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







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 Quarterly Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Becky Corigliano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:   November 14, 2005





By   /s/ Becky Corigliano



Becky Corigliano, Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.3

              REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON SCHEDULE

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
VA Linux Systems, Inc.:

We have audited in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States, the consolidated financial statements included in VA Linux
Systems, Inc.'s annual report to stockholders incorporated by reference in this
Form 10-K, and have issued our report thereon dated August 21, 2000. Our audit
was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic consolidated
financial statements taken as a whole. The schedule listed in Item 14(a)2 is the
responsibility of the Company's management and is presented for the purpose of
complying with the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules and is not part of
the basic financial statements. This schedule has been subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our
opinion, fairly states in all material respects the financial data required to
be set forth herein in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a
whole.


                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

San Jose, California
August 21, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56338-56339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4876]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense Office of Inspector General.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB) for the 
Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG), as 
required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB provides fair and impartial 
review of SES performance appraisals and makes recommendations 
regarding performance ratings and performance awards to the Inspector 
General.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Phyllis Hughes, Director, Human 
Capital Advisory Services, Administration and Management, DoD OIG, 400 
Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 602-4516.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following executives are appointed to the DoD OIG, PRB:

Charles E. Coe, Jr., Assistant Inspector General for Information 
Technology Audits and Computer Crime Investigations, Department of 
Education.
Andrew Patchan, Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, General 
Services Administration.
Dennis S. Schindel, Acting Inspector General, Department of the 
Treasury.

[[Page 56339]]

Linda Snider, Assistant Inspector General for Resource Management, 
Department of Energy.
Norbert E. Vint, Deputy Inspector General, Office of Personnel 
Management.

    Dated: September 27, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-4876 Filed 10-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANTHONY SIKORA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv166-RH/WCS

OFFICER WHITE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In an order filed July 6, 2010, Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint

by August 6, 2010. Doc. 7. On July 14, 2010, Plaintiff's copy of that order was

returned to the Clerk's office marked "return to sender." Doc. 8. A check with the Leon

County Jail reveals that the Plaintiff was released from custody on June 7, 2010, and

gave no forwarding address. To date, Plaintiff has not notified the court of a new

address. 

It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute his own lawsuit and to keep this court

apprised of his current address. Since Plaintiff has not notified this court of any change

of address, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is doubtful that

Plaintiff will even receive a copy of this report and recommendation. In the event that
Page 2 of 2

he does receive a copy of this report and recommendation, the court will allow him an

opportunity to show cause why this report and recommendation should be vacated,

failing which, the Clerk shall be directed to forward the report and recommendation to

the assigned district judge. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 29, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv166-RH/WCS
# EXHIBIT 32.1

| | I,
William R. Dutmers, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Knape & Vogt
Manufacturing Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2005
                    which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section
                    13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three
                    months ended December 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
                    financial condition and results of operations of Knape & Vogt Manufacturing
                    Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: January 24, 2006

| |  | /s/ William R. Dutmers
William R. DutmersChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### STATE v. ROBAH LEE SMITH.

(Filed 8 April, 1964.)

Indictment and Warrant § 5—

The failure of the indictment to show by cheek marks or endorsement on its back that witnesses appeared before the grand jury is not grounds for quashal.

*614Appeal by defendant from *Gambill, J.,*September, 1963 Session, Yadicin Superior Court.

Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging that the defendant on April 28, 1962, did operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. Upon arraignment, and before plea, the defendant moved to quash upon the ground the indictment did not by check mark or otherwise indicate that any witness was sworn and examined by the grand jury. On the back of the indictment appeared this legend:

“Witnesses: J. R. Roupe, Harold Shore, W. E. Wishon. Those marked — sworn by the undersigned Foreman, and examined before the Grand Jury; and this bill found (x) A True Bill, /s/ H. B. Shore, Foreman Grand Jury.”

A check mark did not appear opposite the name of either witness.

The Solicitor for the State offered the evidence of J. R. Roupe who testified he was called as a witness and testified before the Grand Jury at the September Term, 1962, “in the case of *State v. Robah Lee Smith,*on a charge of operating a motor vehicle upon the public highways while under the influence of some intoxicating liquors . . .”

The court overruled the motion to quash. A jury trial resulted in a verdict of guilty. From the judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, James F. Bullock, Assistant Attorney General for the State..*

*Scott, Folger, Ellington ■& Webster by Alfred J. Ellington for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The order of the Superior Court holding the indictment valid and overruling the motion to quash is fully sustained by many decisions of this Court, among them, *State v. Lancaster,*210 N.C. 584, 187 S.E. 802.

No error.
Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT   Document 1   Filed 04/05/10   Page 1 of 10

Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT   Document 1   Filed 04/05/10   Page 2 of 10

Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT   Document 1   Filed 04/05/10   Page 3 of 10

Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT   Document 1   Filed 04/05/10   Page 4 of 10

Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT   Document 1   Filed 04/05/10   Page 5 of 10

Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT   Document 1   Filed 04/05/10   Page 6 of 10

Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT   Document 1   Filed 04/05/10   Page 7 of 10

Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT   Document 1   Filed 04/05/10   Page 8 of 10

Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT   Document 1   Filed 04/05/10   Page 9 of 10

Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT   Document 1   Filed 04/05/10   Page 10 of 10
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 192 (Thursday, October 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 56721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4949]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

Date and Time: Friday, October 12, 2007; 9:30 a.m.

