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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Roderick Bartlett, Chief Financial Officer of TransAct Energy Corp., (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); 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: May 10, 2019

 

 

*/s/ Rod Bartlett*

Roderick C. Bartlett

Chief Financial Officer 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to TransAct Energy Corp. and will be retained by TransAct Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Louis Vucci, Jr., President (Principal Executive Officer) of Diamond Ranch Foods, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:
  November 16, 2009 | /s/ Louis Vucci, Jr.
Louis Vucci, Jr.
President (Principal Executive 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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Louis Vucci, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Diamond Ranch Foods, Ltd  (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:
  November 16, 2009 | /s/ Louis Vucci, Jr.
Louis Vucci, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)

---
**Exhibit
      32**






**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**







Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Viasystems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify that, to the best of their
      knowledge:




The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the
“Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
      in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: 
                3/31/06
            /s/
              David M. SindelarDavid
                M. Sindelar
              Chief
                Executive Officer





Date: 
                3/31/06
            /s/
              Gerald G. SaxGerald
                G. Sax
              Chief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VeriFone Holdings, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   By:
    /s/  Barry ZwarensteinBarry ZwarensteinExecutive Vice President and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate: August 19, 2008
#### Johnny CALMESE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 57084.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 3, 1990.

Henry B. Robertson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 27.26 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule- 84.16(b).
gecsexhibit4v.htm


    

      Exhibit
4(v)

       

      


       

      February
18, 2009

       

      Securities
and Exchange Commission

      100 F.
Street, N.E.

      Washington,
D.C. 20549

      


      
        	
                Subject:

              	 
      	
                General
      Electric Capital Services, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2008 – File No.
0-14804

              


      

      


       

      Dear
Sirs:

       

      Neither
General Electric Capital Services, Inc. (the “Corporation”) nor any of its
subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument with respect to its long-term debt
that is not registered or filed with the Commission and under which the total
amount of securities authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of the
registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with
paragraph (b) (4) (iii) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K
(17 CFR §229.601), the Corporation hereby agrees to furnish to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy of each instrument
which defines the rights of holders of such long-term debt not filed or
incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Corporation’s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.

       

       

       

      
        	
                Very
      truly yours,

                 

                GENERAL
      ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.

                 

              
	
                By:

              	
                /s/
      Kathryn A. Cassidy

              	 
      
	 
      	
                Kathryn
      A. Cassidy

                Senior
      Vice President Corporate Treasury

                and
      Global Funding Operation

              	 
      


      


      
        
           


        

        
          (1)
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Mildred Jane Lindner, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Foundation for Senior Living, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-00630-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 The Court having reviewed the parties' Stipulated Request for Dismissal with 

Prejudice (Doc. 18), filed on July 19, 2018, 

IT IS ORDERED approving the Stipulated Request (Doc. 18) and dismissing this 

action in its entirety, with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action. 

Dated this 19th day of July, 2018. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00630-DJH Document 19 Filed 07/19/18 Page 1 of 1
---

Exhibit 32.1



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

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of
Acrongenomics Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Platon
Tzouvalis hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge:

|1. | The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Acrongenomics Inc..

April 17, 2009

| | /s/
      Platon Tzouvalis          
| | ------------------------------------
| | Platon Tzouvalis                    
| | Chief Executive Officer and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer)       



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Acrongenomics Inc. and will be retained by
Acrongenomics Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

---
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13753]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Networking and Communications Research 
and Infrastructure (NCRI); Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Networking and Communications 
(#1207).
    Date and Time: July 18-20, 1996; 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
    Place: Room 1175, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Mr. Mark Luker, National Science Foundation, 
Room 1175, Arlington, VA 22230 (703-306-1949).
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review & evaluate proposals submitted for the NSFNET 
Connections Program.
    Reason for Closing. The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b.(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 28, 1996.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-13753 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```
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

In connection with the quarterly report of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Narachi President and Chief Executive 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 my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: August 6, 2010



/s/ Michael A. NarachiMichael A. NarachiPresident and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. TEX-J RANCHES, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 10-90-146-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Nov. 20, 1991.

Dan Morales, Atty. Gen., Will Pryor, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Mary F. Keller, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard D. Nay-lor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Highway Div., Mark Heidenheimer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for appellant.

