alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-32
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PATRICK A. GALLIHER AND ARTHUR DE JOYA

                        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of RMD Technologies, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to 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 operations
of the Company.


Dated: January 17, 2006                By: /s/  Patrtick A. Galliher
                                       Patrick A. Galliher, President



Dated: January 17, 2006                By: /s/  Arthur de Joya
                                       Arthur de Joya,
                                       Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
LEGALPLAY ENTERTAINMENT INC.


/s/ John Page                            Date: March 31, 2006
--------------------------------
John Page
Director / Treasurer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JASON LLABAN CANASTRA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00313

- C R

Appeal from the

379th Judicial District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2023CR5454)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS S O ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024.

JEFF ALLEY

, Chief Justice

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
**Exhibit      32.1**

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

|   | (i)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for the fiscal quarter                ended April 30, 2007, and to which this certification is attached                as                Exhibit 32.1 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as                amended;                and |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | (ii)   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |

|   | By: Name: | */s/                Mark A. McLeary*Mark                A. McLeary |
|--------|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Title:         | Chief                Executive Officer and Chief                   |
|   |           | Financial                Officer                                   |
|   |           |                                                               |
|   | Date:          | June                18, 2007                                       |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.*
Abatement Order filed November 25, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00528-CV

____________

HO & HUANG PROPERTIES, L.P. AND SW PARKWAY MANAGEMENT, 

INC., Appellants

V.

PARKWAY DENTAL ASSOCIATES P.A., Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2007-69193

ABATEMENT ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 1, 2014. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The record was not filed. On August 14, 2014, this court ordered the 

court reporter, Michelle Tucker, to file the record within 30 days. When the court 

reporter failed to file the record as ordered, on October 8, 2014 this court ordered 

the court reporter to file the record within 30 days, and instructed the court reporter 
that if the record was not filed, the court would order the trial court to conduct a 

hearing to determine the reason for failure to file the record. The record has not 

been filed with the court. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for 

ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). 

Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely as ordered, we issue the 

following order.

We direct the judge of the 80th District Court to conduct a hearing at 

which the court reporter, appellant’s counsel, and appellee’s counsel shall 

participate (a) to determine the reason for failure to file the record; (b) to establish 

a date certain when the reporter’s record will be filed, and (c) to make findings as 

to whether the court reporter should be held in contempt of court for failing to file 

the reporter’s record timely as ordered. We order the court to prepare a record, in 

the form of a reporter’s record, of the hearing. The judge shall make findings of 

fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward to this court a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions. The hearing 

record and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with the clerk of this court 

within 30 days of the date of this order. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or 

the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. If the court reporter files the 

record prior to the date set for the hearing, the appeal will be reinstated and the trial 

court need not hold a hearing.

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)





I,
      Thomas
      W. Martin, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of ICON Capital
      Corp., the Manager of the Registrant in connection with the Quarterly Report
      of
      ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC (the "LLC") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
      June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
      date
      hereof (the "Quarterly Report") certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.
            The
                Quarterly 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);
                and





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








*Dated:
      December 11, 2007*





*/s/
      Thomas W. Martin*


Thomas
      W.
      Martin


Chairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President of the Manager


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


ICON
      Capital Corp.


Manager
      of ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1389
SANDRA LYNETTE SPENCER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TYCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION; AIR EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-01-949-1) Submitted: September 29, 2003 Decided: October 16, 2003 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Lynette Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Kristin Elise Toussaint, George Andrew Harper, JACKSON LEWIS L.L.P., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Sandra Lynette Spencer appeals the district court’s orders granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment in her employment discrimination action and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Spencer v. Tyco Electronics Corp. , No. CA-01- 949-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 27 and May 7, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Dennis PULLEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 61447.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 22, 1992.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 29, 1992.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 24, 1992.

Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for mov-ant/appellant.

