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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Texas Gulf Energy, Incorporated, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Craig Crawford, does hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his 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 operation
of the Company.



|/s/   Craig Crawford                                                                                                                         | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Craig Crawford
        Chief Financial Officer, Principal Finance Officer and Principal
        Accounting Officer
        December 24, 2012 |
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL R. KELLER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-77-MP-GRJ

RUSSELL HINOTE and

C. HOLMES, 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Hinote’s motions to dismiss for lack

of prosecution (Docs. 26 & 30.) On April 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights

complaint. (Doc. 1.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed as a pauper and

twice directed him to amend his complaint. (Docs. 4 & 8.) Plaintiff complied and his

second amended complaint (Doc. 12) was served upon Defendant Hinote (Doc. 16). 

Service could not be executed as to Defendant Holmes. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff has been

absent from this litigation since at least February 2012. He has failed to respond to

Defendant Hinote’s February 13, 2012 initial discovery request; failed to comply with

this Court’s order compelling discovery responses (Doc. 25); failed to pay Defendant

Hinote’s attorney fees as ordered by the Court (Doc. 29); and failed to respond to

Defendant Hinote’s first motion to dismiss (Doc. 26).

Plaintiff, who was released from incarceration after initiating this lawsuit,

provided the Court with an updated address on October 31, 2011. The docket reflects

Case 1:11-cv-00077-MP-GRJ Document 31 Filed 05/31/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

that no mail has been returned to the Court as undeliverable and Plaintiff has not

provided any additional address updates.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a defendant may move to dismiss the action if

the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with a court’s order. A trial court also has

inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash

Railroad, 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Eades v. Alabama Dept. of Human Resources, 298 Fed.

Appx. 862 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court has discretion to dismiss case sua sponte

where plaintiff has failed to comply with court orders and was on notice that such failure

may result in dismissal). 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Defendant Hinote’s first motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute (Doc. 26) be

GRANTED. 

2. Defendant Hinote’s second motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute (Doc.

30) be DENIED AS MOOT.

3. The case be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for

failure to obey an order of this Court.

IN CHAMBERS, at Gainesville, Florida, this 31 day of May 2012.

st

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

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: 1:11-cv-77-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00077-MP-GRJ Document 31 Filed 05/31/12 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Richard A. King, Chief Executive Officer of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the Company), and James H. Welch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:



|1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 16th day of May, 2011.



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Richard A. King     |  |  |  | /s/ James H. Welch     
|Richard A. King         |  |  |  | James H. Welch         
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies
the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
# C_2011238EN.01000101.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/1

---

2011/C 238/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 232, 6.8.2011

OJ C 232, 6.8.2011

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 226, 30.7.2011

OJ C 219, 23.7.2011

OJ C 211, 16.7.2011

OJ C 204, 9.7.2011

OJ C 194, 2.7.2011

OJ C 186, 25.6.2011

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 
**- 2550** 

In R e: JERRY LYNN HIGH ,
Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 2:89

- cr
- 00025

- SB

- 1 )

Submitted : February 28, 2013 Decided: March 11, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jerry Lynn High , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jerry Lynn High petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his
motion to set aside the criminal judgment. He seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to act. Our review

of the district co urt’s docket reveals that the district court
denied the motion on February 25, 2013. Accordingly, because

the district court decided the motion, we deny the mandamus
petition as moot. We grant High leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. We dispense with or al argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED
Order entered November 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00572-CV

ANDRES CHEVEZ, Appellant

V.

JERRY L. BRINKERHOFF, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-10-015850-E

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s November 20, 2013 motion to extend time to file his 

brief. We ORDER the appellant’s brief received on November 20, 2013 filed as of the date of 

this order.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
# C_2010298EN.01000401.xml

| 4.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5975 — Lion Capital/Picard Groupe)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 298/02

On 30 September 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5975. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5975. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# Presidential Determination on Waiving Prohibition on United States Military Assistance With Respect to Chad

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                    Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 2007 of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002, (the “Act”), title II of Public Law 107-206 (22 U.S.C. 7421*et seq*.), I hereby:                 

- Determine that Chad has entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International Criminal Court from proceeding against U.S. personnel present in such country; and
- Waive the prohibition of section 2007(a) of the Act with respect to this country for as long as such agreement remains in force.

