alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of K-tel International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kimmy Lockwood, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                     The reportfully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.                     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| By                            |       /s/ KIMMY  LOCKWOOD |   |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Kimmy Lockwood                |
| *Principal Financial Officer* |
| November 22, 2006             |

 

----
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 4 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 5 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 6 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 7 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 8 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 9 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 10 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 11 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 12 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 13 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 14 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 15 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 16 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 17 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 18 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 19 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 20 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 21 of 22
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 21 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 22 of 22
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41175 Conference Calendar

CURTIS R. FRANCIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CV-819

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Curtis R. Francis, Texas prisoner #564414, appeals the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. His argument is moot in light of the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his suit, because a “[p]reliminary injunction cannot survive dismissal of a complaint.” 11A Charles Alan Wright Et Al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2947 at 126 n.19 (2d ed. 1995)(citing Venezia v. Robinson , 16 F.3d 209, 211 (7th Cir. 1994).No. 96-41175 -2- Francis’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d. 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Francis now “has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, Francis is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See id

. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
EXHIBIT 18
May 9, 2000



Board of Directors
Kansas City Power & Light Company
1201 Walnut
Kansas City, Missouri  64106

Dear Directors:

We  are  providing  this letter to you for  inclusion  as  an
exhibit  to  your Form 10-Q filing pursuant to  Item  601  of
Regulation S-K.

We  have  been  provided  a copy of the  Company's  Quarterly
Report  on  Form  10-Q for the period ended March  31,  2000.
Note 1. therein describes changes in accounting principles in
pension accounting from recognizing limited pension gains and
losses  and determining expected return on plan assets  on  a
basis  other  than fair market value to 1) recognizing  gains
and losses by amortizing over a five year period, the rolling
five  year  average of unamortized gains and  losses  and  2)
determining the expected return by multiplying the  long-term
rate  of  return  times the fair value of  plan  assets.   It
should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable
method  of accounting over another for pensions has not  been
addressed in any authoritative accounting literature, and  in
expressing   our   concurrence  below  we  have   relied   on
management's  determination that these changes in  accounting
principles   are  preferable.   Based  on  our   reading   of
management's  stated  reasons  and  justification  for  these
changes  in accounting principles in the Form 10-Q,  and  our
discussions  with management as to their judgment  about  the
relevant  business planning factors relating to the  changes,
we concur with management that such changes represent, in the
Company's   circumstances,   the   adoption   of   preferable
accounting   principles   in   conformity   with   Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 20.

We  have  not audited any financial statements of the Company
as  of any date or for any period subsequent to December  31,
1999.   Accordingly, our comments are subject to change  upon
completion  of an audit of the financial statements  covering
the period of the accounting changes.

Very truly yours,


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Case 1:06-cv-14973-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Prymas Nazreth VAZ; Monalisa Napolian Dias, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-71070.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 7, 2005.

*854Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Jennifer Keeney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM***

Prymas Nazreth Vaz and Monalisa Napolian Dias, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) and Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, and reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

Taking the testimony as credible, as the BIA did, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s determination that Vaz has not demonstrated he was persecuted on account of an enumerated ground. *See Canas-Segovia v. INS,*970 F.2d 599, 601 (9th Cir.1992) (explaining that “the victim needs to show the persecutor had a protected basis ... in mind in undertaking the persecution.”). Moreover, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Vaz’s claim is undermined by the ability of his mother and siblings, also Roman Catholics, to remain unharmed in India. *See Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that continual presence of similarly situated family members undercuts applicant’s claim of persecution).

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ César M. GarcíaCésar M. GarcíaChief Executive Officer
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.07 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Exhibit 32



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 Kansas Gas and Electric Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the
Report), which this certification accompanies, William B. Moore, in my capacity as Chairman of the Board and President (Principle Executive Officer) of the Company, and Mark A. Ruelle, in my capacity as Vice President and Treasurer (Principle
Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|      |  |                  |  |     |  |                                                                                          
|----- |  | ---------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | November 4, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ William B. Moore                                                                     
|      |  |                  |  |     |  | William B. Moore, Chairman of the Board and President (Principal Executive Officer)      
|      |  |                  | 
|Date: |  | November 4, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark A. Ruelle                                                                       
|      |  |                  |  |     |  | Mark A. Ruelle, Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 10.40

SEVERANCEAGREEMENT

        **AGREEMENT**between **OCEAN ENERGY, INC.**, a Texas corporation (the **"Company"**)and Robert L. Thompson (**"Executive"**),

W I T N E SS E T H:

        **WHEREAS**,the Company desires to retain certain key employee personnel and wishes to enterinto a severance agreement with Executive in order to encourage his continuedservice to the Company; and 

        **WHEREAS**,Executive is prepared to commit such services in return for specificarrangements with respect to severance compensation and other benefits; 

        **NOW,THEREFORE**, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuableconsideration, the Company and Executive agree as follows: 

        1.   **Definitions**.

        (a)**“Average Bonus”** shall mean the average of the bonus payments,if any, received by Executive for the two immediately preceding fiscal years ofthe Company; provided, however, that for purposes of computing such AverageBonus, if Executive was not employed by the Company in either of the twoimmediately preceding fiscal years of the Company, Executive shall be deemed tohave received a bonus payment equal to 35% of Executive’s annual salary atthe time he commenced employment with the Company for such fiscal year. 

