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



Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §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; and                               
|
| | (2) The information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Company.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Timothy C. Clayton 
| |                        
| | Timothy C. Clayton     
| | Chief Financial Officer








|  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|* | A signed original of this written statement required by
    Section 906 has been provided to HEI, Inc. and will be
    retained by HEI, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
    Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:06-cv-15107-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
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 (0.66 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### STATE v. HICKS

No. 23P83.

Case below: 60 N.C. App. 116.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 25 January 1983.
#### Eddie James LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hans WALKER, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Glenn S. Goord, Commissioner & George E. Pataki, Governor, New York State, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 02-0288.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 9, 2005.

Eddie James Lee, Moravia, NY, for Appellant, pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York (Daniel Smirloek, Deputy Solicitor General, Andrea Oser, Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel), Albany, NY, for Appellees.

PRESENT: NEWMAN, SACK, and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Eddie James Lee, Sr., *pro se,*filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants-appellants alleging that they caused him to *351be exposed to second-hand smoke while incarcerated, thereby violating his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed his case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Lee appeals. For the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” A prisoner’s complaint regarding exposure to second-hand smoke is a prison condition for which exhaustion of administrative remedies is required. *See Giano v. Goord,*380 F.3d 670, 672 (2d Cir.2004); *Gibson v. Goord,*280 F.3d 221, 224 (2d Cir.2002).

We have held that “there are certain ‘special circumstances’ in which, though administrative remedies may have been available ..., the prisoner’s failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements may nevertheless have been justified.” *Giano,*380 F.3d at 676. In his pleadings submitted to the district court, Lee did not allege any such special circumstances. Accordingly, Lee’s admitted failure to exhaust his administrative remedies warranted the district court’s dismissal of his claim.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
Case 1:06-cv-14998-AKH Document 15 Filed 06/27/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-14998-AKH Document 15 Filed 06/27/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 21 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 21 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 21 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 21 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 21 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 21 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 6 of 6
#### REEVES v. MUSGROVE

No. 216 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 760.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 September 1976.
Exhibit 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of J Net Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Allan R. Tessler, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  September 29, 2003         By:   /s/ Allan R. Tessler
                                         _____________________
                                         Allan R. Tessler
                                         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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 with the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
SUBSIDIARIES OF
CITIZENS REPUBLIC BANCORP, INC.
 Jurisdiction orOwnership
    
    Incorporation ofSubsidiaries
    
    Percentage
    
    OrganizationCitizens Bank
    
    
    100
    %
    
    MichiganCB Financial Services, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    MichiganF&M BankIowa
    
    
    100
    %
    
    IowaSecurity Banc Services Group, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    IowaCitizens Bank Wealth Management, N.A.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    National AssociationCitizens Funding Trust I
    
    
    100
    %
    
    Delaware
 132
Case 1:06-cv-14962-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15092-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### RUPERT v. RUPERT

No. 36 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 730.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 11 October 1972.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00652

- CR

BERNARDO SAENZ GARCIA JR.

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR

- 3879

- 17

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having con sidered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 5, 2021
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-10 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 11 of 11
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNIE B. HANKERSON

No. 4 PC

ORDER

On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States and in conformity with the opinion of that Court, *Hankerson v. North Carolina,*--- U.S. ---, 53 L.Ed. 2d 306 (1977), it is

ORDERED by the Court in Conference that the defendant be and he is hereby awarded a new trial. *[See*original opinion reported at 288 N.C. 632 (1975).]

This the 12th day of September, 1977.

James G. Exum, Jr. Associate Justice

For the Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Annual Report of Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Lance F. Bospflug, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify 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 result of operations of the
Company.

Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.


By: /s/ Lance F. Bospflug
    -----------------------------------
    Lance F. Bospflug
    President & Chief Executive Officer
    March 15, 2004
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 30, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60333

Summary Calendar

 

IBAN PARAMERO-TORRES

Petitioner

v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A79 711 139 

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Iban Paramero-Torres has filed a petition for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order, denying him

withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). Because the BIA did not adopt the immigration

judge’s decision, but issued its own decision, this court reviews

the decision of the BIA. See Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 666

(5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Paramero’s arguments that the

immigration judge erred in its adverse credibility determination
No. 04-60333

-2-

and erred in failing to address his entitlement to relief under

the CAT are not subject to review by this court. Id.

