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




In
connection with the quarterly report of Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis L. Garner, Jr., 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, that to my
knowledge:




1.
                The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
                The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.














/s/ Curtis L. Garner, Jr.Curtis
      L. Garner, Jr.Chief
      Financial OfficerMarch
      8, 2010
EXHIBIT 21.1
  Subsidiaries
    of the Company
  State of Other

Other Name, if Any,Jurisdiction of

the Subsidiary DoesName

Incorporation

Business UnderBowSteel Corporation

Delaware

RTI ConnecticutExtrusion Technology Corporation of America

Ohio

RTI FabricationNati Gas Company

OhioNew Century Metals, Inc.

OhioNew Century Metals Southeast, Inc.

Delaware

RTI LAPierce-Spafford Metals Company, Inc.

California

RTI Pierce SpaffordRTI  Reamet, S.A.S

FranceRMI Delaware, Inc.

DelawareRMI Titanium Company

Ohio

RTI Niles; RTI AlloysRTI Claro Inc.

QuebecRTI Finance Corp.

OhioRTI Hamilton, Inc.

OhioRTI Hermitage, Inc.

OhioRTI Energy Systems, Inc.

OhioRTI Europe Ltd.

United KingdomRTI Fabrication and Distribution, Inc.

OhioRTI International Metals Ltd.

United KingdomRTI Martinsville, Inc.

OhioRTI St. Louis, Inc.

MissouriTradco, Inc.

Missouri

RTI Tradco
#### VIVIAN DuBOSE v. JAMES MICHAEL REECE

No. 7421DC114

(Filed 6 March 1974)

Divorce and Alimony § 22— child custody — sufficiency of complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint seeking to obtain custody of two children born of her marriage to defendant was sufficient to state a claim for relief.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Clifford, District Judge,*13 August 1973 Session of District Court held in Forsyth County.

Plaintiff instituted this action for custody of two children born of her marriage to defendant. Before hearing any evidence, the court entered an order dismissing the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

*White and Crumpler by Fred G. Crumpler, Jr., Michael J. Lewis and Melvin F. Wright, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.*

*Wilson and Morrow by John F. Morrow, for defendant ap-pellee.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

The complaint gives defendant sufficient notice of the nature and basis of plaintiff’s claim to enable him to answer and prepare for trial. In fact, defendant had filed answer and an order had been entered directing an investigation by the Family Service Division of the Court. The complaint shows no insurmountable bar to the relief sought by plaintiff. It was, therefore, error to dismiss the action. *Sutton v. Duke, 277*N.C. 94, 176 S.E. 2d 161. The order from which plaintiff appealed is vacated and the case is remanded.

Vacated and remanded.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.
EXHIBIT 24.1
  POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  KNOW ALL
    MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
  Form 10-K
    February 19,
    2010          (Date)

/s/ Craig R.
    AnderssonCraig
    R. Andersson, Director




---



##### 



POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  KNOW ALL
    MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
  Form 10-K
    February 18,
    2010          (Date)

/s/ Daniel I.
    BookerDaniel
    I. Booker, Director




---



##### 



POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  KNOW ALL
    MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
  Form 10-K
    February 22,
    2010          (Date)

/s/ Donald P. Fusilli,
    Jr.Donald
    P. Fusilli, Jr., Director




---



##### 



POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  KNOW ALL
    MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
  Form 10-K
    February 20,
    2010          (Date)

/s/ Ronald L.
    GallatinRonald
    L. Gallatin, Director




---



##### 



POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  KNOW ALL
    MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
  Form 10-K
    February 19,
    2010          (Date)

/s/ Charles C.
    GedeonCharles
    C. Gedeon, Director




---



##### 



POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  KNOW ALL
    MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
  Form 10-K
    February 18,
    2010          (Date)

/s/ Robert M.
    HernandezRobert
    M. Hernandez, Director




---



##### 



POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  KNOW ALL
    MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
  Form 10-K
    February 18,
    2010          (Date)

/s/ Edith E.
    HolidayEdith
    E. Holiday, Director




---



##### 



POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  KNOW ALL
    MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
  Form 10-K
    February 18,
    2010          (Date)

/s/ Bryan T.
    MossBryan
    T. Moss, Director




---



##### 



POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  KNOW ALL
    MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
  Form 10-K
    February 18,
    2010          (Date)

/s/ James A.
    WilliamsJames
    A. Williams, Director
****EXHIBIT 32.2****

 

****IMPLANT SCIENCES CORPORATION****

 

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofImplant Sciences Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB, for theperiod ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane J. Ryan, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

 

