alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



<PAGE>


                                  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 Warp 9, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB/A for the period  ending  September  30, 2006 (the  "Report") I,
Louie Ucciferri,  Chairman, Secretary, and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18USC ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:


         (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.



Date:    April 24, 2007





\s\Louie Ucciferri
------------------------
Louie Ucciferri, Chairman
Corporate Secretary, Acting
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)

         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit
32**


**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 FPIC Insurance Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R.
Byers, President and Chief Executive Officer and, I, Kim D. Thorpe, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1.
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.






March 15,
2005


By:
    /s/ John
      R. ByersJohn
      R. Byers
      *President
      and Chief Executive Officer*


By:
    /s/ Kim
      D. ThorpeKim
      D. Thorpe
      *Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, 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.

May 12, 2015 

# Order

May 12, 2015

150549 ( 95 )

ANDREW J. PERUN, JR.

, Plaintiff

- Appell ant

,

v

TROTT & TROTT, P.C., and CITIMORTGAGE,

INC.

, Defendant s

- Appell ees

. SC: 150549

COA: 315191

Macomb CC: 2012

- 004203

- CK

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellant to extend the time

for filing a supplement in support of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED IN

PART. The supplement will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before June

30, 2015, not July 30, 2015 as requested.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40169

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Catherine Pauline Thompson, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:11-CR-705-1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Defendant-Appellant Catherine Pauline Thompson, federal prisoner 

# 89703-279, challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for a 

compassionate release reduction of her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A)(i). She contends on appeal that the district court abused its 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 28, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40169 Document: 00516072551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2021
No. 21-40169

2

discretion in denying her motion, claiming that the court applied an 

incomplete or unreasonable view of the facts and record.

We review a district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s 

compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court may modify a 

defendant’s term of imprisonment, after considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors, if the court concludes that “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons warrant such a reduction.” § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Here, the district court denied Thompson’s motion based on a finding 

that the § 3553(a) factors necessitated her continued imprisonment. See 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94. It clearly articulated the reasons it so 

concluded, identifying the relevant factors as well as the facts underlying its 

reasoning. See id. at 693. Thompson has not identified any way in which the 

district court’s assessment of the record was clearly erroneous, and her

disagreement with its weighing of the sentencing factors is not sufficient to 

demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See id. at 693–94.

The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-40169 Document: 00516072551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2021
## NUMBER 13
- 11
- 00 574
- CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

JULIO BARBOSA Appellant, A/K/A JULIO ORTIZ

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

.

On appeal from the 214 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Vela , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Julio Barbosa a/k/a Julio Ortiz attempts to appeal his conviction for
theft . The trial court has certified that this is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2).2

On September 9, 2011 , this Court notified appellant ’ s counsel of the trial court ’ s
certification and order ed counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel ’ s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the

existenc e of any amended certification.
On October 11, 2011 , counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel ’ s response does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a right to appea l. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be
dismissed if the trial court ’ s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); see T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the 20th day of October , 20 11

.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11

Computation of Earnings per Share
(dollars in thousands, except shares and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                              For the Six Months      For the Three Months
                                 ended June 30           ended June 30
                                 1999       1998        1999         1998
<S>                           <C>        <C>         <C>          <C>
PRIMARY:

Average shares outstanding    4,135,397  4,052,514    4,190,996   4,052,514
Impact of Treasury Shares        75,122     58,342       75,122      60,385
                              ---------  ---------    ---------   ---------
Total                         4,060,275  3,994,172    4,115,874   3,992,129
                              =========  =========    =========   =========

Net Income                      $ 3,019    $ 3,363      $ 1,531     $ 1,665
                                =======    =======      =======     =======

Preferred Stock Dividends       $   511    $   585      $   228     $   290
                                =======    =======      =======     =======
Net Income Available to
Common Shareholders             $ 2,508    $ 2,778      $ 1,303     $ 1,375
                                =======    =======      =======     =======
Earnings Per Share
Applicable to Common Stock         $.62       $.70         $.32        $.35
                                  =====      =====        =====       =====
</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KHELBY LAMAR CALMESE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

S. YOUNG, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 20-15155 

D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00798-LJO-SKO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2021**