                    You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress and to arrange for its publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

[FR Doc. 07-937

Billing code 4710-10-P
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT 23.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-1 (No. 333-24717), Form S-3 (Nos. 333-60931 and 333-34581),
Form S-4 (No. 333-46343) and Form S-8 (No. 333-40815) of Cornerstone Propane
Partners, L.P. of our report dated August 8, 1997 relating to the consolidated
financial statements of CGI Holdings, Inc., which appears in this Form 10-K.

                                                      PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San Francisco, California
September 28, 1999
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### United States Parole Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

10 a.m., Thursday, January 17, 2008.

# PLACE:

5550 Friendship Blvd., Fourth Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. 

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the                         *open*                         Parole Commission meeting:                    

1. Approval of Minutes of October 2007 Quarterly Business Meeting. 

2. Reports from the Chairman, Commissioners, Chief of Staff, and Section Administrators. 

3. Rule changes for Transfer Treaty Determinations under 28 CFR 2.68. 

# AGENCY CONTACT:

 Thomas W. Hutchison, Chief of Staff, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5990. 

Dated: January 10, 2008.

Rockne J. Chickinell,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 08-128  Filed 1-11-08; 3:20 pm]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1996
<CASH>                                              37
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                       489
<INVENTORY>                                    123,415
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,393
<PP&E>                                          17,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,496
<BONDS>                                          4,426
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,911
<SALES>                                         70,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,886
<CGS>                                           58,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,595
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,663
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,065
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,598
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,598
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 25, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51635 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JACINTO CARLOS-DE LA TORRE, also known as Jacinto Carlos, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-555-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jacinto Carlos-De La Torre (Carlos) appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Carlos first argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to meet 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s objectives. We review the sentence imposed for reasonableness. United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005). As Carlos was sentenced at the low end of the applicable guidelines range, and he identifiesNo. 05-51635 -2- no error in the guidelines calculations, we give great deference to the sentence imposed. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Contrary to Carlos’s arguments, we find that the district court did not improperly balance the sentencing factors and the sentence imposed was not greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of § 3553(a)(2). Therefore, we conclude that the 46- month sentence imposed was reasonable. Carlos’s constitutional challenge to the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court now would overrule Almendarez-Torres , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Carlos properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32





MIMVI, Inc.





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,


UNITED STATES CODE)








Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Mimvi, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge 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.





May 23, 2011





/s/ Kasian Franks


Kasian Franks


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


May 23, 2011
January 20, 2006

01-27- :
Larry Elliott, Director 1-27-06 P12:46 IN

Office Compensation Analysis

and Support
National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health
4676 Columbia Parkway. C-46
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

References:

A clip in the Tri-City Herald newspaper, “Feds eye changes in Hanford claim rules”.
My deceased husband —

Claimant - ~

File No.:

Docket No.:

Dear Mr. Elliott:

Fam still trying, after several denial letters, to justify compensation for my deceased husband.

Senator Maria Cantwell has been trying to help us. E believe. | sent her a copy. along with
Congressman Doe Hastings, a copy of denial dated November 10, 2005,

T cannot stress enough. | don’t believe it is fair that children (who Lam representing as
their Mom). is denied any compensation whatsoever.

Anyway, the point of this letter is to please let me ride on your band wagon.

Thank you so much for your efforts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             551
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,325
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     31,238
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              30
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                30
<LOANS>                                         34,129
<ALLOWANCE>                                        398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,010
<DEPOSITS>                                      35,539
<SHORT-TERM>                                    13,200
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                214
<LONG-TERM>                                     13,474
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  70,010
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,820
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,031
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    57
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,909
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,561
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,222
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,687
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      212
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  29
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    628
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         628
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       459
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .701
<LOANS-NON>                                        356
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   324
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      144
<RECOVERIES>                                         6
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  398
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               398
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1




                            PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE, INC.
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



                        Curtice Burns Export Corporation
                        Kennedy Endeavors, Inc.
                        Seasonal Employers, Inc.
                        CBF Company of Canada Limited
                        Linden Oaks Corporation
                        Birds Eye de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
                        BEMSA Holding, Inc.
                        Agrilink Foods, Inc.