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

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**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; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

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

|                               |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Steven              Goetz |   |   |   |
| Steven              Goetz          |   |   |        |
| Chief Executive Officer            |   |   |   |
CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Pacific Copper
Corp. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2009 (the “Form
10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
September 18, 2009





/s/ Andrew BrodkeyAndrew BrodkeyChief
      Executive OfficerPacific
      Copper Corp.





Dated:
September 18





/s/ Rakesh MalhotraRakesh Malhotra, C.A.,Chief
      Financial OfficerPacific
      Copper Corp.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pacific Copper Corp. and will be retained by Pacific Copper Corp. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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 OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Madrona Ventures Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Reese
Baglole, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
10th day of March, 2008.


/s/ Reese Baglole
-----------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
================================================================= This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 216 Trathony Griffin and Michael Godwin, Appellants, v. Sirva, Inc. and Allied Van Lines, Inc. Respondents.

Stuart L. Lichten, for appellants. George W. Wright, for respondents.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Certification of questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of this Court's Rules of Practice, accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.
Decided September 20, 2016
EXHIBIT 10.22
 RCN CORPORATION
2005 STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN
(as amended and restated through December 29, 2009)
 ARTICLE 1
 EFFECTIVE DATE AND PURPOSE
 Effective Date
 Purpose of the Plan
 ARTICLE 2
 DEFINITIONS
  1934 Act
 Affiliate
 Award
 Award Agreement
 Base Price
 Board
 Change in Control




---



##### 



Code
 Committee
 Covered Employee
 Employee
 Exercise Price
 Fair Market Value
 Grant Date
  2




---



##### 



Immediate Family
 Incentive Stock Option
 Independent Contractor
 Member of the Board
 Non-Qualified Stock Option
 Option
 Other Stock Award
 Participant
 Performance Criteria
 Performance Goals
 Performance Period
 Period of Restriction
 Plan
  3




---



##### 



Restricted Stock
 Qualified Performance-Based Compensation
 Restricted Stock Unit RSU
 Rule 16b-3
 Share
 Stock Appreciation Right SAR
 Stock Award
 Subsidiary(ies)
 Ten Percent Holder
 ARTICLE 3
 ADMINISTRATION
 The Committee
  Authority and Action of the Committee
  4




---



##### 



Delegation by the Committee provided however
 Decisions Binding
 ARTICLE 4
 SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN
 Number of Shares
 Limit on Individual Awards
 Lapsed Awards
  5




---



##### 



ARTICLE 5
 STOCK OPTIONS
 Grant of Options provided however
 Award Agreement
 Exercise Price provided however provided further
 Expiration Dates provided however
 Exercisability of Options
 Method of Exercise
 Restrictions on Share Transferability
 Option Exchange Offer
  6




---



##### 



ARTICLE 6
 STOCK AWARDS
 Grant of Stock Awards
 Stock Award Agreement
 Transferability/Share Certificates
 Other Restrictions
 General Restrictions
 Legend on Certificates
 Removal of Restrictions
 Voting Rights
 Dividends and Other Distributions
  7




---



##### 



ARTICLE 7
 STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHTS
 Grant of SARs provided however i.e.
 Base Price and Other Terms
 SAR Agreement
 Expiration Dates provided however
 Payment of SAR Amount
 Payment Upon Exercise of SAR
 ARTICLE 8
 OTHER STOCK AWARDS
 Grant of Other Stock Awards
 ARTICLE 9
 PERFORMANCE-BASED AWARDS
 Purpose provided, however
  8




---



##### 



Applicability
 Procedures with Respect to Qualified Performance-Based Awards
 Payment of Qualified Performance-Based Awards
 Additional Limitations
 ARTICLE 10
 MISCELLANEOUS
 No Effect on Employment or Service
 Participation
 Indemnification
  9




---



##### 



Successors
 Beneficiary Designations
 Nontransferability of Awards provided however provided further
 No Rights as Stockholder
 Unfunded Status
 Withholding Requirements
 Withholding Arrangements
  10




---



##### 



No Corporate Action Restriction
 Restrictions on Shares
 Changes in Capital Structure
     11




---



##### 



ARTICLE 11
 AMENDMENT, TERMINATION AND DURATION
 Amendment, Suspension or Termination provided however
 Duration of the Plan
 ARTICLE 12
 LEGAL CONSTRUCTION
 Gender and Number
 Severability
 Requirements of Law
 Governing Law
 Captions
 Incentive Stock Options
  12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEITH ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-CV-14209 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

DONALD WILLIAMSON and

GARY HAGLER,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S

AMENDED WITNESS LIST AND AFFIDAVITS (# 28)

For the reasons stated on the record at a September 2, 2009 hearing, defendants

Donald Williamson's and Gary Hagler's motion for to strike plaintiff Keith Robert's Amended

Witness List and the affidavits of Lieutenant David Winch, Captain Dale Porter, Captain

Scott Sutter, and Captain Beth Whaley as proffered in opposition to the defendants' motion

for summary judgment is hereby DENIED on condition that plaintiff cooperate with the

defendants in scheduling depositions of these individuals, if requested, as soon as

practicable, and that defendants be granted reasonable time to file their own amended

witness list. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2009

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:08-cv-14209-GCS-DAS Doc # 35 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 690
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

September 2, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-14209-GCS-DAS Doc # 35 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 691
NO. 12-09-00229-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§

IN RE: JIMMY RAY RIGSBY,

RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Jimmy Ray Rigsby, seeks a writ of mandamus against Respondent, the Honorable

Reba D. Squyres, District Clerk of Angelina County, Texas, directing her to file his petition for

expunction of records pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, article 55.01. We deny the

writ.

