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


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”) of Prospect Capital Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Commission on the date hereof, I, Kristin L. Van Dask, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


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 Registrant.


Date:February 8, 2022/s/ KRISTIN L. VAN DASKKristin L. Van DaskChief 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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Prospect Capital Corporation and will be retained by Prospect Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuantto Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**

 

I, Calvin A. Wallen, III,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of Cubic Energy, Inc.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report.

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report.

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

(a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and,

 

(c) disclosedin this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theAudit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

 

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: September 29, 2008

 
| Signature: | /s/ Calvin A. Wallen, III      |   |
|------------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|       | Calvin A. Wallen, III,  C.E.O. |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 22 (Thursday, February 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2093]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY


Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection; 
Telecommunications Service Priority System Oversight Committee

AGENCY: National Communications System (NCS), Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Committee management; notice of advisory committee renewal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has renewed the 
charter for the Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) System 
Oversight Committee.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2, et seq.) the 
Secretary of Homeland Security has renewed the charter for the TSP 
System Oversight Committee. This renewal follows consultation with the 
Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration and 
has been determined by the Secretary to be in the public interest in 
connection with the performance of duties imposed on DHS by law.
    The TSP System Oversight Committee identifies and reviews any 
problems developing in the TSP System and recommends actions to correct 
them or prevent recurrence. The TSP System Oversight Committee 
Designated Federal Officer is Lt. Col. Joanne Sechrest, USAF.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Flint, NCS Office of Priority 
Telecommunications, 703-607-4932. Media or press should contact Mr. 
Steve Barrett at 703-607-6211.

Peter M. Fonash,
Acting Deputy Manager, National Communications System.
[FR Doc. 05-2093 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M
Exhibit 23.1

LOGO

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

As independent petroleum engineers and geologists, we consent to the reference to our firm in the W&T Offshore, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 and to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-Q to our estimate of reserves and to the use of our report on reserves and the incorporation of the report on reserves as of September 30, 2005
included in the W&T Offshore, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006.



NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:

/s/ FREDERIC D. SEWELLFrederic D. SewellChairman and Chief Executive Officer


Dallas, Texas

August 14, 2006
#### JAMES MOORE, d/b/a SUMMIT REALTY COMPANY v. CLYDE EATON, d/b/a EATON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

No. 7321DC3

(Filed 14 February 1973)

Appeal by defendant from *Billings, District Judge,*5 June 1972 Session of District Court held in Forsyth County.

*378Action for commissions and expenses alleged to be due plaintiff by defendant in connection with an oral agreement relating to real estate sales. Defendant counterclaimed for a sum alleged to be due him. The jury answered the issues in favor of plaintiff and defendant appealed.

*White and Grumpier by Carl D. Downing, Michael J. Lewis and G. Edgar Parker for plaintiff appellee.*

*Drum, Liner & Redden by David V. Diner for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

Only one exception appears in the record of the trial. Approximately 23 pages of the printed record are taken up by the court’s charge. On about the 16th page of the charge there appears “Exception No. 1” without further indication as to what portion of the charge appellant deems objectionable. The portion of the charge objected to is not quoted in an assignment of error. In our discretion, however, we have considered appellant’s objections to the charge as they are set out in his brief and hold that no prejudicial error has been shown.

No error.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.
#### JOHN HENRY LARK v. LEROY McMANUS, JR.

No. 7126SC24

(Filed 28 April 1971)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hasty, Superior Court Judge,*22 June 1970 Special Mixed Session of Superior Court held in Mecklenburg County.

In his complaint plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of the actionable negligence of the defendant when an automobile operated by the plaintiff and one operated by the defendant collided at an intersection in Charlotte. Defendant answered and denied that he was negligent, pleaded contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and filed a counterclaim in which it was alleged that defendant’s automobile was damaged by the actionable negligence of the plaintiff.

*212From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appealed.

*Marvin Lee Ritch for plaintiff appellant.*

*Carpenter, Golding, Crews & Meekins for defendant ap-pellee.*

MALLARD, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff’s appeal was not docketed within the time permitted by the rules of this court, and no extension of time was granted. However, we deny defendant’s motion to dismiss, treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of *certiorari,*allow it, and consider the case on its merits.

The evidence was conflicting. Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that he was injured by the actionable negligence of the defendant, and defendant’s evidence tended to show that his property was damaged by the actionable negligence of the plaintiff.

The jury, by the verdict, held that the plaintiff was not injured by the actionable negligence of the defendant and that the defendant’s automobile was damaged in the amount of $600 by the actionable negligence of the plaintiff.

We have carefully considered plaintiff’s assignments of error and find no prejudicial error in the trial.

No error.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE JAMES WALLACE alias WILLIE BRYANT

No. 7228SC629

(Filed 22 November 1972)

1. Criminal Law § 161— exception to judgment — review of face of record

Assignment of error based on an exception to entry of the judgment presents only the question of whether error appears on the face of the record.

