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

Certification  Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002  (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(A) And (B))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies in
his capacity as an officer of Metaldyne Corporation (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2005 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of and for the periods covered by such Report.

|Date: August 18, 2005 |  | /s/JEFFREY M. STAFEILJeffrey M. Stafeil
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Chief Accounting Officer and Authorized Signatory)
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                       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 Unizan Financial Corp.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James J. Pennetti,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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



Date     8/12/2002                               By: /s/ James J. Pennetti
         ---------------                             --------------------------
                                                     James J. Pennetti
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM 1/1

Stephen D. Finestone (125675)

Jennifer C. Hayes (197252)

FINESTONE HAYES LLP

456 Montgomery Street, Floor 20

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 616-0466

Facsimile: (415) 398-2820

Email: sfinestone@fhlawllp.com

Email: jhayes@fhlawllp.com

Attorneys for Creditor

Far Western Anthropological

Research Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E Corporation,

Debtor-in-Possession.

Case No. 19-30088-DM

Chapter 11

Hon. Dennis Montali

In re

Pacific Gas and Electric Company,

Debtor-in-Possession.

Case No. 19-30089-DM

Chapter 11

Hon. Dennis Montali

 Affects PG&E Corporation

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 Affects both Debtors

WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM NO. 5405

Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. hereby withdraws its Claim No. 5405 

filed on July 31, 2019, as being duplicative of its Claim no. 5440.

Dated September 15, 2019 FINESTONE HAYES LLP

/s/ Stephen D. Finestone

Stephen D. Finestone

Counsel for Creditor

Far Western Anthropological Research Group, 

Inc.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3894 Filed: 09/16/19 Entered: 09/16/19 12:57:43 Page 1 of

1
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000497

30-MAR-2017

08:05 AM
---

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

I, Lawrence Siccia, 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 Silverstar Mining Corp.
      for the year ended September 30, 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 Silverstar Mining Corp.                                                                

Dated: December 30, 2009



| | /s/
      Lawrence Siccia                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | Lawrence Siccia                                                
| | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director                
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer
| | and Principal Accounting Officer)                              
| | Silverstar Mining Corp.                                        



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 Silverstar
Mining Corp. and will be retained by Silverstar Mining Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 0908191244-91427-02]
RIN 0648-XW47


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder 
Fishery; Quota Transfer

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:  Temporary rule; quota transfer.

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

SUMMARY:  NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is 
transferring a portion of its 2010 commercial summer flounder quota to 
the Commonwealth of Virginia. By this action, NMFS adjusts the quotas 
and announces the revised commercial quota for each state involved.

DATES:  Effective May 27, 2010 through December 31, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Sarah Heil, Fishery Management 
Specialist, 978-281-9257.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the summer flounder 
fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual 
specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the 
coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set 
the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are 
described in Sec.  648.100.
    The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder, 
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, which was published 
on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for summer 
flounder quota to be transferred from one state to another. Two or more 
states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the 
Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), can 
transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under Sec.  
648.100(d). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the 
criteria set forth in Sec.  648.100(d)(3) in the evaluation of requests 
for quota transfers or combinations.
    North Carolina has agreed to transfer 10,975 lb (4,978 kg) of its 
2010 commercial quota to Virginia. This transfer was prompted by summer 
flounder landings of a North Carolina vessel that was granted safe 
harbor in Virginia due to mechanical problems on April 9, 2010. The 
Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in 
Sec.  648.100(d)(3) have been met. The revised quotas for calendar year 
2010 are: North Carolina, 3,371,527 lb (1,529,299 kg); and Virginia, 
2,908,930 lb (1,319,468 kg).

Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from 
review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 27, 2010.
Carrie Selberg,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-13205 Filed 5-27-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 1 of

29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 2 of

29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 3 of

29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 4 of

29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 5 of

29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 6 of

29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 7 of

29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 8 of

29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 9 of

29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 10

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 11

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 12

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 13

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 14

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 15

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 16

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 17

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 18

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 19

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 20

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 21

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 22

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 23

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 24

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 25

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 26

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 27

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 28

of 29
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4259 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 16:05:38 Page 29

of 29
A96A1161.

#### MILLER v. THE STATE.

(475 SE2d 690)

Pope, Presiding Judge.

After defendant was charged with burglary, armed robbery, and kidnapping, he filed an affidavit of indigency and the trial court appointed counsel for him. Before trial, however, defendant retained another attorney and his appointed counsel withdrew. Defendant was convicted by a jury, and filed a notice of appeal in which he requested the inclusion of the trial transcript in the record. But defendant failed to pay for the transcript or to take any steps to have the State pay for the transcript. As a result, the transcript was not filed within 30 days after the filing of the notice of appeal as required by OCGA § 5-6-42. (Nor did defendant request an extension of time for filing the transcript under OCGA § 5-6-39.)

