alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Stratosphere Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Denise Barton,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                /s/ Denise Barton
                                -----------------------------------
                                Denise Barton
                                Chief Financial Officer
                                November 22, 2002
#### Lonnie ECKHOFF, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 55765.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 16, 1989.

Steven E. Jordon, Asst. Public Defender, Farmington, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

On August 4,1986, movant pled guilty to burglary in the second degree, § 569.170, and received a suspended imposition of sentence and five years’ probation pursuant to a plea agreement. On January 5, 1987, movant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The court suspended execution of the sentence and again placed movant on probation. On October 5, 1987, movant’s probation was again revoked and his seven-year sentence was executed.

Movant filed a Rule 24.035 motion on the ground that sentencing was too harsh. This motion was summarily dismissed by the motion court because the sentence was within the range permitted by law. On appeal, movant asserts his allegation was sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing because it implied his attorney was ineffective in failing to adequately explain the consequences of his guilty plea to him.

Movant is not entitled to a hearing under Rule 24.035 “if the motion and the files and record of the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief.” Rule 24.035(g). Our review is limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j).

The motion court was correct in its finding that movant’s sentence was within the permissible statutory range. §§ 569.-170.2 and 558.011.1(3), RSMo 1986. “[A] sentence within the statutory range is not grounds for vacating a sentence.” *Grannemann v. State,*748 S.W.2d 415, 416[3] (Mo.App.1988).

*499Movant’s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel was not included in his motion and is, therefore, not an issue on appeal. *Campbell v. State.*748 S.W.2d 834 (Mo.App.1988). Moreover, even if the allegation had been included in the motion it would not have warranted an eviden-tiary hearing because any prejudice to mov-ant was refuted by the record. In the process of receiving movant’s plea, the trial judge repeatedly explained to movant he could get seven years’ imprisonment if he violated his probation and movant signified that he understood that. Nevertheless movant voluntarily entered the plea in accordance with the plea agreement.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and DOWD, J., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00569-CV

WC Paradise Cove Marina, LP; World Class Capital Group, LLC; 

WC Paradise Cove GP, LLC; and Natin Paul, Petitioners

v.

Jordan Herman, Michael Whittington and Deborah Whittington, Respondents

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-11-003308, HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

WC Paradise Cove Marina, LP; World Class Capital Group, LLC; WC Paradise

Cove GP, LLC; and Natin Paul filed a petition for permissive interlocutory appeal, complaining of

the trial court’s interlocutory order in favor of Jordan Herman, Michael Whittington and Deborah

Whittington. Herman and the Whittingtons oppose the granting of the petition.

The underlying dispute concerns whether a restrictive covenant contained in a

1956 deed bars petitioners from constructing and operating a recreational vehicle park on the

banks of Lake Travis. Herman and the Whittingtons sued petitioners, asserting that the RV park

violated the covenant, which provides that no grantees would use the land “for camping by persons

other than those for whose benefit the said easement is reserved and dedicated.” Herman and the

Whittingtons moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the covenant, as a matter of law,

bars petitioners from using the land as an RV park and that they were entitled to summary judgment
on petitioners’ affirmative defenses of ratification, waiver, abandonment, limitations, and laches.

Petitioners responded that the covenant was ambiguous, presenting evidence related to the land, its

purchase, and its earlier usage, and that there were live issues of fact related to their affirmative

defenses. The trial court ruled against petitioners, granting partial summaryjudgment and permanently

enjoining petitioners from constructing or operating an RV park on the property.

Petitioners argue that the trial court’sinterlocutoryorder decided controlling questions

of law about which there are substantial grounds for differing opinions when it decided how the

1956 covenant should be interpreted and applied and in ruling against petitioners on their affirmative

defenses. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3.

We have carefully reviewed the petition and the response. As in King-A Corporation

d/b/a McDonald’s, Robstown v. Wehling, the fact that the trial court ruled against petitioners does

not mean that the court decided a controlling question of law about which there is substantial

ground for a difference of opinion. See No. 13-13-00100-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2761, at *8-9

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(e)(4).

We deny the petition for permissive appeal.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Petition for Permissive Appeal Denied

Filed: September 6, 2013

2
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF OFFICERS**

**OF      BIO-BRIDGE SCIENCE, INC.**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 USC ss. 1350**

|   | *Date:                November 14, 2007*                                                                                                                                         |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                             |   |
|   | */s/                Dr. Liang                Qiao                     * |   |
|   | *By:                Dr. Liang Qiao*                                                                                                                                              |   |
|   | *Chief                Executive Officer*                                                                                                                                         |   |

|   | *Date:                November 14, 2007*                                                                                                                   |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                       |   |
|   | */s/                Chuen Huei (Kevin)                Lee                * |   |
|   | *By:                Chuen Huei (Kevin) Lee*                                                                                                                |   |
|   | *Chief                Financial Officer and**Principal                Accounting Officer*                                                                  |   |

----
**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 accompanying amended Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of UniversalFog Inc. for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2006, I, Tom Bontems, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer of Universal Fog Inc. hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 
| 1.     | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Universal Fog Inc. |

 
| By:    | */s/*   *Tom Bontems*

Tom BontemsChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |                                                                                                                                       |

 
| Dated: | September 15, 2006 |
|--------|--------------------|
***CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS***

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in AXA’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-104438, 333-91900, 333-9212, 333-12088 and 12944) and on Forms F-3 (Nos. 333-12872 and 333-12956) of our report dated April 4, 2003 (except for notes 33, 34 (b) and (g), and 35, as to which the date is June 27, 2003) relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which apppears on page F-1 of AXA’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002.

PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit

Catherine Pariset

Paris, France June 27, 2003

In January 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 46, *“Consolidation of Variables Interest Entities, an Interpretation of ARB No. 51” (“FIN 46”),*which requires certain variable interest entities (“VIE”) to be consolidated by the primary beneficiary of the entity if the equity investors in the entity do not have the characteristics of a controlling financial interest or do not have sufficient equity at risk for the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated support from other parties. Effective in 2003, AXA will be required to consolidate a VIE if it is the primmary beneficiary, that is, it has a variable interest which will absorb a majority of the VIE’s losses or receive a majority of its residual returns, or both. In addition and with immediate effect, AXA is required to disclose VIE’s in which it has a significant interest. At December 31, 2002 AXA identified significant variable interests totalling €1,239 million, representing holdings in both collateralized dast obligation structures and investments in limited parnerships. Any related guarantees, where material, are disclosed in Note 26 “Off Balance Sheet Commitments”. FIN 46 is effective for all new variable interest entities created or acquired after January 31, 2003. For variable interest entities created or acquired prior to February 1, 2003, the provisions of FIN 46 must be applied for the first interim or annual period beginning after June 15, 2003. AXA is continuing to assess the impact of FIN 46 on its consolidated financial statements. 

----
EXHIBIT 32



<PAGE>


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Learningwire.com (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Stephen K. Smith, the President and Chief
Executive Officer and Michael Grove the Principal Financial and Accounting
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 to the best of
their 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 the Company.


                                          KRANEM CORPORATION
                                          d/b/a
                                          LEARNINGWIRE.COM


July 22, 2008                             By:  /s/ Stephen K. Smith
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Stephen K. Smith, President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer


July 31, 2008                             By:  /s/ Michael Grove
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Michael Grove, Principal
                                               Financial and Accounting Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v B. J. Cummings, Appellant.

Case held, decision reserved, motion to relieve counsel’s assignment granted, and new counsel to be assigned. Memorandum: Defendant has appealed from a judgment entered June 25, 1987. His attorney has moved to be relieved as assigned counsel pursuant to *People v Crawford*(71 AD2d 38) on the ground that no nonfrivolous issues exist on the appeal. We find at least one nonfrivolous issue, concerning the propriety of the court’s charge, as argued by defendant in his *pro se*supplemental brief. Therefore, *944we relieve counsel of his assignment and assign new counsel to file a substantive brief addressing that issue and any others that counsel’s review of the record may disclose. On this motion we do not consider counsel’s argument that defendant waived his right to appeal. That argument is based on events on July 9, 1987, after the entry of the judgment appealed from, and is not part of the record on this appeal. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. —robbery, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**Section 1350 Certification**

** **

**Inconnection with this annual report of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with theSecurities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E.Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC,the manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information containedin this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 13, 2008                   |                 |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                         |                 |   |
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |                 |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |                 |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |                 |

 

----
INPUT

.05

80
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. submits this exclusion request on behalf of our business

unit. OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

KNOB,RECLINE is a plastic switch knob actuator and is used only automotive purposes of a power seat

switch which moves a passenger seat, of which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for

further assembly of components which go into domestic automobile production, which is specified by

auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the KNOB,BENCH

in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP exclusion instructions:

"KNOB,RECLINE for POWER SEAT SWITCH; pear-shaped molding with two trapezoidal hollow

connectors and a cylindrical light bulb holder at one end for Plastic Recline knob; Made of plastic resin - ABS with paint dimensions 45.00mm X 20.00mm X 12.00mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4737

ECM Industries LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Exhibit 32.2

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of **Sydys Corporation** (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended **December 31, 2005** as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Jason Baybutt, 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:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Dated this 17th day of February, 2006.   
/s/ Jason Baybutt 
Jason Baybutt 
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthis Registration Statement of Flag Financial Corporation on Form S-8, effective April 25, 1994, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto, effective July 25, 2000 (File No. 033-78230), the Registration Statement of FlagFinancial Corporation on Form S-8, effective December 16, 2004 (File No. 333-121345), the Registration Statement of Flag Financial Corporation on Form S-8, effective November 22, 2005, as amended by Amendment No. 1thereto, effective December 7, 2005 (File No. 333-129897), the Registration Statement of Flag Financial Corporation on Form S-3, effective July 21, 1998 (File No. 333-59497), the Registration Statement of Flag FinancialCorporation on Form S-3, effective December 14, 2004 (File No. 333-121246), the Registration Statement of Flag Financial Corporation on Form S-3, effective September 27, 2005 (File No. 333-128610), of our report datedMarch 11, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting, which isincluded in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ PORTER KEADLE MOORE, LLP

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 16, 2006