1.  TheReport fully 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | **/s/   ** Diane  J. Ryan |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Diane J. Ryan                                 |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                       |
|   | October 13, 2005                         |

 

----
1

The HONORABLE ANN D. MONTGOMERY, United States District Judge

for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2011

___________

Arthur D’Amario, III, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

* 

Bureau of Prisons, Sued as U.S. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Bureau of Prisons, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 7, 2003

 Filed: February 10, 2003

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arthur D’Amario appeals the district court’s

1

 order denying his Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. D’Amario sought relief from the district court’s

underlying judgment, which he did not timely appeal, denying his third 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 petition as abusive, and denying his motion for sanctions against the

government attorney. In support of Rule 60(b) relief, D’Amario argued he had been

unable to obtain a transcript that he needed to support his petition until after judgment
-2-

was entered. However, we agree with the district court that the transcript would have

made no difference in the disposition of D’Amario’s claims and therefore was not

newly discovered evidence that warranted Rule 60(b) relief.

We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. See

Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny as moot D’Amario’s motion for summary

disposition.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
INTERSAL, INC. v. HAMILTON, et al.

115A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 12, 2018

David H. Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Durham, for Intersal, Inc.

Brian Rabinovitz, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Special Deputy Attorney General, Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Charles G. Whitehead, Special Deputy Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, et al.

Jeffrey A. Doyle, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Joshua D. Neighbors, Attorney at Law, for Friends of Queen Anne's Revenge (Non-Profit Corporation)

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of October 2018 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to Respond to State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of October 2018."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 19th day of October 2018 to Respond to Motion to Dismiss.
<Page>

                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of
this Registration Statement File No. 333-95789 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Ten on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated February 29, 2000, included in this Form 10-K, into
Pennzoil-Quaker State Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form
S-8 Nos. 333-69833, 333-69835, 333-69839, 333-69837, 333-72835, 333-96385 and on
Form S-3 No. 333-65909.

                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Houston, Texas
March 3, 2000
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOE JAMES BRAXTON.

(Filed 12 June 1968.)

Constitutional Law § 81; Criminal Law § 91—

Tlie denial of motion for continuance made by indigent defendant’s attorney ten minutes after bis appointment to represent the defendant is prejudicial error, there not being sufficient time for the attorney to procure witnesses or to prepare the case for trial by jury.

Appeal by defendant from *Cowper,*./., 23 October 1967 Regular Criminal Session of LeNOIr Superior Court.

Defendant was charged with the felonies of forgery and uttering a forged instrument in a bill of indictment returned by the Grand Jury at the October 1967 Session of court.

From a verdict of guilty and judgment of imprisonment, defendant appealed.

*408
      *Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Deputy Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.*

*C. E. Gerrans for defendant.*

Mallard, C.J.

Defendant’s main assignment of error, upon which this case turns, is that the court committed error in the denial of defendant’s request for a continuance after the appointment of counsel, to enable counsel to obtain witnesses.

On 31 October 1967 the defendant signed an affidavit in which he asserted that he was an indigent and requested the appointment of counsel. On the same date he was found by the court to be an indigent, and C. E. Gerrans, an attorney at law, was assigned to represent him.

In “approximately ten minutes” after the appointment of counsel, the defendant’s case was called for trial. Before pleading to the charges contained in the bill of indictment, defendant’s counsel made a motion to continue the case in order to obtain witnesses for the defendant. The motion was denied.

In ruling on the motion the court said, “In view of the fact that the case was called last week and the court gave the defendant time to get ready the court denies the request.” The record does not reveal what else, if anything, occurred the week before. There is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant’s counsel had knowledge of what had occurred the prior week, and if he had known about it, he was under no obligation to act in this case until he became attorney for the defendant.

We hold that ten minutes after his appointment was not sufficient time for the defendant’s lawyer to procure witnesses or to prepare the case for trial by jury. The failure to continue the case under these circumstances was prejudicial error. *State v. Lane,*258 N.C. 349, 128 S.E. 2d 389.

The defendant made other assignments of error. However, in view of what is said above, these need not be discussed, except we deem it proper to add that there was sufficient evidence in this case for it to be submitted to the jury.

For the reasons stated, it is ordered that there be a new trial.

New trial.

Britt and Morris, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21319]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 70 FR 194.

Previously Announced Time and Date of the Meeting: 11 a.m., Wednesday, 
October 26, 2005.

Changes in the Meeting: The Rule Enforcement Review has been moved to 
Friday, October 28, 2005, at 11:45 a.m.

Contact Person For More Information: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-21319 Filed 10-20-05; 2:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      Exhibit 23





June 25, 1999

The Board of Directors
American Energy Services, Inc.

