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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Goldrich Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

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



2.

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







/s/ Ted R. Sharp

DATE:  August 15, 2011

Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Goldrich Mining Company and will be retained by Goldrich Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

        In connection  with the quarterly  report on Form 10-Q of Southwest Iowa
Renewable  Energy,  LLC (the  "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2008, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Cindy Patterson,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Cindy Patterson
                                         ---------------------------------
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         Dated: May 15, 2008
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES BRONSON BELVAL,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:10-CV-151-SPM/GRJ

LEON COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 21), which recommends that

Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

prosecute. Plaintiff has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff, who is pro se, filed

an objection (doc. 30). Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), I have conducted a de novo review of the sections of the report to

which objections have been made. I find that the Report and Recommendation

is correct and should be adopted.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders (docs. 14, 18) that he

file an amended complaint, despite a previous extension of time. Plaintiff states
in his objection that he has been unable to do so because he was released from

the Leon County Jail, but rearrested and confined in Georgia. However, multiple

attempts of the Court to contact the Plaintiff by mail have been returned as

undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court advised of his present

address, and has neglected to prosecute this action.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 21) is

adopted and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

3. All pending motions are denied as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this thirteenth day of October, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DAISY SHARON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv198/RS-MD

SHERRYLE GIVENS; PETER GIVENS;

RICHARD GIVENS; GEICO GENERAL

INSURANCE COMPANY; and STATE FARM

MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants

_______________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Stipulation For Dismissal (Doc. 53). I will not enter the

proposed order of dismissal provided by the attorneys, which is prolix and replete with

archaic legalisms. Short, plain English will suffice.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

2. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on February 24, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 24, 2014

s0616

Order 

Clerk

June 24, 2014

148842

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148842

COA: 305426

Saginaw CC: 10-035084-FC

DEVON SHIVERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 28, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### STATE v. HENLEY

No. 149 PC.

Case below: 40 N.C. App. 629.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 28 June 1979.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ALISON SAPP WHITE, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-102/RS-EMT

BREG, INC., a Delaware Corporation, 

I-FLOW CORPORATION, a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (C), the relief requested in Parties’ Joint Motion 

(Stipulation) for Protective Order Regarding Confidential Documents (Doc. 45) is 

GRANTED. 

ORDERED on February 11, 2011

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                        FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                      1,767
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                               5,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                67,521
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           74,863
<PP&E>                                     71,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            189,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      47,771
<BONDS>                                    95,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                       89
<OTHER-SE>                                  9,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              189,226
<SALES>                                   112,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          112,595
<CGS>                                      74,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              74,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           28,868
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          2,972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               402
<INCOME-TAX>                                   22
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           380
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  380
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0.04
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00377

- CV

RODOLFO LUNE, SR.

, Appellant

v.

DARLA WOMACK CAPEHAR T

, Appellee

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. D15

- 24244

- CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rodolfo Lune, Sr. appeals from a summary judgment rendered against him on

October 5, 2017. By letter dated December 7, 2017, the Clerk of this Court notified Lune

that his docketing statement was past due. Lune was warned in the same letter that,

unless the docketing statement was filed within 21 days from the date of the letter, the

appeal would be dismissed without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(c). More than

21 days have passed, and Lune has failed to file a docketing statement.L une . v. Capehart Page 2

Accordingly , this appeal is dismissed. Id

.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 10, 2018

[CV06]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOSHUA S. FRIEBEL and

ELIZABETH F. FRIEBEL,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv120/RS-CJK

PARADISE SHORES OF BAY 

COUNTY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the parties’ motions in limine (Doc. 274, 275, 276, 277, 290, 

291, and 305). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant Blackerby’s first motion in limine (Doc. 274) is granted in 

part. The prior testimony of any person who is not a party in this 

case is not admissible, except possibly in the case of impeachment. 

The admissibility of the prior testimony of any person who is a party 

to this case will be determined on a case-by case basis. 

2. Defendant Blackerby’s second motion in limine (Doc. 275) is granted 

in part. The pleadings from the previous case shall be admissible 

Case 5:10-cv-00120-RS-CJK Document 320 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 3
against Defendant Paradise Shores only. As to the pleading signed by 

Defendant Blackerby, its admissibility for impeachment will be 

determined if and when it becomes necessary.

3. Defendant Blackerby’s third motion in limine (Doc. 276) is granted 

in part. Expert reports of witnesses who were not previously 

identified as experts will not be admitted. However, since the reports 

were not specifically identified, a determination of admissibility will 

be made on a case-by-case basis at trial. 

4. Defendant Blackerby’s fourth motion in limine (Doc. 277) is denied. 

Because the “demand letters” in question have not been specifically 

identified, I decline to rule in advance on their admissibility.

5. Defendant Blackerby’s fifth motion in limine (Doc. 290) is denied. 

The Rules of Evidence will apply in this case; I need not rule in limine 

on such matters. The admissibility of any settlement agreements will 

be determined on a case-by-case basis.

6. Plaintiffs motion in limine (Doc. 291) is denied. Because none of 

Brewer’s testimony is before me, I cannot make a ruling on its 

admissibility.

