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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, 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 Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael P. ODonnellMichael P. ODonnellExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


August 6, 2008
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00022-CV

Desirold Bennett, Appellant

v.

Colonial Property Agent for J. Michael Burbige, Appellee

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY 

NO. 88462, THE HONORABLE JEANNE PARKER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was originally due on April 8, 2019. On June 14, 2019, this 

Court sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was overdue and that a failure to file 

a satisfactory response by June 24, 2019, would result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of 

prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: August 2, 2019
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**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**

 

I, Keith Walz, Chief Financial Officer of Sand Hill IT Security Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), do hereby 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:

 

|   | • |   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, 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: August 15, 2005

 

/s/ Keith Walz

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

Keith Walz

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAYMOND BIGGS

No. 6917SC101

(Filed 5 February 1969)

Burglary and Unlawful Breakings § 7; Criminal Law § 113— submission of non-felonious breaking or entering

in a prosecution for the felony of breaking and entering a store building with the felonious intent to steal property therefrom, failure of the court to submit the issue of defendant’s guilt of non-felonious breaking or entering is prejudicial error where the evidence tends to show that no personal property was taken from the building and the only evidence of defendant’s alleged felonious intent to steal is circumstantial.

Appeal by defendant from *Beal, S.J.,*October 1968 Session of Superior Court of RoCkingi-iam County.

Defendant was tired on a bill of indictment charging him and another with the felony of breaking and entering the store of Lowes Mayodan Associate Store, Inc., (Lowes) on 11 January 1968 with the felonious intent to steal therefrom property belonging to Lowes, in violation of G.S. 14-54.

The defendant offered no evidence.

*590The jury returned a verdict of guilty. From a judgment of imprisonment, the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney (Mrs.) Christine Y. Denson for the State.*

*Gwyn, Gwyn & Morgan by Melser A. Morgan, Jr., for the defendant appellant.*

MallaRD, C.J.

The State’s evidence was circumstantial. It tended to show that the defendant, together with another man, broke a window in the store building of Lowes in which personal property owned by Lowes was situated on 11 January 1968 and entered the building. The evidence further tended to show that no personal property was taken and that none of the personal property of Lowes was missing therefrom. The defendant was apprehended that same night about three-fourths of a mile from Lowes.

Defendant assigns as error the fact that the trial court failed to instruct and submit to the jury the issue of defendant’s guilt of non-felonious breaking or entering, which is a lesser degree of the crime charged.

There was ample evidence to submit the question of the guilt or innocence of the deféndant on the felony charge of breaking or entering as well as the lesser included offense of non-felonious breaking or entering, which is a misdemeanor.

We are of. the opinion and so hold that the court’s failure to submit for jury consideration and decision the lesser included offense of the misdemeanor. of breaking or entering was prejudicial error. Decision in this case is controlled by *State v. Jones,*264 N.C. 134, 141 S.E. 2d 27. The other cases cited by the State .are factually distinguishable.

Defendant has other assignments of error, but since the case goes back for a new trial, we do not deem it necessary to discuss them.

New trial.

Bkitt and PARKER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                             Year Ended December 31,
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                          1998
                                         1999                               ---------------------------------
                                        Actual                               Actual                  Proforma
                                       --------                             --------                 --------
<S>                                     <C>                                    <C>                      <C>
BASIC

Net Income (Loss)                       ($1,832)                               ($560)                   ($560)
     Weighted Average Shares                688                                   55                      665
---------------------------            --------                             --------                 --------
Basic Earnings (Loss)                    ($2.66)                             ($10.16)                  ($0.84)
===========================            ========                             ========                 ========

DILUTED

Net Income (Loss)                        (1,832)                                (560)                    (560)
    Weighted Average Shares                 688                                   55                      665
                                       --------                             --------                 --------
Diluted Earnings (Loss)
    Per Share                            ($2.66)                             ($10.16)                   $0.84
===========================            ========                             ========                 ========
</TABLE>
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

September 09, 2011

Ms. Lynne Liberato

Haynes and Boone, LLP

One Houston Center

1221 McKinney, Suite 2100

Houston, TX 77010-2007

Mr. Tuananh 'Pete' Mai

The Tammy Tran Law Firm

2915 Fannin

Houston, TX 77002

Ms. Wanda McKee Fowler

Wright & Close LLP

Three Riverway, Suite 600

Houston, TX 77056

Mr. Lloyd E. Kelley

The Kelley Law Firm

2726 Bissonnet, Suite 240 PBM#12

Houston, TX 77005

RE:Case Number:  11-0534

Court of Appeals Number:  01-09-00360-CV

Trial Court Number:  2000-18289

Style:AMS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. D/B/A AMS STAFF LEASING

v.

