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

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Wolfe Creek Mining, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kristen
Paul, Chief Financial 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
21st day of April, 2009.


/s/ Kristen Paul
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
<page>
	  EXHIBIT 32.02


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Managed
Futures MV, L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.









By:  /s/Christian Angstadt

Name:	   Christian Angstadt
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
		   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:   November 20, 2008
Cause number: 01

- 1 6

- 0 0 04 7

- C V

Style: In re MarOpCo, Inc.

Date motion filed * : February 10

, 201 6

Type of motion: M otion for Leave to Fi l e a Sur

- Reply to Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Party filing motion: Real Parties in Interest

Document to be filed: Sur

- Reply to Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: 0 Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

.

 Denied

 Dismissed

 Other: _____________________________________

Real parties in interest ’s Sur

- Reply to Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed in this proceeding on

February 4, 2016. Accordingly the motion for leave, filed on February 10, 2016, is dismissed as moot.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings



Date: February 23, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5538 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5538

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the inclusion of 
   certain additional periods of active duty service for purposes of 
 suspending charges to veterans' entitlement to educational assistance 
under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs during 
    periods of suspended participation in vocational rehabilitation 
                               programs.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL PERIODS OF ACTIVE DUTY 
              SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF SUSPENSION OF CHARGES TO 
              ENTITLEMENT DURING PERIODS OF SUSPENDED PARTICIPATION IN 
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION 
              PROGRAMS.

    Section 3105(e)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``or 12304'' and inserting ``12304, 12304a, or 12304b''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5538