Place: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, 
Washington, DC 20425.

Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda.
II. Approval of Minutes of September 21, Meeting.
III. Announcements.
IV. Staff Director's Report.
V. Management and Operations.
    <bullet> Strategic Plan.
    <bullet> Establishment of Briefing and Meeting Schedule for 
2008.
    <bullet> Celebration of Commission's 50th Anniversary.
    <bullet> Information Quality Guidelines.
    <bullet> Involvement of Commissioners in Staff Activities.
VI. Program Planning.
    <bullet> Consideration of Proposed Debate on Race and 
Intelligence.
VII. State Advisory Committee Issues.
    <bullet> South Carolina SAC.
    <bullet> Involvement of Commissioners on State Advisory 
Committees.
VIII. Future Agenda Items.
IX. Adjourn.

Contact Person for Further Information: Manuel Alba, Press and 
Communications, (202) 376-8582.

    Dated: October 2, 2007.
David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 07-4949 Filed 10-2-07; 12:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
* 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

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50749

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONALD MELVIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-2788-1

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Donald Melvin

raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Doggett,

230 F.3d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), still controls

prior conviction enhancements under 21 U.S.C. § 841,

notwithstanding Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos.: 3:10cr30/MCR/EMT

3:15cv310/MCR/EMT

ROBERT E. BOURLIER

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated July 16, 2015. (Doc. 480). The parties have been furnished a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (doc. 479) is summarily

DENIED and DISMISSED as untimely.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2015.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cr-00030-MCR-EMT Document 484 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Chief Financial
Officer of Siena Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

      (1)   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
            March 31, 2003 (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.


May 12, 2003                                   By  /S/     W. JOSEPH DRYER
                                                            W. Joseph Dryer
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,307
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      273
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,746
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              563
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           600
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,737
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,580
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   248
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     32
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 32
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        32
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

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

No. 201 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 736.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 July 1979.
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 30-2 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-14977-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
EY GENERAL OF?i%XAS

Mar& 8, 1957.
Ronorable Warren 0. Tabor CountyAttorney Hockley County Levelland,Texas OPINION NO. (WW-54) RE: Creation of Special Hospital Districtby Commissioners'Court Dear Sir: within Hockley County.

Your request for an opinion relates to the authority of the Commissioners'Court of Hockley County to create a Special Hospital Districtwithin the county.
ionersn The Texas courtshave repeatedlyheld that the CommissCourt is a court of limited jurisdictionand can only exercise such powers as are authorizedby the Constitutionand statutes of this State, eitherby express terms or by necessary implication. Sec. 18,Art. V, Tex. Const; Bland v. Orr, 90 Tex. 492; 39 S.W. 558 (1887); Childress County v. State, 127 Tex. 343; 92 S.W.2d, 1011 (1936); El Paso County v. Elam, 106 S.W.2d, 393 (Tex.Civ.App. 1937).

Attorney General's OpinionR-1507 (1948),a copy of which is enclosed,holds that the County Commissioners'Court of Bexar County is not authorized to create a Hospital or Health District covering the geographical limits of Bexar County. Subsequent to the release of this opinion, the Constitution of 'Texas was amended so as to authorize the creation of county-wide hospital districts in countieshaving a populat;:; i; e;;;ss of 190,000 inhabitantsand in Galveston County.
. , * Ix, Tex. Const.

The foregoing Constitutionalprovision only authorizes the establishmentof county-widehospital districts in Galveston County and in those countieshaving a population in excess of 190,000 inhabitants; moreover, there Is no Constitutionalor statutory provision thatwould authorize the creation of a Special Hospital District in part of Hockley County or any other County in this State. Therefore, it is our opinion that Hockley County does not have authority to establish a Special Hospital District.Honorable Warren 0. Tabor, Page 2, mr-541
SUMMARY
The Commissioners'Court is a court of limited jurisdictionand is not authorizedby the Constitution or statutes of this State, either expressly or by~necessary implication, to create a Special Hospital District within Hockley County. Yours very truly,

WILL WILSON Attorney General

By B' h+* -,+ B. A. Timmins, Jr. Assistant Attorney General BHT:jl Enclosure
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE H. Grady Chandler

Chairman
#### STATE v. KISTLER

No. 118.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 431.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss petition for writ of certiorari as improvidently granted allowed 25 April 1972.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOHN MICHAEL FERENC,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv138-RH/WCS

STACEY HAYNES et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 47, and the objections, ECF No. 48. I have reviewed de

novo the issues raised by the objections. 

The recommendation is for dismissal of the amended complaint. The case

raises a number of issues as set out in an earlier order, ECF No. 13, and the report

and recommendation, ECF No. 47. I conclude that the damages claim against the

individual defendants should be dismissed based on qualified immunity and that

the other claims should be dismissed as set out in the report and recommendation. 

Accordingly,

Case 4:10-cv-00138-RH-WCS Document 49 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

IT IS ORDERED:

The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The plaintiff John Michael Ferenc’s

claims against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice.” The clerk must close

the file.

SO ORDERED on March 24, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case No: 4:10cv138-RH/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00138-RH-WCS Document 49 Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 2