alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

JMP GROUP INC.

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of JMP Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Joseph A. Jolson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of 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, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |                                         
|----------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|                  |  |  |  |                                         
|                  |  | 
|Date: May 8, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Joseph A. Jolson                    
|                  |  |  |  | Joseph A. Jolson Chief Executive
Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO     18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NORTHWEST CHARIOTS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James Davies, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: April 2, 2007
|-------------------

By: /s/ James DaviesJames DaviesChief Financial Officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer

---
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit  23.01



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-77060, 33-93048, 333-49561, 333-49561, 333-56349, and 333-
55827) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-82089 and
333-94641) of our report dated February 7, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of ATMI, Inc. included in its
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                              Ernst & Young LLP


Stamford, Connecticut

February 25, 2000
ATMI, INC.
Subsidiaries
 State or Jurisdiction of Incorporation orEntity
    
    OrganizationAdvanced Technology Materials, Inc.
    
    DelawareATMI Ecosys Corporation
    
    CaliforniaAdvanced Delivery & Chemical Systems Nevada, Inc.
    
    NevadaAdvanced Delivery & Chemical Systems Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawareAdvanced Delivery & Chemical Systems Operating, LLC
    
    DelawareAdvanced Delivery & Chemical Systems Manager, Inc.
    
    DelawareATMI Materials, Ltd.
    
    TexasATMI Korea Co. Ltd.
    
    South KoreaATMI Packaging, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaATMI International Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareATMI Taiwan Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareATMI Belgium Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareATMI Belgium, LLC
    
    DelawareATMI Packaging N.V.
    
    BelgiumATMI International Trading Co. Ltd.
    
    ChinaATMI Japan KK
    
    JapanATMI Taiwan Co. Ltd.
    
    TaiwanATMI GmbH
    
    GermanyATMI PTE Ltd
    
    SingaporeATMI Fab Services Ireland, Ltd
    
    IrelandATMI Acquisition BVBA
    
    BelgiumLevTech, Inc.
    
    Delaware
#### Carl MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 67619.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 13, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 2, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied May 28, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Sp. Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

*538Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

On September 15, 1992, movant, Carl Mitchell, was delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections to serve a six-year sentence as a prior drug offender under § 195.285 RSMo Cum.Supp.1990 on the charge of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202 RSMo Cum.Supp.1990. On December 15, 1993, fifteen months after delivery to the Department of Corrections, he filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief.

The motion court held a hearing and denied relief. Rule 24.035(b) allows ninety days after delivery to the custody of the Department of Corrections to file a motion for post conviction relief. “The time limitations contained in Rules 24.035 and 29.15 are valid and mandatory.” *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). Dismissal of the motion was mandatory. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jose Luis Soto-Ibarra, 

Defendant.

No. CR-18-50051-PHX-GMS

DETENTION ORDER 

 In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the issue of 

detention was addressed at a hearing on March 28, 2018. The Court was informed that 

the defendant is subject to other custody and is not eligible for release at this time. 

 The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is subject to 

other custody and should be similarly detained in this case. If circumstances change such 

that defendant is no longer in custody in the other matter, defendant shall have leave to 

request that the matter of detention be reopened in this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending further proceedings. The 

defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of the Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 
- 2 - 

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 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court 

proceeding. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should a motion for review/reconsideration of 

this detention order be filed, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion 

for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third 

party custodian. 

 Dated this 30th day of March, 2018.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Radio One, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that: (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date:June 14, 2007     By: /s/ Scott R. Royster         Name: Scott R. Royster    Title: Executive Vice President                   and Chief Financial Officer  *A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Radio One,Inc. and will be retained by Radio One, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.*
**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**

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

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

| /s/                Richard A. Robert                                                                                                                                |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Richard                A. Robert                                                                                                                                    |   |
| Executive                Vice President andChief                Financial Officer(Principal                Financial Officer) November                14, 2008 |   |

----
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 

Jenifer Anderson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mesa Public Schools District, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00692-PHX-DJH 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the parties’1 Joint Stipulated Motion to Extend 

Plaintiff’s Deadline to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the 

Pleadings. (Doc. 30). Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation and allowing Plaintiff up to and 

including October 22, 2018 to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the 

Pleadings. 

 Dated this 19th day of October, 2018. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge 

 1

 All Defendants except John and Christine Shea are parties to the stipulation. 