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the inclusion of 
   certain additional periods of active duty service for purposes of 
 suspending charges to veterans' entitlement to educational assistance 
under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs during 
    periods of suspended participation in vocational rehabilitation 
                               programs.
```
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 Olympic Cascade Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mark Goldwasser, 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, to my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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/ Mark Goldwasser
                                        -----------------------
                                        Mark Goldwasser
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        December 9, 2005


                                      -44-
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANTHONY JOSEPH LETIZIA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:11cv39-MP/WCS

OSCEOLA COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPT., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, doc. 1, and an in forma pauperis motion, doc. 2. As the listing of

Defendants on the complaint form raised concerns, the complaint has been reviewed

prior to ruling on the in forma pauperis motion. 

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Taylor Correctional Institution in Perry, Florida. Doc. 1,

p. 2. All of the Defendants are employed with the Osceola County Sheriff's Office in

Kissimmee, Florida. Id. The events at issue took place in Osceola County where

Plaintiff alleges unlawful, excessive force was used against him during an "undercover

reverse sting operation." Id. 

Because Osceola County is located in the Middle District of Florida, as are each

of the Defendants, the proper forum for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and

28 U.S.C. § 89(b) is in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. 
Page 2 of 3

A federal district court has the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer a

case to another district or division "in which it could have been brought." The Eleventh

Circuit has recognized the court's ability to raise the issue of defective venue sua

sponte, but limited the court's ability to dismiss an improperly filed case for lack of venue

without giving the parties an opportunity to respond. Lipofsky v. New York State

Workers Comp. Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 1988) (stating "a district court may

raise on its own motion an issue of defective venue or lack of personal jurisdiction; but

the court may not dismiss without first giving the parties an opportunity to present their

views on the issue.") The Lipofsky court did not place the same limitations on the

court's ability to transfer a case to the appropriate forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a). See Lipofsky, 861 F.2d at 1259, n. 2. Thus, it is recommended that the case

be transferred rather than dismissed. There is no need for a hearing prior to transfer. 

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the foregoing, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), I

respectfully RECOMMEND transfer of this action to the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, for all further proceedings including

ruling on the motion to dismiss, doc. 2.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 31, 2011.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:11cv39-MP/WCS
Page 3 of 3

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. 4:11cv39-MP/WCS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

AYOKUNIE OSCEOLA KWANZAA,

Petitioner,

v. 4:11cv221-WS

FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 18)

docketed January 26, 2012. The magistrate judge recommends that the plaintiff's

claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. The plaintiff's complaint and this case are hereby DISMISSED, without

prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "All claims are DISMISSED without

Case 4:11-cv-00221-WS-WCS Document 21 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

prejudice."

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of February , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00221-WS-WCS Document 21 Filed 02/27/12 Page 2 of 2
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2325

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Adam Bates, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2005

Filed: February 21, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Adam Bates appeals the 10-month sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Bates’s

counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Counsel raises as a potential issue whether the district court abused its

discretion by failing to grant Bates’s request for a sentence below the Guidelines range

and thereby imposed an unreasonable sentence. Bates was granted leave to file a pro

se supplemental brief, but he did not do so. The government has moved to dismiss for
-2-

lack of jurisdiction arguing that this court cannot review for reasonableness sentences

imposed within the advisory Guidelines. 

After United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), we review for

unreasonableness a sentence that is within the advisory Guidelines range; therefore,

we reject the government’s argument that we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

See United States v. Mickelson, 433 F. 3d 1050, 1052-55 (8th Cir. 2005);United States

v. McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 934 n.2 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 305 (2005);

United States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 875 n.3 (8th Cir. 2005).

As to counsel’s arguments we conclude that the denial of Bates’s request for a

sentence below the Guidelines range is unreviewable to the extent that it challenges

the district court's discretionary decision not to depart downward under the advisory

guidelines. See Frokjer, 415 F. 3d at 875. To the extent that the denial of Bates's

request for a sentence below the guidelines range is based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

then it is reviewable. See Michelson, 433 F. 3d at 1054.

Because the district court sentenced Bates within the applicable Guidelines

range and considered the sentencing factors in § 3553(a), we conclude that the

sentence is not unreasonable. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-66 (appellate courts

should review post-Booker sentences for reasonableness, using factors in § 3553(a)

to guide their determination); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.

2005) (sentence within Guidelines range “is presumptively reasonable”).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,

deny the government’s motion to dismiss, and affirm. 

______________________________
Exhibit 10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 
  

	TO:	Elizabeth D. Phillips 

  

	RE:	EXTENSION OF CHANGE OF CONTROL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

 Pursuant to Section 1(b) of
your Change of Control Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of December 4, 2008, the term of the Agreement, as stated in Section 1(b) thereof, is hereby extended so that the Agreement, as extended, will end on
November 12, 2017. 
 In all other respects, the Agreement is reaffirmed and remains unchanged. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension Agreement, pursuant to authorization from the Board of Directors of the Company, is executed in the
Company’s name and on its behalf as of the day and year shown herein. 
 Date: August 27, 2014 

 

			
	KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ D. Michael Parker

		 	D. Michael Parker
	Its:	 	Senior Vice President, Finance
		 	Treasurer, Secretary
MANTYLA, McREYNOLDS AND ASSOCIATES, C.P.A's
A Professional Corporation


December 27, 1999


United State Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549


To whom it may concern:

We hereby agree with the disclosure statements made by Cadapult Graphic Systems,
Inc., a corporation formerly known as Seafoods Plus, Ltd., with respect to our
being dismissed as the principal accountants and our audit reports on the
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1996 and 1997. We further
agree with the Company's disclosure that there were no disagreements with us on
any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement
disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure.

/s/ Mantyla, McReynolds & Assoc.

Mantyla, McReynolds & Associates
Certified Public Accountants
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 02, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 02, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20I0175. RUSSELL OLIN LAYTON v. THE STATE . Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2018CR001231
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the consolidated financial statements included under Item and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          46,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,603
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125
<INVENTORY>                                      8,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,283
<PP&E>                                          13,698
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,339
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           177
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,043
<SALES>                                         66,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,444
<CGS>                                           29,949
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,367
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,437
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,930
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,930
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0046. DOUGLAS THOMPSON v. THE STATE. 

Following a jury trial in 2011, Douglas Thompson was convicted of four

counts of aggravated assault, three counts of false imprisonment, and one count each

of armed robbery, burglary, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and

possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. We affirmed Thompson’s

convictions on direct appeal. Case No. A12A2000 (Mar. 7, 2013). In 2019,

Thompson filed a pro se “motion to vacate/discharge all offenses,” in which he raised

numerous attacks to the validity of his convictions. The trial court denied the motion,

and Thompson filed this appeal. The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal,

arguing that Thompson may not appeal the trial court’s order. We agree.

As the Supreme Court has made clear, a post-conviction motion seeking to

vacate or set aside an allegedly void criminal conviction is not one of the established

procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case, and an

appeal fromthe trial court’sruling on such a motion should be dismissed. See Roberts

v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Accordingly, the State’s motion

to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and Thompson’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 26, 2020

08/26/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ALL POINTS CAPITAL CORP.,

a foreign corporation,

 Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv116/RS-EMT

BOYD BROTHERS, INC., a Florida

corporation; JAMES A. BOYD, SR.; 

and JAMES A. BOYD, JR.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested by Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion For An Order Sealing Four

Exhibits Attached To The Complaint And For Permission To File Substitute Redacted

Exhibits (Doc. 19) is granted.

ORDERED on June 21, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00116-MW-EMT Document 25 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
XTL Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Josh Levine, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, and David Kestenbaum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC. 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | /s/ Josh Levine        
| | -----------------------
| | Josh Levine            
| | Chief Executive Officer
| |                        
| | /s/ David Kestenbaum   
| | David Kestenbaum       
| | Chief Financial Officer



Date: March 30, 2017
EXHIBIT 23.1 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We have issued our reports dated March 7,2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of EFJ, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2006. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of EFJ, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-3 (File No. 333-125257, effective May 26, 2005) and Forms S-8 (FileNo. 333-129717, effective November 15, 2005, File No. 333-48834, effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48836, effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48840 effective October 27, 2000; FileNo. 333-48880, effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-30673, effective July 2, 1997). 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Dallas, Texas 

March 7, 2007