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Khelby Lamar Calmese appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Thomas v. Brewer,

923 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1991), and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-15155 

Calmese contends that he is entitled to credit towards his federal sentence 

for the time period between March 2016 and April 2017. Although Calmese’s 

earliest possible release date from state custody was March 25, 2016, the parole 

board denied early release and required him to serve the maximum parole sentence 

with a projected release date of June 22, 2017. Calmese, therefore, did not begin 

serving his federal sentence until April 27, 2017, when he obtained early release 

from his state sentence for good conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). The time 

Calmese spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad 

prosequendum prior to that date did not interrupt the state’s primary jurisdiction 

over him. See Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242, 1243 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011)

(temporary transfer of state prisoner to federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas 

corpus ad prosequendum does not interrupt the state’s primary jurisdiction over the 

prisoner). Moreover, because Calmese received credit against his state parole 

revocation sentence for this time period, he is not entitled to any additional federal 

credit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992) 

(defendant may not “receive a double credit for his detention time”).

All pending motions are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
[File No. 6120.]

#### FARMERS STATE BANK OF RICHARDTON, a Corporation, Respendent, v. JACOB WALTH, Appellant.

(248 N. W. 268.)

Opinion filed April 22, 1933.

*Otto Thress,*for appellant.

*Simpson, Mackoff ■& Kellogg,*for respondent.

Burke, J.

In the instant case a written demand was served upon the defendant for a bill of particulars, stating specifically the information desired. On order to show cause the application for a bill of particulars was resisted by the defendant and the court made its order requiring defendant to deliver to the plaintiff, within thirty days, a verified statement, specifying and describing each particular act, and all acts, of the plaintiff alleged in paragraph six of the answer of the defendant, which defendant alleged in paragraph six of his answer caused him to believe that the debt had been fully settled and discharged. It was further ordered that if said bill of particulars was not furnished within thirty days from the service of the order upon the defendant, then and in that event, paragraphs six. seven and eight of said answer may be, and shall be, stricken from the answer of the defendant by order of this court. The bill of particulars was not fur-. *327nisbed and apon application of the plaintiff an order was made striking out paragraph six of defendant’s answer.

The granting or refusing of an order for a bill of particulars under § 7841, Compiled Laws 1913 is purely a discretionary matter with the trial court and will not be reviewed on appeal unless there has been a palpable abuse of discretion. Hanson v. Lindstrom, 15 N. H. 584, 108 N. W. 798. The power is vested in the trial court to order bills of particulars in any case where a proper showing is made. Irwin v. Taubman, 30 S. D. 503, 139 N. W. 115, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1263; 21 R. C. L. 480, § 43.

There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in ordering a bill of particulars and in striking out paragraph six of the defendant’s answer on failure to comply with the order.

Affirmed.

Nuessle, Oh. J., and Bikdzell, OhristiaNsoN and BüRk, JJ., concur.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00079-CR

SANTIAGO SORIANO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1222923

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
2

ORDER

Wade A. Forsman, counsel for the appellant, Santiago Soriano, has filed a motion to 

extend time to file the appellant’s brief. The brief was due July 24, 2013.

In his motion, counsel does not provide the Court with a reasonable explanation of the 

need for an extension of time. This Court interprets Rule 10.5(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure as requiring counsel to provide the Court with specific information to 

justify the requested extension, including the cause numbers of other briefs filed, the dates they 

were filed, the dates of trials, how long those trials are expected to last, etc. Broad, general 

statements do not provide the required facts and are not adequate to meet the requirements of the 

Rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b)(2).

All future motions to extend time must contain case-specific information adequate to 

justify the request, or they will be denied.