Case 2:18-cv-00692-DJH Document 31 Filed 10/19/18 Page 1 of 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 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Ismael Morales-Hernandez, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-18-00365-TUC-RCC (JR) 

ORDER 

 The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 40), the supplemental pleadings filed by the parties, and thus rules as follows; 

 This case, unlike the case cited by the defendant, Pereira v. Sessions, is a case in 

which the defendant was present and participated in the proceedings resulting in his 

removal. The fact that the initial notice did not include the date, time and place is of no 

moment. The defendant exercised his right to due process and fully participated and 

therefore cannot claim that because the initial notice was deficient the Immigration Court 

lacked jurisdiction. 

 The Motion to Dismiss, as recommended by the Magistrate Judge, is not granted 

and the case proceeds forward. 

 Dated this 14th day of September, 2018.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed , Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief Denied as Moot, and Memorandum Opinion filed July 29, 2014 .

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 14
- 00576
- CR

IN RE KHAI LE , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF HA BEAS CORPUS County Criminal Court at Law No. 13 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1881713


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 15, 2014 , relator Khai Le filed a petition for writ of habeas c orpus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. I n the petition, relator contends that she is illegally restrained for an alleged violation of conditions of community supervision, because the trial court lost jurisdiction over the underlying proceedings and the continued prosecution of re lator will violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. Also on July 15, 2014, relator2 filed an emergency motion for temporary relief. See Tex . R. App. P. 52.8(b)(3), 52.10. We are unable to consider relator’s petition, because this cour t has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(d) (providing original habeas jurisdiction to the Courts of Appeals where a relator’s liberty is restrained by virtue of an order, process , or commitment iss ued by a court or judge in a civil case ); see also Lewis v. State , 191 S.W.3d 225, 229 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2005, pet ref’d); Watson v. State , 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2002, pet ref’d); Ex parte Hearon , 3 S.W.3d 650, 650 (Tex. App.

— Waco 199 9, orig. proceeding) ( mem. op. , per curiam) . Original jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the count y courts, or a judge of those courts. Tex. Code Crim . Proc. art . 11.05. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus for want of juris diction. We also deny as moot relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief. 1

PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Donov an
. Do Not Publ ish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1 Relator previously filed a petition for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition pertaining to her assertion that the trial court has lost jurisdiction over the underlying proceedings. See In re Khai Le , Nos

. 14

- 14

- 00446

- CR and 14

- 14

- 00447

- CR. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition remains pending with this court; this opinion only disposes of relator’s newly

- filed petition for writ of habeas corpus and corresponding motion for tempor ary relief in No. 14

- 14

- 00576

- CR.
Opinion issued March 24, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00170-CV

———————————

IN RE BRANDON PAREE CHRISTOPHER, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Brandon Paree Christopher, has filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus.1 We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), (g); TEX. R. APP.

P. 9.4.

1 The underlying case is Shelita Denedra Mosley v. Brandon Paree Christopher, 

Cause no. 2006-18875, pending in the 309th District Court of Harris County, 

Texas, the Honorable Linda Marie Dunson presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, and Hightower.
H. Res. 741 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 6, 2009. 

Whereas Jumpstart, a national early education organization, 

is working to ensure that all children in the United 

States enter school prepared to succeed; 

Whereas year-round, Jumpstart recruits and trains college 

students and community volunteers to work with preschool children in low-income communities, helping them 

to develop the language, literacy, and social skills they 

need to succeed in school and in life; 

Whereas since 1993, Jumpstart has engaged nearly 21,000 

adults to serve almost 80,000 young children in communities across the Nation; 

Whereas Jumpstart’s Read for the Record, presented in partnership with the Pearson Foundation, is an annual campaign, now in its fourth year, that brings national attention to the crisis in early education by organizing the 

world’s largest shared reading experience; 

Whereas the goals of the campaign are to raise national 

awareness about the importance of early education by engaging 1,000,000 children reading the same book on the 

same day, provide books to children in low-income households through donations and book purchases and sponsorship, and prepare students for school success; 
2 

•HRES 741 EH 

Whereas Jumpstart hopes to engage more than 1,000,000 

children to read ‘‘The Very Hungry Caterpillar’’ in this 

record-breaking celebration of reading, service, and fun, 

all in support of the Nation’s preschoolers; and 

Whereas October 8, 2009, would be an appropriate date to 

designate as national Jumpstart’s ‘‘Read for the Record 

Day’’ because it is the date Jumpstart aims to set a new 

world record for the world’s largest shared reading experience on the same day: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the designation of ‘‘Read for the 

