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

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q of
Foundation Coal Corporation for the period ended June 30, 2008, I, Frank J. Wood, Chief Financial Officer of Foundation Coal Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | This Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Foundation Coal Corporation.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ FRANK J. WOOD                    
|                      |  |  |  | Frank J. Wood Chief Financial
Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6445** 

VAN THORNTON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN WATSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Vir ginia , at Roanoke
. James C. Turk , Senior District Judge. ( 7:10

- cv - 00073

- jct

- mfu )

Submitted : June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

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

Dismissed by un published per curiam opin ion
. Van Thornton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Van Thornton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not a ppealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2 ) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDani el , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petitio n states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thornton has not made the requisite showing. *

* Our conclusion that Thornton has not made the showing necessary to warrant issuance of a certificate of appealability is supported by the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Holland v. Florida , No. 09

- 5327, slip op. (U.S. June 14, 2010). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave3 to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISS ED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5737 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5737

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the maximum 
            contribution limit for health savings accounts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 2023

Ms. Van Duyne (for herself and Mr. Hern) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the maximum 
            contribution limit for health savings accounts.

    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 ``Elevating HSA Limits Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION LIMIT TO HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT INCREASED 
              TO AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIBLE AND OUT-OF-POCKET LIMITATION.

    (a) Self-Only Coverage.--Section 223(b)(2)(A) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$2,250'' and inserting 
``the amount in effect under subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii)(I)''.
    (b) Family Coverage.--Section 223(b)(2)(B) of such Code is amended 
by striking ``$4,500'' and inserting ``the amount in effect under 
subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii)(II)''.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 223(g)(1) of such Code is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``subsections (b)(2) and'' both places it 
        appears and inserting ``subsection'', and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``determined by'' and 
        all that follows through ```calendar year 2003'.'' and 
        inserting ``determined by substituting `calendar year 2003' for 
        `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Randal B. Tofteland, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SoftBrands, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting./s/ RANDAL B. TOFTELAND
#### In the Matter of Abdo Mohsin et al., Doing Business as A & A Grocery, Respondents, v State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered June 7, 1989, which annulled the penalty imposed by the State Liquor Authority revoking petitioner’s grocery beer license and imposing a $1,000 bond *204forfeiture, and substituted therefor a penalty of six months’ suspension and a $1,000 bond forfeiture effective from April 25, 1989, unanimously reversed, on the law, the determination of the State Liquor Authority reinstated and the petition dismissed, without costs.

The State Liquor Authority visited petitioners’ store on two separate occasions but found no food products, as defined by Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 3 (13), in their store. The investigation further revealed that petitioners submitted a false statement by putting up a temporary sign that read A & A Grocery while the permanent exterior sign and canopy bore a nonapproved trade name of Olympic Smoke Shop. As a result of the investigation, the State Liquor Authority brought charges against petitioners, to which they pleaded no contest with an explanation.

Petitioners contended that the absence of food products occurred because two of the store’s partners were on vacation. They did not, however, proffer any reason for the alleged false sign. The State Liquor Authority revoked petitioners’ grocery beer license and imposed a $1,000 bond forfeiture.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the penalty imposed by respondent was so shockingly disproportionate to the offense as to amount to an abuse of discretion as a matter of law *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). The record demonstrates that petitioners did not have food products in their store on two occasions. Accordingly, they were in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 3 (13). *(Matter of Best v New York State Liq. Auth.,*59 NY2d 906.) Moreover, by entering their plea of no contest, petitioners waived their right to review the facts upon which the punishment was imposed. *(Matter of Victorian House v New York State Liq. Auth.,*24 AD2d 484.) Accordingly, it was improper for the court to vacate the penalty imposed by respondent and to substitute one less severe. *(Rob Tess Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*49 NY2d 874, 876.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
#### In the Matter of John J. Hop Wah, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Kane, J. P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged with and found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rule 100.10 prohibiting assault *(see,*7 NYCRR 270.1 [B] [1] [i]) after an incident during which he twice threw a cup of milk onto a correction officer. The sole *888basis for petitioner’s challenge to the determination is that the act, admitted to by petitioner, did not constitute an assault, as envisioned by the rule. We disagree. In our view, an assault by an inmate need not cause or intend injury and we find that the abusive throwing of any liquid onto a correction officer constitutes an assault pursuant to rule 100.10 *(see, Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin,*160 AD2d 1054; *Matter of Curcio v Jones,*144 AD2d 185, 186). Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s argument, rule 100.10 provides sufficiently clear notice that throwing milk at a correction officer is assaultive behavior and therefore forbidden *(see, Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, supra; Matter of Hobson v Coughlin,*137 AD2d 940, 941). Accordingly, the petition lacks merit.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
**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 Reflect Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), we, Kim Boyce, our Chief Executive Officer and director and Keith L. Merrell, our Chief/Principal Financial Officer and Treasurer, 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 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 our Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our financial condition and result of operations.