In this instance, we grant the motion for an extension, for a period of thirty days, making 

appellant’s brief now due August 23, 2013. Further requests for extensions will not be looked

upon with favor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: July 30, 2013
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2068

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from establishing rules

authorizing the operation of new, low power FM radio stations.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 10, 2000

Mr. GREGG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from

establishing rules authorizing the operation of new, low

power FM radio stations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Radio Broadcasting

5 Preservation Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

7 (a) RULES PROHIBITED.—Notwithstanding section

8 303 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 303),

9 the Federal Communications Commission shall not pre10 scribe rules authorizing the operation of new, low power
2

•S 2068 IS

1 FM radio stations, or establishing a low power radio serv2 ice, as proposed in MM Docket No. 99–25.

3 (b) TERMINATION OF PREVIOUSLY PRESCRIBED

4 RULES.—Any rules prescribed by the Federal Commu5 nications Commission before the date of the enactment of

6 this Act that would be in violation of the prohibition in

7 subsection (a) if prescribed after such date shall cease to

8 be effective on such date. Any low power radio licenses

9 issued pursuant to such rules before such date shall be

10 void.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          28,753
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             285
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                11,900
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    140,303
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          31,468
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            34,036
<LOANS>                                        382,215
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,875
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 619,082
<DEPOSITS>                                     518,196
<SHORT-TERM>                                    14,622
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,055
<LONG-TERM>                                     12,532
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,200
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,477
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 619,082
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,673
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,458
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   202
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,333
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,749
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,057
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,276
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      260
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (55)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,659
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,221
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,314
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,314
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.45
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,266
<LOANS-PAST>                                       414
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   163
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,778
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      194
<RECOVERIES>                                       157
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,875
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               260
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 11
                  THE TURNER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES			
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE			
                  (in thousands, except per share amounts)
			
                                                              	(unaudited)		
                                                           	Six Months Ended		
                                                                June 30,
                                                         	1997	        	1996
PRIMARY			
Weighted average common shares outstanding	              5,267         5,234 
Common stock equivalents (assuming the use of the 
 proceeds from their exercise or issuance to acquire
 treasury stock using the average quarterly market
 price) granted under employee stock option and stock
 purchase plans	                                           176         		77 
Weighted average common and common equivalent shares
 outstanding	                                            5,443        5,311 			
Net income (loss) available to common stockholders
 - primary	                                             $1,943      ($1,353)
			
Primary earnings (loss) per common share                	$0.36     		($0.25)			
FULLY DILUTED			
Weighted average shares outstanding used in the
 computation of primary earnings per share               5,267        5,234 
Common stock equivalents (assuming the use of the
 proceeds from their exercise or issuance to 
 acquire treasury stock using	the closing market 
 price) granted under employee stock option	and
 stock purchase plans                                      241        		131 
Conversion of Series D convertible preferred 
 stock to common stock	                                    600       		   - 
Conversion of  Series B convertible preferred stock 
 to common stock	                                          847       		848 
Weighted average common and common equivalent shares 
 outstanding	                                            6,955       6,213 
			
Net income (loss) available to common stockholders
 less Series B	preferred dividend differential, 
 net of tax                                             $1,943      ($1,353)
Interest expense on Series D convertible debenture,
 net of tax                                               148            - 
Net income (loss) available to common stockholders
 - fully diluted	                                       $2,091      ($1,353)
			
Fully diluted earnings (loss) per common share          	$0.30      		(0.22)
Exhibit 11. COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



|                                     |  |                              |           |      |   |          
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                     |  | Three Months Ended March 31,
|                                     |  | 2004                         |           | 2003
|Net Income                           |  | $                            | 482,711   |      | $ | 603,783  
|                                     |  |                              |           |      |   |          
|Average Shares Outstanding           |  |                              | 1,835,953 |      |   | 1,802,618
|                                     |  |                              |           |      |   |          
|Basic Earnings Per Share             |  | $                            | .26       |      | $ | .33      
|                                     |  |                              |           |      |   |          
|Net Income                           |  | $                            | 482,711   |      | $ | 603,783  
|                                     |  |                              |           |      |   |          
|Average Shares Outstanding           |  |                              | 1,835,953 |      |   | 1,802,618
|Net Effect of Dilutive Stock Options |  |                              | 84,526    |      |   | 88,815   
|                                     |  |                              |           |      |   |          
|Adjusted Shares Outstanding          |  |                              | 1,920,479 |      |   | 1,891,433
|                                     |  |                              |           |      |   |          
|Diluted Earnings Per Share           |  | $                            | .25       |      | $ | .32      
|                                     |  |                              |           |      |   |          





1