Paramero argues that he was eligible for withholding of

removal because he demonstrated that he was persecuted and fears

persecution by guerillas in Columbia on account of his religious

beliefs and practices. To be eligible for withholding of removal

under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien must

demonstrate a clear probability of persecution upon return. Roy

v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). The BIA’s

decision that Paramero had failed to demonstrate clear

probability of persecution is supported by substantial evidence. 

Zamora-Morel v. INS, 905 F.2d 833, 838 (5th Cir. 1990). The

petition for review is DENIED.
Opinion issued October 26, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00820-CV

———————————

DAWNELL WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

K. D. UPADHYAYA, Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 22-CCV-070379

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties, representing that they have reached a settlement agreement 

resolving their underlying dispute, have filed an agreed motion to dismiss the

appeal. The parties have agreed that they will bear their own appellate costs. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). Counsel for both parties have signed the motion. No cross 
2

appeal has been filed, and no opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c). 

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We direct the Clerk for this Court that costs are to be taxed 

against the parties who incurred the same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). We dismiss 

any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                            3210
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5018
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3803
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3652
<PP&E>                                           27518
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   36090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              372
<BONDS>                                          12138
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       23580
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     36090
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4966
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3912
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3912
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3912
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    46.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    46.12
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. WILLIAMS

No. 384 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 586

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 September 1980.
S. 1380 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their 

obligations under Supreme Court case law. 

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 ‘‘Due Process Protections Act’’. 

SEC. 2. REMINDER OF PROSECUTORIAL OBLIGATIONS. 

Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended— 

(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and 

(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following: 

‘‘(f) REMINDER OF PROSECUTORIAL OBLIGATION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In all criminal proceedings, on the first 

scheduled court date when both prosecutor and defense counsel 

are present, the judge shall issue an oral and written order 

to prosecution and defense counsel that confirms the disclosure 

obligation of the prosecutor under Brady v. Maryland, 373 

U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and the possible consequences 

of violating such order under applicable law. 

‘‘(2) FORMATION OF ORDER.—Each judicial council in which 

a district court is located shall promulgate a model order for 

the purpose of paragraph (1) that the court may use as it 

determines is appropriate.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
[Cite as State ex rel. Wells v. Jefferson Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 122 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-

Ohio-2358.]

THE STATE EX REL. WELLS, APPELLANT, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Wells v. Jefferson Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 

 122 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-2358.]

Appeal from dismissal of a petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo – 

Adequate remedy at law available – Judgment affirmed. 

(No. 2009-0182 ─ Submitted May 19, 2009 ─ Decided May 27, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Jefferson County, 

No. 08 JE 28, 2008-Ohio-6972. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing a 

complaint for writs of mandamus and procedendo. Appellant, John E. Wells Sr., 

failed to allege with the requisite factual specificity that he lacked an adequate 

remedy at law to raise his claim that he is entitled to a new sentencing entry that 

complies with Crim.R. 32(C). Inmates are required to plead specific facts rather 

than unsupported conclusions. State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 98 Ohio St.3d 

116, 2002-Ohio-7042, 781 N.E.2d 155, ¶ 13. In the absence of pleading specific 

facts that he had requested that his trial court issue a revised sentencing entry, 

Wells had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by motion in the trial 

court. Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 364, 2008-Ohio-4565, 894 N.E.2d 312, ¶ 8-

9. Finally, Wells cannot add new matter to the record on appeal to attempt to 

establish that the trial court had, in fact, rejected his motions for resentencing. 

Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 

16. 

Judgment affirmed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

____________________ 

 John E. Wells Sr., pro se. 

 Thomas R. Straus, Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 

____________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF JACOBSON STORES INC. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES AS
OF, AND FOR THE TWENTY-SIX WEEK PERIOD ENDED, AUGUST 1, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<CASH>                                                  3,005
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          28,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                              468
<INVENTORY>                                            78,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      114,199
<PP&E>                                                177,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                         92,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        219,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  47,276
<BONDS>                                                98,214
<COMMON>                                                5,973
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                             60,459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          219,643
<SALES>                                               210,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      210,081
<CGS>                                                 142,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         142,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      3,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (4,385)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (1,535)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (2,850)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (2,850)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.49)
        

</TABLE>