        (b)**“Change in Duties”** shall mean the occurrence, within two yearsafter the date upon which a Change of Control occurs, of any one or more of thefollowing: 

             (i)   A significant  reduction in the duties of Executivefrom those applicable to him immediately  prior  to the date on which a Change of Control occurs;

             (ii)   A reduction in Executive’sannual salary or bonus opportunity under any applicable bonus or incentive compensation plan from that provided to himimmediately prior to the date on which a Change of Control occurs;

             (iii)   Receipt of employee benefits (including but not limited to medical, dental, life insurance,accidental death and dismemberment, and long-term disability plans) and perquisites by Executive that are materiallyinconsistent with the employee benefits and perquisites provided by the Company to executives with comparableduties; or

----
Use of the descriptive word “collapse” to describe a process whereby the twin towers 

were turned to dust without the ability to have top heavy mass interact with mass 

underneath the pulverized mass sufficient to satisfy the criteria of two of the laws of 

physics is visibly obvious. The two laws of physics that are violated to such a degree that 

they are ignored altogether by NIST, in complete and total derivation of the requirements 

of the DQA are: 

Law of Conservation of Momentum; and 

The amount of momentum (p) that an object has depends on two physical 

quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object. 

p1 = m1 * v1 

where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and v the velocity. 

If momentum is conserved it can be used to calculate unknown velocities 

following a collision. 

(m1 * v1)I + (m2 * v2)I = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

where the subscript I signifies initial, before the collision, and f 

signifies final, after the collision. 

If (m1)I = 0, and (v2)I = 0, then (v2)f must =0. 

So, for conservation of momentum, there cannot be pulverization. 

If we assume the second mass is initially at rest [(v2)I = 0], the 

equation reduces to 

(m1 * v1)I = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

As you can see, if mass m1 = m2 and they “stick” together after impact, 

the equation reduces to , 

(m1 * v1)I = (2m1 * vnew)f

or vnew = (1/2) * v1

If two identical masses colliding and sticking together, they will travel at half the speed as the original 

single mass. 

Law of Conservation of Energy. 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 90-4 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 2
In elastic collisions, the sum of kinetic energy before a collision must 

equal the sum of kinetic energy after the collision. Conservation of 

kinetic energy is given by the following formula: 

(1/2)(m1 * v2

1)I + (1/2)(m2 * v22)I = (1/2)(m1 * v21)f + (1/2)(m2 * v22)f + 

(Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports) 

where (Pulverize) is the energy required to pulverize a floor and (Fail 

Floor Supports) is the energy required to fail the next floor. 

If (1/2)(m1 * v2

1)I + (1/2)(m2 * v2

2)I = (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor 

Supports), there well be no momentum transfer. 

In reality, (1/2)(m1 * v2

1)I + (1/2)(m2 * v22)I < (Pulverize) + (Fail 

Floor Supports), 

So, for conservation of energy, we must assume there is some additional 

energy such that, 

(1/2)(m1 * v2

1)I + (1/2)(m2 * v22)I + (Additional Energy) = (Pulverize) + 

(Fail Floor Supports), 

where (Additional Energy) is the additional amount of energy needed to have the outcome we observed on 

9/11/01. 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 90-4 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40766 Summary Calendar

MARIO JIMENEZ RIOS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; JONATHON DOBRE, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

-------------------- January 28, 2003 Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Mario Jimenez Rios, an excludable alien who arrived in the United States in the 1980 Mariel boatlift from Cuba, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, in which he challenges his continued detention by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"). INS took Rios into custody in 1998 following his state conviction and sentence for attempted indecency with a child, the latest conviction in his extensive criminal history within the United States. The record shows that he has received parole review but has been repeatedly deniedNo. 02-40766 -2- release on account of his criminal history and disciplinary record. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678 (2001), Rios contends that his continued detention violates his constitutional rights. The district court did not err in determining that Rios is not entitled to relief. See Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 988 F.2d 1437, 1439 (5th Cir. 1993), amended by Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 997 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1993). Although Zadvydas held that a deportable alien may contest his continued detention in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 proceeding, the Court distinguished the status of deportable aliens from that of excludable aliens like Rios. See Zadvydas , 533 U.S. at 682, 692-94. Rios's petition is governed by Gisbert

. AFFIRMED.
Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 16 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 16 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 16 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 16 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 16 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 16 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 16 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 6 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 6 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel ULTERA-GUEVARA, also known as Victor Manuel Ulterra-Guevara, also known as Victor Manuel Utrera-Guevara, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50817.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western *613District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Victor Manuel Ultera-Guevara raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT
32.2





SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS





In connection with the Annual Report of
First M&F Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, John G. Copeland, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





B.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
            March
      16, 2010





/s/ John G. CopelandJohn
      G. CopelandEVP
      & Chief Financial
Officer
Case 1:07-cr-00352-PAC     Document 4      Filed 05/14/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cr-00352-PAC     Document 4      Filed 05/14/2007     Page 2 of 2