald R. Blanchette, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 and in connection with this quarterly report on Form
10-QSB that:

     3.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     4.   The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the company's financial condition and results of
          operations.

Date: June 25, 2004                        /s/ Donald R. Blanchette
                                           ------------------------
                                           Donald R. Blanchette
                                           Chief Financial Officer



                                       17
STATE of North Carolina v. Allen JAMISON

No. COA18-292

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 4, 2018

NO PLAIN ERROR.
STOKES v. STOKES

82A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 21, 2018

Rebecca K. Watts, Attorney at Law, Monroe, for Stokes, Bree Rushing.

Kristen Shearin, Attorney at Law, Brione B. Pattison, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Stokes, William Corey (II)

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 21st of May 2018 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of May 2018."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 13th day of June 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE v. Robert Dwayne LEWIS

140PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2018

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, For Lewis, Robert Dwayne

Milind Kumar Dongre, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

The following order has been entered on the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 13th of December 2018 by:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of December 2018."

Defendant and State of NC shall have up to and including the 6th day of February 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
2015 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-26-2015 

# EE O C v . A l l s t a t e I ns ur a nce C o

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015

Thi s M a r ch i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2015 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" EE O C v . A l l s t a t e I n s ur a nc e C o " (2015). 2015 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 295. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015/295

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 2700

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellant

v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

(D.C. No. 01

- cv
- 07042 )

SUR P ETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

Present: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA , and BARRY , Circuit Judges

. The petition for rehearing filed by a ppellant in the above

- entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, it is her eby O R D E R E D that the petition for rehearing by the panel is granted in part and denied in part

. The Clerk’s Office is hereby directed to amend the Court’s Opinion in the above

referenced case, dated February 13 , 2015, to remove John V. Gorman and Col een M.
Meehan from the list of attorneys representing plaintiff

- appellant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. BY THE COURT,
s/ Thomas M. Hardiman Circuit Judge
Dated: March 26, 2015
[Cite as State v. Gassaway , 2019-Ohio-688.]

COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO Respondent

-vsFRANKLIN L. GASSAWAY

Petitioner JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

Case No. CT2018-0073

O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Procedendo

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 25, 2019

APPEARANCES: For Respondent For Petitioner

D. MICHAEL HADDOX FRANKLIN GASSAWAY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PRO SE GERALD V. ANDERSON II BELMONT CORR. INSTITUTION ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 68518 Bannock Road 27 North 5 th Street, Suite 201 St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 Zanesville, Ohio 43701Muskingum County, Case No. CT2018-0073 2

Wise, John, J. {¶1} Petitioner Franklin Gassaway has filed a “Writ and Motion for Procedendo.”

The State of Ohio has filed a motion to dismiss. Attached to the motion to dismiss is a copy of the order from the trial court denying Petitioner’s motion for transcript at state

expense. {¶2} The crux of the petition is a request for this Court to order the Court of Common Pleas to provide Petitioner with copies of pleadings, as well as a transcript at state expense. {¶3} The caption of the petition before us lists the State of Ohio as the Plaintiff, and Franklin Gassaway as the Defendant. Gassaway is not the proper defendant in this case nor is the State of Ohio the Plaintiff. Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent for an action which requests a writ of procedendo to issue. {¶4} The Supreme Court has noted, “The writ of procedendo is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. It does not in any case attempt to control the inferior court as to what that judgment

should be.” State ex rel. Davey v. Owen, 133 Ohio St. 96, *106, 12 N.E.2d 144, *149 (1937). {¶5} A writ of procedendo is proper when a court has refused to enter judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180, 184, 652 N.E.2d 742 (1995). {¶6} In this case, Petitioner has not averred that the trial court has refused to enter judgment.Muskingum County, Case No. CT2018-0073 3

{¶7} Finally, Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) which requires, “[a]t the time that an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee, the inmate shall file with the court an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.” {¶8} Because Petitioner was not named a proper plaintiff or defendant, has not alleged any facts which would support a claim in procedendo, and has not complied with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A), the petition is dismissed.

By: Wise, John, J. Hoffman, P. J., and Wise, Earle, J., concur.

JWW/d 0122
#### Voytek Technology, Inc., Respondent, v Rapid Access Consulting, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[719 NYS2d 112]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), entered April 15, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered March 11, 1999, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $23,300. The defendants’ notice of appeal from the order dated April 15, 1998, is also deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the order is vacated, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff is a consulting firm. It provided services to clients of the appellant Rapid Access Consulting, Inc. (hereinafter Rapid) under a contract with Rapid. Under the terms of the contract, the plaintiff was required to submit weekly time reports to Rapid. In this action, the plaintiff is seeking to recover money allegedly owed it under that contract.

The only proof offered by the plaintiff to support its assertion that it had submitted the required time reports was the affidavit of Andrew Welenc, its president. He averred that they were duly submitted to Rapid. However, Rapid’s president, the ap*471pellant Albert Semon, submitted an affidavit alleging that Rapid never received them. This was sufficient to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact requiring the denial of the motion *(see, Roemer & Featherstonhaugh v Featherstonhaugh,*267 AD2d 697; *Triangle Fire Protection Corp. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.,*172 AD2d 658).