7. Defendant Blackerby’s sixth motion in limine (Doc. 305) is denied. 

Case 5:10-cv-00120-RS-CJK Document 320 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 3
ORDERED on June 17, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00120-RS-CJK Document 320 Filed 06/17/11 Page 3 of 3
# C_2012351EN.01009201.xml

| 15.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/92

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC by extending its period of application and by updating the names of a third country and of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production’

COM(2012) 343 final — 2012/0165 (COD)

2012/C 351/23

The European Parliament and the Council decided, on 5 June 2012 and 23 July 2012 respectively, to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC by extending its period of application and by updating the names of a third country and of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC by extending its period of application and by updating the names of a third country and of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production

COM(2012) 343 final — 2012/0165 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal, it decided at its 483rd plenary session of 18 and 19 September 2012 (meeting of 18 September), by 142 votes to 3 with 8 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 18 September 2012.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

for the use and benefit of

L&W SUPPLY CORPORATION

d/b/a SEACOAST SUPPLY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:10cv190/MCR/MD

DICK CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court has been advised that the parties have reached a settlement of this

matter. Therefore, the above-entitled action is DISMISSED from the active docket of the

court. Pursuant to the parties agreement as stated in open court on August 20, 2010, the

court reserves jurisdiction through March 31, 2011, to enforce the terms of the parties’

agreement. Immediately thereafter, absent any further record activity, the Clerk is directed

to close the case in its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on this 27th day of August, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
| 1.     | Such Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of League Now Holdings Corporation. |

| Date: August 22, 2011            |
|----------------------------------|
|                             |
| League Now Holdings Corporation. |

| By:    | /s/ Mario Barton                            |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Mario Barton                                                                                                                                                                            |
|   | Chairman of the Board of Directors,Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer,Controller, Principal Accounting Officer                                                             |
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CRAIG K. STATEN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv108/WS/EMT

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________ /

O R D E R

Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 1, 2). 

Upon review of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and attached financial affidavit (the

latter having been signed by Plaintiff under penalty of perjury), the undersigned concludes that

Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient information for the court to grant the motion. In the

affidavit of financial status, Plaintiff indicates that he owns no real property or automobile and that

he has only $135.00 in cash and savings (Doc. 2 at 3). Also, Plaintiff states in his complaint that he

is a disabled veteran, but he notes in his affidavit no source of income related to his disability. 

Despite indicating that he has few assets, Plaintiff reports that his household’s monthly income is

approximately $2,500.00, with monthly debts totaling approximately $900.00 (id.). Based on the

information provided by Plaintiff, it appears to the court that he should be able to pay the filing fee

in this case of $350.00.

In order to proceed with this case, Plaintiff must either pay the filing fee in full or file a

properly completed in forma pauperis application. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED without

prejudice.
Page 2 of 2

2. The clerk shall send Plaintiff a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a financial

affidavit approved for use by non-prisoners in the Northern District of Florida.

3. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order Plaintiff shall

(1) pay the $350.00 filing fee, or (2) submit a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with

the requisite affidavit of financial status.

4. Failure to comply with this order as instructed may result in a recommendation that

this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of April 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv108/WS/EMT
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62874-62880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5550]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program: Certifications 
for 2007 Under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, DOL.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Labor signed the annual certifications under 
the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. 3301 et seq., thereby 
enabling employers who make contributions to state unemployment funds 
to obtain certain credits against their liability for the federal 
unemployment tax. By letter the certifications were transmitted to the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The letter and certifications are printed 
below.

    Dated: Signed in Washington, DC, November 1, 2007.
Emily Stover DeRocco,
Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M

[[Page 62875]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07NO07.002


[[Page 62876]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07NO07.003


[[Page 62877]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07NO07.004


[[Page 62878]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07NO07.005


[[Page 62879]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07NO07.006

[FR Doc. 07-5550 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-C
#### STATE v. WRAY

No. 43 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 155.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 April 1978. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 April 1978.
# C_2009231EN.01004701.xml

| 25.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/47

---

Corrigendum to training of national judges in EC competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 223 of 16 September 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 223 of 16 September 2009

2009/C 231/13

On page 14, under ‘Deadline for application’:

for:

‘13 November 2009’,

read:

‘27 November 2009’.

---
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  Quarterly Report of Burrow Mining, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Cathy M.T. Ho, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Burrow Mining, Inc., certify, pursuant to  18 U.S.C. {section}1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002, that, to
the best of 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.



                                     /s/ Cathy M.T. Ho
                                     ----------------------
                                         Cathy M.T. Ho,
                                         President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                         Director

                                   Date: March 19, 2008
#### In the Matter of John T. Little, an Attorney, Appellant. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Respondent.

*Matter of Little,*175 App. Div. 280, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted May 27, 1918;

decided June 4, 1918.)

Motion to dismiss a*n appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 12, 1916, which disbarred the appellant herein from practice as an attorney.

The motion was made upon the ground of failure to file the return.

*Einar Chrysiie*for .motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.