A.W. Davis and Vaughan E. Waters, Davis & Davis, Bryan, for appellees.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and CUMMINGS and VANCE, JJ.

OPINION

CUMMINGS, Justice.

The State condemned 1.7919 acres of land out of Appellee’s 54.99-acre tract for highway purposes. A jury returned a verdict awarding Appellee $4.50 per square foot, or a total compensation of $351,000 for the 1.7919 acres. The State contends that the court erred in (1) admitting evidence of market value considering the 1.7919 acres only as “severed land” and excluding evidence of the value assessed as a pro rata portion of the entire 54.99-acre tract, and (2) in prohibiting the State’s expert witness from testifying about his “economic unit” theory of the subject neighborhood as it related to his appraisal of the 54.99-acre parent tract. We will affirm the judgment.

The facts and issues in this case are similar to those in *State v. Windham,*803 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ granted). We agree with the analysis and reasoning of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in its holding that, if section 21.042(e), Texas Property Code changes the principle of “adequate compensation” as contained in Article I, Section 17, of the Texas Constitution and as defined by the supreme court since 1863, either the supreme court must say so or the constitution must be amended. *See id.*at 341, 342. We adopt the analysis and reasoning in *Windham,*overrule the State’s points, and affirm the judgment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6193

JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 96-6194

JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THERESA A. NOLAN, Judge; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.
2

No. 96-6195

JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN W. HARDWICKE, Chief Administrative Law

Judge,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 96-6196

JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION,

Defendant - Appellee.
3

No. 96-6197

JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN W. HARDWICKE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95-

2459-L, CA-95-2407-L, CA-95-2408-L, CA-95-3348-L, CA-93-3649-L, CA95-1844-L)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Maureen Mullen Dove, Assistant Attorney

General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted these appeals outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain

extensions of the appeal periods within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established

by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its orders on November 19, 1993, January 25, 1995,

July 28, 1995, September 5, 1995, and September 6, 1995; Appellant's notices of appeal were filed on January 19, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of

the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider

this case. We therefore deny certificates of appealability in Nos.

96-6193, 96-6194, 96-6195, and 96-6197, and dismiss all five

appeals. 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.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

O ctober 22 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk October 22 , 2018

15 8 567 ( 36 )

JORDEN CHANCE KULHANEK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 158567

v COA: 341849

Saginaw CC: 17

- 034163

- NM

ALAN A. CRAWFORD and JOHN E.

MELTON,

Defendants

- Appellees

. ______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is

DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable

for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of

the Court an initial partial filing fee of $ 122 .00 , which is 50 percent of his average monthly

deposits for the past twelve months . Appellant must also submit a copy of this order with

the payment and must refile the pleadings that are being returned with this order a s

acknowledgement of his responsib ility to pay the balance of the filing fee . Failure to

comply with this order shall re sult in the appeal being administratively dismissed

. If plaintiff timely pays the partial fee and refiles the pleadings

, monthly payments

shall be made to the Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits

made to appellant’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $ 253 .00. Th at

amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to M CL 600.2963(8), appellant shall not file a new civil action or appeal

with t his Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return

the appellant’s pleadings wi th this order.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6428** 

PEARLIE INGRAM , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 9:14

- cv - 04771

- CMC )

Submitted : December 15, 2015 Decided: January 6, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Pearlie Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Pearlie Lee Ingram appeals t he district court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We affirm. A writ of error coram nobis can be used to vacate a conviction when a fundamental error result ed in conviction and no other means of relief is available. United States v. Denedo , 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009); United States v. Akinsade , 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012)

. But see Carlisle v. United States , 517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996) (“ [I] t is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where a w rit of coram nobis would be necessary or appropriate

. ” ( alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) )

. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to deny coram nobis relief. Bereano v. United States , 706 F.3d 568, 575 (4th Cir.
2 013)

. Applying these standards, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Ingram’s petition for writ of coram nobis. Accordingly, we deny Ingram’s motions to consider new evidence and for oral argument and affirm the judgment of the distr ict court . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

s0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139423 & (18) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139423 

 COA: 290928 

Eaton CC: 96-020408-FH 

TYRONE LAVON KEYS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 29, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.