Record Day’’; 

(2) commends Jumpstart’s Read for the Record in 

its fourth year; and 

(3) encourages adults, including grandparents, parents, teachers, and college students to come together 

with children of all ages to create the world’s largest 

shared reading experience to show their support for early 

literacy and Jumpstart’s year-long program working 

with preschool children in low-income communities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
exv10w88






Exhibit 10.88




SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS



Non-employee directors of US Airways Group, Inc. (“US Airways Group”) and US Airways, Inc. (“US
Airways”) currently receive the following compensation for their Board service:




Annual Retainer: $20,000

Annual Committee Chair Retainer (other than Audit): $4,000

Audit Committee Chair Retainer: $10,000

Attendance Fees: $1,000 for each Board or committee meeting attended




2008 Equity Incentive Plan Grants



In accordance with the terms of the 2008 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2008 Plan”) and subject to the
discretion of the Board of Directors (the “Board”), each incumbent non-employee director will
receive, following each annual meeting of stockholders, an annual equity award of fully vested
shares of common stock, with such vested shares having an aggregate Fair Market Value (as defined
in the 2008 Plan) on the date of grant equal to $60,000, rounded down to the next whole number of
shares.




Travel Benefits



Non-employee directors and their immediate family members, including dependent children under the
age of 19 (or under the age of 24 for children who are unmarried, dependent full-time students) but
not including parents, as well as a limited number of non-eligible family members and unrelated
persons, are provided free transportation on US Airways and US Airways Express, along with
reimbursement for federal and state income taxes in connection with that travel.




Expense Reimbursement



Non-employee directors will also be reimbursed for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred
in connection with attendance at meetings upon submission of receipts.




Stock Ownership Guidelines



Effective as of June 11, 2008, each incumbent non-employee director is required to retain, until
his or her completion of service on the Board, a number of shares equal to at least 50% of the
cumulative shares of common stock granted to that director pursuant each annual equity award
granted in the three years following the effective date of these guidelines. For each non-employee
director who joins the Board on or after the effective date of these guidelines, he or she is
required to retain, until his or her completion of service on the Board, a number of shares equal
to at least 50% of the cumulative shares of common stock granted to that director pursuant each
annual equity award granted in each of his or her first three years on the Board.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 30, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1905

Lower Tribunal No. 19-17006

________________

Daniel Guenni,

Appellant,

vs.

Advance Business Capital LLC, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, 

Judge.

Ricardo E. Pines, P.A., and Ricardo E. Pines, for appellant.

Rennert Vogel Mandler & Rodriguez, P.A., and Thomas S. Ward; 

Ullman & Ullman, P.A., and Michael W. Ullman and Jared A. Ullman (Boca 

Raton), for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. 
2

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Daniel Guenni challenges a September 20, 2021 final 

judgment rendered by the trial court after it conducted a bench trial. In the 

final judgment, the trial court determined, under Texas law, that appellee 

Advance Business Capital, LLC, d/b/a Triumph Business Capital (“Triumph”) 

was a third-party beneficiary of a Guaranty agreement between Guenni and 

TBK Bank. Pursuant to the Guaranty, Guenni agreed to guarantee payment 

obligations that his company, Vika Logistics, LLC, owed to TBK Bank and 

the Bank’s “affiliates.” The trial court ruled that, under Texas law, Triumph 

had standing to enforce the Guaranty against Guenni and thereby recover 

monies owed by Vika to Triumph. We agree with the trial court that Triumph 

is an “affiliate” of TBK Bank, that Guenni and TBK Bank intended to secure 

a benefit for Triumph in the Guaranty, and that Guenni had entered into the 

Guaranty directly for Triumph’s benefit. First Bank v. Brumitt, 519 S.W. 3d 

95, 102 (Tex. 2017) (“Specifically, a person seeking to establish third-partybeneficiary status must demonstrate that the contracting parties ‘intended to 

secure a benefit to that third party’ and ‘entered into the contract directly for 

the third party’s benefit.’” (quoting Stine v. Stewart, 80 S.W. 3d 586, 589 

(Tex. 2002))). 

Affirmed.