2. Criminal Law § 23— plea of guilty — no error on face of record

No error appears on the face of the record in an appeal from judgment imposed upon defendant’s plea of guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

On *certiorari*to review judgment of *Thornburg, Judge,*at the 27 March 1972 Session of Buncombe Superior Court.

In a bill of indictment returned at the 8 October 1969 Session of Buncombe Superior Court, defendant was charged with first-degree murder. He appeared with his court appointed attorney at the 27 March 1972 session of the court and tendered a plea of guilty of voluntary manslaughter. After due inquiry the trial court adjudged that the plea was freely, understandingly, and voluntarily made, without undue influence, compulsion or duress, and without any promise of leniency, and accepted the tendered plea. From judgment sentencing him to prison for 15 years, with credit to be given for time spent in jail and the State Hospital between 28 September 1969 and 27 March 1972, defendant appealed.

*648
      *Attorney General Robert Morgan by Lester V. Chalmers, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Ruben J. Dailey for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

[1] Defendant’s sole assignment of error is based on his exception to the entry of the judgment, therefore, the only question presented is whether error appears on the face of the record. *State v. Martin,*10 N.C. App. 181, 178 S.E. 2d 32 (1970).

[2] A careful review of the record reveals no error. The bill of indictment is proper in form; the defendant’s plea of guilty to a less degree of the offense charged in the indictment against him is authorized by statute; *State v. Woody,*271 N.C. 544, 157 S.E. 2d 108 (1967) ; defendant was represented by an experienced attorney; the court, following a careful inquiry, determined that defendant’s guilty plea was freely, understanding^, and voluntarily entered; and the sentence imposed is well within the limits provided by statute; G.S. 14-18.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-91296) pertaining to the Bull Run Corporation 1994 Long Term
Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91298) pertaining
to the Bull Run Corporation Non-Employee Directors' 1994 Stock Option Plan 
of our reports dated February 22, 1996 with respect to the consolidated 
financial statements of Bull Run Corporation and our reports dated February 22,
1995 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Datasouth Computer
Corporation incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) of Bull
Run Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1995, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.


                                                   /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 25, 1996


                                        18
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ares Capital Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), R. Kipp deVeer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Penni F. Roll, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his or her knowledge:





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: October 30, 2019/s/ R. KIPP DEVEERR. Kipp deVeerChief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)Date: October 30, 2019/s/ PENNI F. ROLLPenni F. RollChief Financial Officer (principal 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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Ares Capital Corporation and will be retained by Ares Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,849
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          22,869
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    249,159
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        453,791
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 747,332
<DEPOSITS>                                     429,225
<SHORT-TERM>                                    94,811
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,812
<LONG-TERM>                                     54,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           112
<OTHER-SE>                                     157,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 747,332
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 32,087
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               16,039
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                48,126
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,886
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,682
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           22,444
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,062
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (48)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 20,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,671
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,055
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,055
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.42
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,574
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,027
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      542
<RECOVERIES>                                        76
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,623
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,623
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            542

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Board of Directors
East West Bancorp:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-128828, 333-46718, 333-54538, 333-113478,
333-118677, 333-96193, 333-156567, 333-150353, and 333-161891) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-85330,
333-91554, 333-105292, 333-88527, 333-88529 and 333-56468) on Form S-8 of East West Bancorp of our reports dated
February 26, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of East West Bancorp and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes
in stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of East West Bancorp.

Our
report on the consolidated financial statements refers to changes in 2009 in East West Bancorp's method of recognition and presentation of
other-than-temporary impairments.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Los
Angeles, California
February 26, 2010

---



QuickLinks
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PEKIN POST 

OFFICE, Pekin, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0469

Issued: July 30, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On February 4, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a December 16, 2020 notice of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 21-0469.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of OWCP 

issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal.2 In the December 16, 

2020 notice, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to modify an August 28, 1997 loss of wageearning capacity (LWEC) determination. It afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence if 

she disagreed with the proposed LWEC modification. As this notice was merely advisory in 

nature, it does not constitute a final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

properly exercise jurisdiction.

3

 Therefore, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 

21-0469 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0469 is dismissed.

Issued: July 30, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).
**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | • | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter                ended                March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission                (the                “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: June 21, 2006                                               |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                              |   |   |   |
| /s/ Humphrey              P. Polanen                         |   |   |   |
| Humphrey              P. Polanen                                  |   |   |        |
| Chief              Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |   |   |   |

----
In the MATTER OF: V.P.M.A.

No. 368P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Mark L. Hayes, Attorney at Law, for Mylenski, Tara Marie.

Mary Boyce Wells, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Roger A. Askew, Senior Deputy County Attorney, for Wake County Human Services.

Matthew Wunsche, Attorney at Law, Durham, for GAL.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of October 2018 by Respondent (Mother) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."