Further, the Supreme Court should not have considered the plaintiffs alleged documentary proof consisting of copies of the required time reports as well as various facismile transmission confirmation sheets and other documentation. That material was improperly submitted for the first time in the plaintiffs reply papers *(see,*CPLR 2214; *see, Dannasch v Bifulco,*184 AD2d 415; *see also, Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini,*258 AD2d 658; *Held v Kaufman,*238 AD2d 546, *mod on other grounds*91 NY2d 425; *Sopesis Constr. v Solomon,*199 AD2d 491).

In light of this determination we need not reach the issue of the personal liability, if any, of Rapid’s president, the appellant Albert Semon. Krausman, J. P., Miller, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4674 

To authorize loan guarantees for projects to construct renewable fuel 

pipelines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

Mr. BOSWELL (for himself, Mr. TERRY, Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN, Mr. 

LOEBSACK, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. HARE, and Mr. PETERSON) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To authorize loan guarantees for projects to construct 

renewable fuel pipelines. 

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 ‘‘Renewable Fuel Pipe5 line Act of 2010’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4674 IH

1 SEC. 2. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR PROJECTS TO CONSTRUCT 

2 RENEWABLE FUEL PIPELINES. 

3 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 1701 of the Energy Pol4 icy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511) is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(6) RENEWABLE FUEL.—The term ‘renewable 

7 fuel’ has the meaning given the term in section 

8 211(o)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 7545(o)(1)), except that the term shall include all 

10 ethanol and biodiesel. 

11 ‘‘(7) RENEWABLE FUEL PIPELINE.—The term 

12 ‘renewable fuel pipeline’ means a pipeline for trans13 porting renewable fuel.’’. 

14 (b) AMOUNT.—Section 1702(c) the Energy Policy 

15 Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512(c)) is amended by adding 

16 at the end the following: ‘‘A guarantee for a project de17 scribed in section 1703(b)(11) shall be in an amount equal 

18 to 80 percent of the project cost of the facility that is the 

19 subject of the guarantee, as estimated at the time at which 

20 the guarantee is issued.’’. 

21 (c) RENEWABLE FUEL PIPELINE ELIGIBILITY.— 

22 Section 1703(b) the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 

23 16513(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(11) Renewable fuel pipelines.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3526

___________ Ruthie Mae Stewart, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Northern District of Iowa. * General Mills Operations, LLC, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 3, 2010 Filed: May 21, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ruthie Mae Stewart appeal s the district court’s 1 dismissal of her action in which she alleged that General Mills violated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. After careful de novo review, seeBanks v. Int’l Union Elec., Elec., Technical, Salaried & Mach. Workers , 390 F.3d 1049, 1052 (8th Cir. 2004), we conclude that dismissal of the suit on federal-law res judicata grounds was proper, see Taylor v. Sturgell , 128 S. Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008) (preclusive effect of federal-court judgment in federal-question case is determined by fe deral common law); Rutherford v. Kessel ,-2- 560 F.3d 874, 877 (8th Cir. 2009) (res judicata precludes second suit if "its claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the prio r claim"). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 31.1**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**I, Robert J. Larison, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic Coast Federal Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofcircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respect the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 15, 2005/s/ Robert J. Larison, Jr.
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 20061 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus

Mayalo Chaparo

- Osorio,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 686

- 1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam : *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mayalo Chaparo

- Osorio has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Chaparo

- Osorio has not filed a

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 23, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-20061 Document: 00515949535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2021No. 20

- 20061

2 response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2

. Case: 20-20061 Document: 00515949535 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2021
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
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 Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 of
Pure Biofuels Corp. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      August 14, 2009/s/
      Luis
      GoyzuetaLuis
      Goyzueta, Chief Executive 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
required by Section 906, has been provided to Pure Biofuels Corp. and will
be retained by Pure Biofuels Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE v. Marcus Reymond ROBINSON

411A94-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 27, 2018

Robert T. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, G. Robert Hicks, III, Assistant District Attorney, William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, For State of NC

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jay H. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorney at Law, Durham, NC, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, NC, Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, NC, Cassandra Stubbs, Attorney at Law, D. Clark Smith, Jr., Attorney at Law, David Weiss, Attorney at Law, Brian W. Stull, Attorney at Law, For Robinson, Marcus Reymond

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, For Social Scientists

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, For N.C. Council of Churches

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, For National Association for Public Defense

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, NC, Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, NC, James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, NC, For N.C. Advocates for Justice

Jeffrey Gerrish, Attorney at Law, James P. Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, NC, Gregory B. Craig, Attorney at Law, Alex T. Haskell, Attorney at Law, For Former Senior U.S. Military Officials

John R. Mills, Attorney at Law, For Experts in Law and Implicit Bias

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

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, For Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, For N.C. Association of Black Lawyers

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, NC, For N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

*589Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Durham, NC, Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, NC, Paul F. Khoury, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Robert L. Walker, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Madeline J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Former State and Federal Prosecutors

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed on the 27th of December 2018 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of December 2018."
STATE v. Charles Antonio MEANS

266P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018

Charles Antonio Means, for Means, Charles Antonio.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of August 2018 by Defendant to Dismiss:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2018."
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Marvin G. JONES.

No. 2003-KH-1933.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Jones, Marvin G.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial *1007Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 14,043.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the filing to the district court for its consideration. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.