The district clerk has a ministerial duty to accept and file all pleadings presented for filing.

In re Simmonds, 271 S.W.3d 874, 879 (Tex. App.–Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Bernard,

993 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (O’Connor, J.,

concurring). But a court of appeals has no authority to issue writs of mandamus against a district

clerk except to protect its jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (Vernon 2004)

(providing that each court of appeals or a justice of a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus

and all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE

ANN. § 22.221(b)(1) (Vernon 2004) (providing that each court of appeals may issue writs of

mandamus against a judge of a district or county in the court of appeals district). 
Attached to Relator’s mandamus petition are what appear to be copies of the documents Respondent returned 1

to him. Although the file mark is almost illegible, we can see that the documents have been stamped “filed.” Relator

points out that there is no signature of the clerk and no handwritten cause number on the returned documents. However,

there is a handwritten initial beside the file mark, which is a common manner of identifying the deputy clerk who

processed the document for filing. Consequently, we cannot say that Respondent did not file Relator’s documents.

2

Here, Relator alleges that Respondent failed to file the documents he presented for filing,

including a petition for expunction. However, he does not contend, and we cannot conclude, that

1

Respondent has interfered with this court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to

consider Relator’s petition. See In re Bernard, 993 S.W.2d at 454. Accordingly, Relator’s petition

for writ of mandamus is dismissed. 

 SAM GRIFFITH 

 Justice

Opinion delivered September 2, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
#### Glen ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56472.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 27, 1990.

*910John A. Klosterman, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Christine A. Alsop, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

GARY M. GAERTNER, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, Glen T. Rogers, appeals from a memorandum order granting, in part, his Rule 27.26 motion. Appellant pled guilty on January 6, 1986, to second degree murder and was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment. The motion court granted appellant’s Rule 27.26 motion and ordered that appellant be resentenced. Appellant received a thirty year term of imprisonment upon resentencing on November 7, 1988. Appellant’s request for leave to file late notice of appeal to this court was granted. We remand.

Appellant advanced two claims in his Rule 27.26 motions. First, appellant claimed that his original sentence of fifty years exceeded the statutory maximum for second degree murder as this court had held in *State v. Liggins,*725 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Mo.App., E.D.1987). In *Liggins,*this court held that, where a term of years is imposed, the maximum punishment for second degree murder is thirty years imprisonment. *Id.*The motion court entered an order on October 3, 1988, granting appellant relief on this claim and ordered that appellant be resentenced.

Appellant’s second claim was that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately inform him of the proper range of sentencing for second degree murder and that this rendered his plea involuntary. The motion court, in its order granting partial relief, never addressed this particular claim.

Former Rule 27.26(i) required the motion court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on each claim for relief. While it could be implied that the motion court ruled adversely to appellant on this claim since the court granted partial relief, an appellate court will not supply findings and conclusions by implication. *Logan v. State,*712 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Mo.App., W.D.1986).

Since we find that the motion court erred in failing to comply with Rule 27.26(i), we remand the case back in order that findings and conclusions can be made regarding appellant’s ineffective assistance claim.

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Diane J. Humetewa Date: October 20, 2023

USA v. Michael Lacey, et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Kevin Rapp, Austin Berry, Margaret Perlmeter, Andrew Stone, Peter 

Kozinets

Attorneysfor Defendants: Paul J. Cambria Jr., Retained for Defendant Lacey, present; Bruce S. Feder, 

Retained (Knapp) and Eric W. Kessler, CJA for Defendant Spear, present; Gary S. Lincenberg and Gopi 

K. Panchapakesan, Retained for Defendant Brunst, present; David S. Eisenberg, CJA for Defendant 

Padilla, present; Joy M. Bertrand, CJA for Defendant Vaught, present.

Defendants: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ

JURY TRIAL (Day 22):

9:01 a.m. Court reconvenes. 9:03 a.m. Jury present. Megan Lundstrom examined further. Exhibit

2036a is admitted. 9:10 a.m. Cross-Examination by Mr. Eisenberg. 9:14 a.m. No additional crossexamination and no redirect. Government rests. 9:15 a.m. Jury exits courtroom. Discussion held with 

counsel. 9:21 a.m. Jury present. 9:27 a.m. Jury released for the day. Recess. 

9:44 a.m. Court reconvenes. Argument re: Defendants’ oral Rule 29 Motion heard. 11:36 a.m. Recess.

