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

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert Mintak, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dussault Apparel Inc.
      for the year ended October 31, 2009 (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 Dussault Apparel Inc.                                                              

Dated: March 16, 2010

| |  | /s/ Robert Mintak                               
| |  | ------------------------------------------------
| |  | Robert Mintak                                   
| |  | Chief Financial Officer                         
| |  | (Principal Financial Officer and
      Principal
| |  | Accounting Officer)                             
| |  | Dussault Apparel Inc.                           

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dussault Apparel
Inc. and will be retained by Dussault Apparel Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00497-CR

Thayer Lawson

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 362nd District Court

of Denton County (F-2012-2485-D)

January 29, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot_____________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

The undersigned, Sally J. Hutchins, is the Senior Vice President and Treasurer of Union Bankshares Company (the
Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report).

By execution of this
statement, I certify that:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                        |  |  |  |                                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Sally J. Hutchins            
|                        |  |  |  | Sally J. Hutchins                
|                        |  |  |  | Senior Vice President & Treasurer
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00459 - CR

KEITH DEMONT MCCUIN APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRI CT COURT NO. 1 OF TA RRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1139 277D

---------- 

### MEMORAN DUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Keith Demont McCuin attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order denying his request for appointed counsel to assist him in filing a postconviction motion for DNA testing. 2 On December 14, 2015, we sent

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 One document that has been submitted to this court indicates that some biological material has already been tested. Appellant appears to challenge the qualifications of the person who completed the test.2 appellant a le tter informing him that we had received his notice of appeal and expressing our concern that we lack jurisdiction because there is no final judgment or order subject to appeal. Appellant has not responded to our letter. A trial court’s denial of a request for appointed counsel to file a postconviction motion for DNA testing is not immediately appealable. Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). “Such an appeal is premature; a motion for appointed counsel is a preliminary matter tha t precedes the initiation of Chapter 64 proceedings.” Id. at 323. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal because we do not have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s claim that the trial court erred by denying his request for appointed counsel. See id. ; Ander son v. State , No. 02

- 14

- 00410

- CR, 2015 WL 1407575, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Mar. 26, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. DO NOT P UBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: February 18, 2016

In the order denying appellant’s request for appointed counsel, the trial court found that there were “no reasonable grounds on which a motion [could] be filed under article 64.01 and therefore [denied] any request to appoint counsel.” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 64.01(c) (West Supp. 2015).
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3150 Filed: 07/23/19 Entered: 07/23/19 11:15:19 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3150 Filed: 07/23/19 Entered: 07/23/19 11:15:19 Page 2 of

2
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General *v.*B. R. Severn, Appellant.

*Constitutional law—County controllers and auditors—Title of act—Act of June*8, 1893.

The act of June 8, 1893, P. L. 393, entitled “ An act creating the office of county controller in counties containing one hundred and fifty thous- and inhabitants and over, and prescribing his duties,” is defective in title and unconstitutional, as there is no indication in the title of the purpose and effect of the act to abolish the office of the county auditor, as is done in the body of the act by providing for the election of a controller in place of county auditor. Com. v. Samuels, 163 Pa. 283, followed.

Argued Oct. 10, 1894.

Appeal, No. 31, Jan. T., 1894, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Schuykill Co., Sept. T., 1894, No. 147, on writ óf quo warranto.

Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Fell, JJ.

Affirmed.

Quo warranto. Before Pershing, P. J.

From the record it appeared that B. R. Severn was elected county controller of Schuylkill county on Nov. 7, 1893, for a term of three years, from Jan. 1, 1894, by virtue of the act of June 8,1893, P. L. 393, entitled “ An act creating the office of county controller in counties containing 150,000 inhabitants and over, and prescribing his duties.”

' On the ground that this act was unconstitutional the clerk of the county commissioners of Schuylkill county petitioned the attorney general to suggest a writ of quo warranto to oust the controller. The writ was suggested and granted. The controller filed his answer. A demurrer was filed and' defendant filed a joinder. The case was argued on demurrer and joinder. The court entered judgment of ouster against defendant.

*Error assigned*was entry of judgment of ouster.

*W. E. Seltzer, W. J. Whitehouse*with him, for appellant,

cited: R. R. v. Phila., 124 Pa. 219; Phila. v. R. R., 142 Pa. 484 ; Com. v. Green, 58 Pa. 234; Com. v. Kunzmann, 41 Pa.*429;*
      *463Cooley’s Const. Lim. 178; Craig v. Church, 88 Pa. 46; Boro. v. McGee, 3 W. N. 33; Dorsey’s Ap., 72 Pa. 192; Bechert v. Allegheny, 85 Pa. 191; Dewhurst v. Allegheny, 95 Pa. 437; Smith v. McCarty, 56 Pa. 539 ; Allegheny Co. Home’s Case, 77 Pa. 77; Lea v. Bumm, 83 Pa. 237; Wynkoop v. Cooch, 89 Pa. 450.

*J. 0.*Ulrich,, for appellee, not heard, filed no brief.