K.H.K. SCAFFOLDING HOUSTON, INC.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted the Amended Motion to Abate and issued the enclosed abatement order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 11-0534Page 1**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the body of the accompanying Form 10-Q 
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                              1000  
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           19052
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    37238
<ALLOWANCES>                                       916
<INVENTORY>                                      23867
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 95218
<PP&E>                                          283742
<DEPRECIATION>                                   54753
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  384597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            40664
<BONDS>                                         191267
<COMMON>                                           194
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       52440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    384597
<SALES>                                         153442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                153442
<CGS>                                           109512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   150020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2714)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               17293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11157)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1217)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10352)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.54)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) by OptimumBank
Holdings, Inc. (the Company), I, Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; 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: |  | August 13, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Albert J. Finch                     
|      |  |                 |  |  |  |     |  | Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GREGORY SEAN HENRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-98-52, CA-01-979-1)

Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 5, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Sean Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Sean Henry seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have

reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the

district court that Henry has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Henry, Nos.

CR-98-52; CA-01-979-1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2002). Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### DON D’ANGELO, Appellant, v. SUE GARDNER, GEMCO, a Division of LUCKY STORES, INC., and LUCKY STORES, INC., Respondents.

No. 20452

April 2, 1991

807 P.2d 1391

(Replaces opinion issued March 7, 1991)

*Eva Garcia,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Smith & Kotchka,*Las Vegas, for Respondents.

*Lionel Sawyer & Collins,*and *Brian McKay,*Las Vegas; *Laxalt*á *Nomura; McDonald, Carano, Wilson, McCune, Bergin, Frankovich & Hicks; Raggio, Wooster & Lindell; Vargas & Bartlett; Woodburn, Wedge & Jeppson,*Reno, for Amicus.

ORDER GRANTING REHEARING

On March 7, 1991, this court issued an opinion in the above-entitled matter, reversing and remanding the judgment of the district court. D’Angelo v. Gardner, (Adv. Opn. No. 16). Respondents have now petitioned this court for rehearing. Additionally, noting the public importance of the issues presented in this case, numerous Nevada employers and associations have moved this court for leave to participate on rehearing as amici curiae.

Having carefully reviewed the petition and motions pending in this matter, we have determined that rehearing is warranted and that the participation of amici curiae will assist in this court’s deliberations. Accordingly, we grant rehearing. The clerk of this court shall schedule this matter for reargument in June, 1991. Oral argument shall be limited to thirty (30) minutes.

Further, we grant the pending motions to participate on rehearing as amici curiae. Respondents and the amici shall have twenty (20) days from the date of this order to file briefs on rehearing. The amici, however, shall not be permitted to participate at the oral argument. Appellant shall have thirty (30) days thereafter within which to file a response. Finally, although we express no opinion as to the merits of arguments to be presented on rehearing, we deem it necessary to withdraw the opinion previously *105issued in this matter. Accordingly, we hereby direct the clerk of this court to publish this order in place of the withdrawn opinion.

It is so ORDERED.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Charleston, WV, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1114

Issued: February 28, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 15, 2021 appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 23, 2021,

nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-1114.

In a letter dated November 19, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request f or the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no cla im f or a f ee f or 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board.

Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, 

subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of 

fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-1114 is dismissed.

Issued: February 28, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
**Exhibit99.1**

 

# **Certificationof the Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

                In connection withthe Quarterly Report of International Multifoods Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Gary E. Costley, theChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

                (1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

                (2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company, for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | **/**s/ Gary E. Costley                                  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **Gary  E. Costley**                                     |
|   | **Chairman  of the Board & Chief Executive Officer** |

 

 

Date:  October 8, 2002

 

 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5148 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5148

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 29, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 39, United States Code, to clarify the instances in 
        which the term ``census'' may appear on mailable matter.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR MAIL BEARING THE TERM ``CENSUS'' ON THE 
              ENVELOPE OR OUTSIDE COVER OR WRAPPER.

    (a) Matter Soliciting the Purchase of a Product or Service.--
Section 3001(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``; or on which the term 
        `census' is visible through the envelope or outside cover or 
        wrapper'' after ``or which bears the term `census' on the 
        envelope or outside cover or wrapper''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or matter on which the 
        term `census' is visible through the envelope or outside cover 
        or wrapper'' after ``In the case of matter bearing the term 
        `census' on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper''.
    (b) Matter Soliciting Information or Contribution of Funds.--
Section 3001(i) of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``; or on which the term 
        `census' is visible through the envelope or outside cover or 
        wrapper'' after ``or which bears the term `census' on the 
        envelope or outside cover or wrapper''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or matter on which the 
        term `census' is visible through the envelope or outside cover 
        or wrapper'' after ``In the case of matter bearing the term 
        `census' on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```