The State moved to dismiss the appeal and a hearing was held. The court reporter testified that she had finished the transcript one day after the notice of appeal was filed, and had called defense counsel to ask him what to do with it. Counsel told her he was not yet sure *642whether defendant would actually be appealing, said he would let her know, and gave no indication that defendant was claiming indigency despite his retention of paid counsel. The court reporter did not hear back from defense counsel, and did not file the transcript. After the hearing, the trial court dismissed the appeal, finding that the delay in filing the transcript was unreasonable, caused by defendant, and inexcusable. See OCGA § 5-6-48.

Decided August 30, 1996

*Michael B. King,*for appellant.

*Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Marion T. Woodward, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Here, defendant challenges the dismissal of his appeal, asserting that the State was obligated to supply the transcript because he was indigent. It is true that the State must pay for a trial transcript for an indigent defendant who appeals. See *Clay v. State,*122 Ga. App. 677 (4) (178 SE2d 331) (1970). Nonetheless, it is the obligation of a defendant/appellant to at least make it known to the trial court that he is indigent, and to request that a transcript be filed and the State billed. Even though defendant had earlier filed an affidavit of indigency, it was reasonable for the trial court to assume he was no longer indigent when he subsequently retained paid counsel who represented him at trial. *Hopkins v. Hopper,*234 Ga. 236, 238 (3) (215 SE2d 241) (1975) (where defendant is represented by retained counsel at trial, trial court has no duty to inquire as to defendant’s indigency and may presume that his retained counsel will protect his appellate rights). In light of defendant’s failure to take any steps to ensure the transcript was filed in a timely manner, regardless of who was going to pay for it, the trial court’s findings were supported and its dismissal of the appeal was not an abuse of discretion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Andrews and Smith, JJ, concur.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DEON COLEMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 282 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of December, 2016

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 24, 2022.

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, February 24, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22D0242. CHRISTIAN GUY v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

19SR210067
**Exhibit
      13.2**







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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Cellcom Israel Ltd. (the
      “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Tal Raz,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.







March
      12,
      2007







/s/
                Tal RazTal
                Raz
              Chief
                Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of

Social Security, is substituted for Shirley S. Chater as the defendant in this action. 

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 10 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SHEILA CONN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,*

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-5029

(D.C. No. 95-CV-266-W)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

Before KELLY, McKAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
1 The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c).

-2-

Claimant Sheila Conn appeals the district court’s order1 affirming the

Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for social security disability

benefits. The Commissioner determined that Ms. Conn could perform sedentary

work available in significant numbers in the local and national economies and,

therefore, she is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 

Ms. Conn contends that the Commissioner failed to evaluate properly her

nonexertional impairments and failed to consider evidence submitted. We affirm. 

We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the findings

of fact are supported by substantial evidence based on the entire record, and to

ascertain whether he applied the correct legal standards. See Castellano v.

Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). 

Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Soliz v. Chater, 82 F.3d 373, 375

(10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)

(further quotation omitted)). “We closely examine the record as a whole to

determine whether substantial evidence supports the [Commissioner’s] decision,

and we fully consider the evidence that detracts from [his] decision.” Cruse v.
-3-

United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 49 F.3d 614, 617 (10th Cir.

1995). 

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs

submitted by the parties. Applying the standards set out above, we conclude for

substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s December 17, 1996

order, that substantial evidence supports the determination that Ms. Conn is not

disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5256 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5256

                To encourage compensation transparency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2014

  Mrs. McMorris Rodgers (for herself, Mrs. Capito, Ms. Jenkins, Mrs. 
Ellmers, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Valadao, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Ms. 
  Granger, Mrs. Lummis, and Mr. Fitzpatrick) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                To encourage compensation transparency.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Discrimination in the Workplace 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY ACT REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 15(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
215(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) to discharge or in any other manner retaliate against 
        any employee because such employee has inquired about, 
        discussed, or disclosed comparative compensation information 
        for the purpose of determining whether the employer is 
        compensating an employee in a manner that provides equal pay 
        for equal work, except that this paragraph shall not apply to 
        instances in which an employee who has access to the wage 
        information of other employees as a part of such employee's job 
        functions discloses the wages of such other employees to an 
        individual who does not otherwise have access to such 
        information, unless such disclosure is in response to a charge 
        or complaint or in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, 
        hearing, or action under section 6(d), including an 
        investigation conducted by the employer.
Nothing in paragraph (6) shall be construed to limit the rights of an 
employee provided under any other provision of law.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,950
<ALLOWANCES>                                       906
<INVENTORY>                                      5,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,772
<PP&E>                                          27,980
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,656
<BONDS>                                            641
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               30
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,486
<SALES>                                          4,252
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,561
<CGS>                                            1,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,248
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    58
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,564)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,564)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,564)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)
        

</TABLE>