Oct. 22, 1894:

Per Curiam,

This case is ruled against the defendant by Com. ex rel. v. Samuels et al., [163 Pa. 283,] in-which an opinion by our Brother Mitchell was filed on July 12th, last, holding that, by reason of its defective, title, the act of June 8, 1893, P. L. 393, under which defendant in this case claims title, was unconstitutional.

While the defendant, by taking this appeal, has availed himself of a re-argument of the constitutional question disposed of in the case above cited, we are very far from seeing our way clear to do anything else than adhere to the principle announced in that case. It therefore follows that there is no error in the judgment of the court below.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.2

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SUMMIT BANCSHARES, INC.

      This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
(the "Form 10-Q") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of Summit Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Issuer").

I, Bob G. Scott, the Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, and
Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer certify that:

      (i)   the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
            or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C.
            78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

      (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

Dated: August 1, 2003
                                         /s/ Bob G. Scott
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                   Name: Bob G. Scott
                                  Title: Executive Vice President and COO/CFO

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 1st day of August, 2003.


                                         /s/ Karen S. Appel
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                   Name: Karen S. Appel
                                  Title: Notary Public

My commission expires: August 5, 2006


                                       38
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 17, 2009 

0610 

Order 

 

June 17, 2009 

138269 

J.T. HUEY, Personal Representative of the 

Estate of Diann Huey, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138269 

 COA: 282136 

Wayne CC: 07-701469-NF 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and 

JEMMIE L. RUFFIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 13, 2009 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 31.1



GLOBE SPECIALTY METALS,
INC.

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Alan Kestenbaum, certify
that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this
    amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
    “registrant”); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date:
    October 28, 2015 | By: | /s/
    Alan Kestenbaum           | 
|-------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------- | 
|                           |     | Alan Kestenbaum                   | 
|                           |     | Chief Executive Officer           | 
|                           |     | (Principal Executive
    Officer) |
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm









Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC


Houston, Texas




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-159911 and 333-168177) and Form S-8 (No. 333-152448) of Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC of our reports dated March 8, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.







BDO USA, LLP


Houston, Texas




March 8, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5106 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5106

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  100 Admiral Callaghan Lane in Vallejo, California, as the ``Philmore 
                     Graham Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PHILMORE GRAHAM POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Admiral Callaghan Lane in Vallejo, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Philmore Graham Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Philmore 
Graham Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,548
<INVENTORY>                                    107,578
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               192,560
<PP&E>                                          70,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,407
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,935
<BONDS>                                         94,565
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           842
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   242,059
<SALES>                                         83,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,054
<CGS>                                           54,378
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (280)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   473
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,535
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,944)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,148)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,796)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,796)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
#### Israel Hartman, Appellant, v. Charles I. Silverman, Respondent.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ., concurred.
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.

 September 3, 2013

s0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

147190

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147190

COA: 308902

Saginaw CC: 10-034055-FH

10-034057-FH

TONYA JOY LEITZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2013 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 516-459]

On June 16, 2010, there will be a teleconference concerning the above referenced proceeding, initiated from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Headquarters, commencing at 2 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time [EST]) and concluding by 4 p.m. EST.

The purpose of the meeting is to gain a better understanding of why and what is being requested by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding their request for FERC to prepare a biological assessment for shortnose sturgeon for the Saluda Hydroelectric Project. The South Carolina Electric and Gas Company will also participate in the teleconference.

                    All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to listen by telephone. The FERC contact for the Saluda Hydroelectric Project is Lee Emery. Please call Lee Emery at (202) 502-8379 by 4 p.m. EST, June 11, 2010, or by e-mail at                     *lee.emery@ferc.gov,*                     to receive specific instructions on how to participate in the teleconference.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-12856 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 1461

RYAN ANDERSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JASON W. POLLARD , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. David J. Novak , District Judge. ( 3:21

- cv - 00033

- DJN )

Submitted : September 9, 2021 Decided: November 10, 2021

Before FLOYD, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ryan Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ryan Anderson appeals the district court’s order s dismissing his civi l action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denying reconsideration. ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court

. See Anderson v. Pollard , No. 3:21

- cv - 00033

- DJN (E.D. V a. Apr. 21, 2021; Mar. 24, 2021); see also Cromer v. Kraft Foods N.A., Inc. , 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004) (noting that federal courts have “authority to limit access to the courts by vexatious and repetitive litigants”); Anderson v. Pollard , __ F. App ’x __, 2021 WL 3503418, at *2

- 3 (10th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021) (affirming dismissal of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) based on claim preclusion); Anderson v. Pollard , 775 F. App’x 967 (10th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Anderson v. Pollard , 774 F. App’x 820 (4th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of action as frivolous, vexatious, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Anderson v. Pollard , No. 3:20

-

cv - 00489

- DJN (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2020 ) (dismissing action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

∗ We have construed Anderson’s informal brief on appeal as a timely notice of appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. See Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992); Clark v. Cartledge , 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016).