11:52 a.m. Court reconvenes. Argument re: Defendants’ oral Rule 29 Motion resumes. 12:15 p.m. IT 

IS ORDERED taking the oral Motion under advisement. Discussion held re: Verdict. As to the Motion 

to Seek Admission of Brunst’s Testimony re: State of Mind (Doc. 1879), IT IS ORDERED the 

Government shall file its Response by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, October 24th, instead. No reply is 

permitted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties submit their proposed Final Jury Instructions 

by close of business on Monday, October 23rd. 12:45 p.m. Court in recess until Tuesday, October 24, 

2023 at 9:00 a.m. Jurors will report at 1:00 p.m. on October 24th. 

Court Reporter Teri Veres

Deputy Clerk Liliana Figueroa

Start: 9:01 AM

Stop: 12:45 PM

Total: 4hrs 11min

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1881 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 1
PUBLISH IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-14258 D. C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-02142-JHH SHERRY ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District ofAlabama ORDER FOR REHEARING EN BANC 

### Before DUBINA, ChiefJudge, TJOFLAT, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL 

## MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. ' BY THE COURT: The court having been polled at the request ofone ofthe members ofthe 

### Court and amajority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 1 of 2having voted in favor of it (Rule 35, Federal Rules ofAppellate Procedure), the Suggestion ofRehearing En Banc is DENIED.

Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from balance
sheets and statements of operations and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000         
       
<S>                         <C>            <C>           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS         12-MOS        10-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-27-1997    DEC-28-1996   DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>              DEC-29-1996    DEC-31-1995   FEB-28-1995
<PERIOD-END>                DEC-27-1997    DEC-28-1996   DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                              731            570           327
<SECURITIES>                          0              0             0
<RECEIVABLES>                    20,277          8,291         2,929
<ALLOWANCES>                        372             48            20
<INVENTORY>                      13,312          5,141         1,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 37,329         14,795         5,374
<PP&E>                           65,016         23,831         6,470
<DEPRECIATION>                    4,242          1,347           269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  213,707         92,225        27,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            31,644         20,315         5,372
<BONDS>                         120,000          7,551             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            35,458         25,681         5,891
<PREFERRED>                           0              0             0
<COMMON>                              0              0             0
<OTHER-SE>                       (2,730)           351           721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    213,707         92,225        27,484
<SALES>                         164,288         82,993        34,481
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                164,288         82,993        34,481
<CGS>                           113,288         54,379        22,107
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   142,268         71,544        30,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 12,653          5,132         2,008
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     60             36             7
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               10,068          3,825         1,155
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (761)         2,456           721
<INCOME-TAX>                         26          1,209             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (787)         1,247           721
<DISCONTINUED>                        0              0             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,294            604             0
<CHANGES>                             0              0             0
<NET-INCOME>                     (3,081)           643           721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0              0             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0              0             0
        

</TABLE>
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2006 (the Report), I, James H. Brennan, Vice President, Financial Operations of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 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.



|               |  |  |  |                                     
|-------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|March 31, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ James H. Brennan                
|               |  |  |  | James H. Brennan                    
|               |  |  |  | Vice President, Financial Operations
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 24, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-15863

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 01-06504-CV-CMA

BRUCE SIMMONS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(August 24, 2007)

Before DUBINA, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Bruce Simmons, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
2

district court’s denial of his “Motion for Court to Vacate Fine or Alternatively to

Set a Payment Schedule,” construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition

challenging the fine portion of Simmons’s sentences on two counts of cocaine

distribution, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Simmons argues that, because the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) sets his fine

payment through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, the district court

impermissibly delegated its judicial authority to the BOP. Simmons relies on

United States v. Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2002). Although he describes his

challenge as an attack on the execution of his sentence, Simmons makes no

argument other than improper delegation.

We review de novo the availability of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1280 (11th Cir. 2006).

A prisoner who fails to challenge a monetary judgment at sentencing or on

direct appeal cannot challenge this penalty for the first time in a collateral

proceeding, absent exceptional circumstances. Dohrmann, 442 F.3d at 1280-81

(discussing a collateral challenge to an order of restitution). Exceptional

circumstances “are analogous to a showing of cause and prejudice to overcome a

procedural default for raising a claim for the first time in a habeas corpus petition. 

Id. at 1281.
3

While Simmons characterizes his argument as an attack on the execution of

his sentence, a charge of improper delegation challenges the validity of the

sentence itself. See Prouty, 303 F.3d at 1254-55; Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d

709, 711-12 (8th Cir. 2002). The record demonstrates that Simmons failed to

challenge the constitutionality of his fine at sentencing or on direct appeal, and he

makes no attempt to show exceptional circumstances justifying this failure. 

Accordingly, he cannot make such a challenge now. See Dohrmann, 442 F.3d at

1280-81. Because we conclude that the district court correctly denied Simmons’s

§ 2241 petition, we affirm the court’s order.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 RULE
13a-14(1) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report of Axis Technologies Group, Inc., (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kipton
Hirschbach, Chief Executive officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:
 
 
 (1)
              The
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
 (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      company.
 
 
 Date:
November 18, 2008
 
 
 By:
                  /s/
      Kipton HirschbachKipton
      HirschbachChief
      Executive Officer