In connection with our audits of the financial statements of American Energy
Services, Inc. as of February 28, 1999, 1998, and 1997, and for each of the
three years in the period ended February 28, 1999, which financial statements
are included in the Form 10-KSB, we have also audited the financial statement
schedules listed in Item 14 herein.

In our opinion, these financial statement schedules, when considered in relation
to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly, in all
material respects, the information required to be included therein.


/s/  Simonton, Kutac, & Barnidge, L.L.P.

Simonton, Kutac, & Barnidge, L.L.P.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21107]


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

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS


Extension of Period of Determination on Request for Textile and 
Apparel Safeguard Action on Imports From China

October 17, 2005.
AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (the 
Committee).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is extending through November 30, the period for 
making a determination on whether to request consultations with China 
regarding imports of cotton and man-made fiber curtains and drapery 
(Category 369 Part/666 Part).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Dowling, Office of Textiles and 
Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

    Authority: Section 204 of the Agriculture Act of 1956, as 
amended; Executive Order 11651, as amended.

Background

    On June 22, 2005, the Committee received a request from the 
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, the National Council of 
Textile Organizations, the National Textile Association, and UNITE HERE 
requesting that the Committee limit imports from China of cotton and 
man-made fiber curtains and drapery (Category 369 Part/666 Part) due to 
market disruption.
    The Committee determined that this request provided the information 
necessary for the Committee to consider the request and solicited 
public comments for a period of 30 days. See Solicitation of Public 
Comment on Request for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Action on Imports 
from China, 70 FR 41376 (July 19, 2005).
    The Committee's Procedures, 68 FR 27787 (May 21, 2003) state that 
the Committee will make a determination within 60 calendar days of the 
close of the public comment period as to whether the United States will 
request consultations with China. If the Committee is unable to make a 
determination within 60 calendar days, it will cause to be published a 
notice in the Federal Register, including the date by which it will 
make a determination.
    The 60 day determination period for this case expired on October 
17, 2005. The Committee is unable to make a determination within the 
determination period because it is continuing to evaluate production 
data for cotton and man-made fiber curtains and drapery. Therefore, the 
Committee is extending the determination period to November 30, 2005.

James C. Leonard III,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc. 05-21107 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Kenneth Wayne HUGHES v. Teresa Lynn TALTON.

No. 2003-C-1487.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 3, 2003.

In re Talton, Teresa Lynn; -Defendant (s);—Applying for Rehearing of an Order of this Court dated June 27, 2003; Fifth Circuit No. 03-CA-12; Parish of Jefferson, 24th JDC Div. N No. 574-394.

The application for rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of clarifying this Court’s order and the effect on this litigation. On June 27, 2003, this Court ordered that this case be realloted. It has since come to our attention that the case had previously been realloted to Judge Lilje-berg in Section “N” of the 24th Judicial District Court. That being the case, the import of our ruling that the case be real-loted out of Section “O” of that court has been accomplished and no further action in compliance with our order is required.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5017 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5017

  To ensure the availability of loan guarantees for rural homeowners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2010

    Mr. Kanjorski (for himself, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mr. 
 Hinojosa, and Mr. Courtney) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure the availability of loan guarantees for rural homeowners.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Housing Preservation and 
Stabilization Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. LOAN GUARANTEE FEES.

    (a) Fees.--
            (1) Up-front and annual fees.--Paragraph (8) of section 
        502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(8)) is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``(8) Guarantee fees.--With respect to a guaranteed loan 
        under this subsection, the Secretary may collect from the 
        lender--
                    ``(A) at the time of issuance of the guarantee, a 
                fee equal to not more than 3.5 percent of the principal 
                obligation of the loan; and
                    ``(B) an annual fee during the term of the loan 
                equal to not more than 0.5 percent of the outstanding 
                principal balance of the loan.''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 739 of the Agriculture, 
        Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
        Agencies Appropriation Act, 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106-
        387; 114 Stat. 1549A-34) is hereby repealed.
    (b) Authorization of Amount of Loan Guarantees.--Section 513 of the 
Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1483) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Authorization for Loan Guarantees.--The Secretary may, to the 
extent approved in appropriation Acts, guarantee loans under section 
502(h) in aggregate amounts not to exceed $30,000,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2010 and for each fiscal year thereafter.''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00064-CR

Kevin D. Talkington

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County (1269829D)

April 30, 2015

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_______________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
EXHIBIT 32.2
                              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
              RULE 13A-14(1) OR RULE 15D-14(B) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                              SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Petrosearch Energy Corporation, (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Collins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1)  The report  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
          or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and
     (2)  The information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the  company.


Date: May 12, 2006


By:  /s/ David Collins
     -----------------
     David Collins
     Chief Financial Officer