William L. Webster, Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Office of Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent/respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm. The judgments are based upon findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATE OF CEO**     I, Steven M. Skow, Chief Executive Officer of Integrity Bancshares, Inc. (the “Registrant”),do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge: (1) the annual report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certificate isattached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.Dated: March 13, 2007              /s/ Steven M. Skow   Steven M. Skow, Chief Executive Officer
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Cameron Durrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | 1. | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Anavex Life Sciences
      Corp. for the period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | 2. | information contained in the quarterly report on Form
      10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Anavex Life Sciences
Corp.                                  

Date: February 14, 2011

|/s/ Cameron Durrant             | 
|------------------------------- | 
|Dr. Cameron Durrant             | 
|Executive Chairman and Director | 
|(Principal Executive Officer)   | 

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50422

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAIME RODRIGUEZ-MORENO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-816-ALL-AML 

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jaime Rodriguez-Moreno (Rodriguez) appeals from his guiltyplea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States

following deportation. Rodriguez first argues that his sentence

is unconstitutional because it was enhanced for a prior

aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Rodriguez correctly

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed; he raises the issue

solely to preserve it for further review. See Almendarez-Torres
No. 04-50422

-2-

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998); see also United States v.

Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

For the first time on appeal, Rodriguez argues that his

enhanced sentence violates United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

738 (2005), because it was based upon facts that were neither

submitted to a jury nor admitted by Rodriguez. Specifically,

Rodriguez contends that the district court committed plain error

with respect to the U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) and (e) criminal history

determinations that Rodriguez committed the instant offense

1) while on supervised release and 2) within two years after his

release from custody on his prior drug-trafficking conviction. 

He further contends that his sentence is unconstitutional because

it was imposed pursuant to a mandatory application of the

sentencing guidelines. 

Because Rodriguez did not raise these issues in the district

court, this court reviews the arguments for plain error. See

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005),

petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); United

States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Under this standard, Rodriguez must show: (1) an error; (2) that

is clear or plain; (3) that affected his substantial rights; and

(4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public

reputation of his judicial proceedings. See United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993).
No. 04-50422

-3-

Rodriguez makes no showing that the district court would

likely have sentenced him differently under the Booker advisory

scheme. Similarly, there is no indication from the district

court’s remarks at sentencing that it would have reached a

different conclusion. Because Rodriguez has not demonstrated

that his substantial rights were affected, his arguments fail to

survive plain-error review. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 521-22;

Valenzuela-Quevedo 407 F.3d at 733-34.

AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 2356** 

JOHN S. STRITZINGER ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA; VERNON WRIGHT ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 3:14

- cv
- 02409

- TLW )

Submitted : May 1 8 , 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016

Before SHEDD , DIAZ , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John S. Stritzinger , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
John S. Stritzinger appeals the district court ’ s order
adopting the magistrate judge ’s recommendation and dismissing
his complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with a

court order

. * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because Stritzinger ’ s informal brief does not challenge the
basis for the district court’s disposition, Stritzinger has

forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly , we grant Stritzinger leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny
the motion to remand, and affirm the district court ’ s judgment

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* We conclude that Stritzinger timely filed his notice of appeal

. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988).
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, 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 April 1, 2013

t0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146416

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146416

COA: 307000

Ingham CC: 10

- 000568

- FC

RAYNADA JONES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 20, 2012

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00231-CV

____________________

CLEMON LEE WEST, Appellant

V.

KAYLA SAVOIE, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

 Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 126861

__________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant Clemon Lee West filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, in which he 

asserts that he and appellee Kayla Savoie have settled their claims. The motion is 

voluntarily made by West prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.1. No other party filed a notice of appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal.
2

APPEAL DISMISSED.

______________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on February 13, 2019

Opinion Delivered February 14, 2019

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
# EXHIBIT 32

# CERTIFICATE OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report
of Eliason Funding Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), we, David J. Eliason and Lee Liermann, the Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, respectively, 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; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: August 11, 2006

| | /s/ David J. Eliason       
| | ---------------------------
| | David J. Eliason           
| | Chief Executive Officer    
| | /s/ Lee Liermann           
| | Lee Liermann               
| | Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Randall J. Frapart, principal financial officer, 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-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (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 Datrek Miller International, Inc.

Dated March 31,
2006



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Randall J. Frapart     
|Randall J. Frapart         
|Principal Financial Officer