Dated: 3/31/2011                              /s/Kim Boyce

                                                           Kim Boyce

                                                           Chief Executive Officer and Director

Dated: 3/31/2011                             /s/Keith L. Merrell

                                                          Keith L. Merrell

                                                          Chief/Principal Financial Officer and Treasurer
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 003 2 3

- CR

Pedro Dominguez

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 4

o f Tarrant County ( 1219602 D )

May 30 , 2013

Opinion by Justice Meier

Concurrence by Justice Gabriel

(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

_________________________________ Justice Bill Meier
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11371]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

National Motor Carrier Advisory Committee; Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

SUMMARY: The charter for the National Motor Carrier Advisory Committee 
(the Committee) has been renewed for a two-year period of time from 
1996 through 1998, effective on January 29, 1996. The Committee acts in 
an advisory capacity to the Federal Highway Administrator. It makes 
recommendations intended to improve the safety and productivity of the 
motor carrier industry and the effectiveness of the FHWA's programs and 
policies. The Committee reviews research projects, regulations, and 
programs including those involving commercial motor vehicle licensing 
and taxation, uniformity, and safety. Meetings of the Committee are 
open to the public and must be announced in the Federal Register. 
Copies of the Committee's charter are available upon request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jill L. Hochman, HIA-20, Room 
3104, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington 20590, (202) 366-1861. Office 
hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except for Federal holidays.

(23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48)

    Issued on: April 29, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11371 Filed 5-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
```
RAND
      ACQUISITION CORP. II

    


    
      
        	 	
                 _____________
                  ___,
                  2006

              


      

    

    


    ProChannel
      Management LLC

    461
      Fifth
      Avenue, 25th
      Floor

    New
      York,
      New York 10017

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    This
      letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date
      (“Effective Date”) of the registration statement for the initial public offering
      (“IPO”) of the securities of Rand Acquisition Corp. II (“RAC”) and continuing
      until the consummation by RAC of a “Business Combination” (as described in RAC’s
      IPO prospectus), ProChannel Management LLC shall make available to RAC certain
      office and secretarial services as may be required by RAC from time to time,
      situated at 461 Fifth Avenue, 25th
      Floor,
      New York, New York 10017. In exchange therefore, RAC shall pay ProChannel
      Management LLC the sum of $7,500 per month on the Effective Date and continuing
      monthly thereafter.

     

    
      	 	
              Very
                truly yours,

            
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
              RAND
                ACQUISITION CORP. II

            
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	
            	By:  	
            
	 	
              
Name:

	 	Title:


    

     

    
      	
              AGREED
                TO AND ACCEPTED BY:

            	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	PROCHANNEL
              MANAGEMENT LLC	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	
            
	
              
                

              

              Name:
                

            	 	 	
            
	
              Title:
EXHIBIT 32.1

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Report on
Form 10-Q of Foundation Coal Corporation for the period ended March 31, 2008, I, James F. Roberts, Chief Executive Officer of Foundation Coal Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | This Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Foundation Coal Corporation.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ JAMES F. ROBERTS   
|                   |  |  |  | James F. Roberts       
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### WIRT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LOR-MAR DRILLING CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19250.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Sept. 27, 1994.

*383James H. Arneson, Miller *&*Sanford, P.C., Springfield, for plaintiff-respondent.

Thomas L. Williams, Roberts, Fleischaker, Williams *&*Powell, Joplin, for defendant-appellant.

PREWITT, Judge.

Defendant appeals from summary judgment entered upon plaintiff’s motion. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in both entering the judgment and in the monetary amount of it. The body of plaintiffs motion, other than the prayer, stated:

> “COMES NOW Plaintiff, Wirt Development Corporation, by and through its attorneys of record, and requests this Court enter summary judgment on its Petition for Declaratory Judgment. In support of this Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff states to the Court that there are no material facts at issue, and that Plaintiff, Wirt Development Corporation is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.”

Rule 74.04(c), in effect at the time plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was filed, provided that “The motion shall state with particularity the grounds therefor”. The present Rule 74.04(c) may even be more exacting, but was not in effect when this motion for summary judgment was filed.

Nevertheless, even under the former rule, the motion here is defective and the order sustaining it must be reversed and the cause remanded. *Partney v. Reed,*839 S.W.2d 694 (Mo.App.1992); *Johns v. Continental Western Ins. Co.,*802 S.W.2d 196 (Mo.App.1991). *See also Miller v. River Hills Development,*831 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Mo.App.1992).

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

GARRISON, P.J., and PARRISH, J., concur.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in hiscapacity as an officer of Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”),for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

 

·                  The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-Kfor the period ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

·                  The information contained in such reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.

 

 

Date: August 15, 2008

 
| /s/ John J. Haley                          |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                       |   |
| John J. Haley                              |   |
|                                       |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer      |   |
|                                       |   |
|                                       |   |
| /s/ Carl D. Mautz                          |   |
|                                       |   |
| Carl D. Mautz                              |   |
|                                       |   |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc. and will be retained byWatson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Gerald A. GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50205.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 9, 1995.

John Schilmoeller, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).