alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.4

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



August 2, 2005
                                               /S/ STEVEN D. DAVIS
                                             ______________________
                                               Steven D. Davis
                                               Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.2

    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 Quarterly Report of Park Premier Mining Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert W. Dunlap, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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:

(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.



/s/ Robert W. Dunlap
-------------------------------
Robert W. Dunlap,
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ June 25, 2013 ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2012

- 1042 COMMIL USA, LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant

- Appellant

. Decided: June 25, 2013

Precedential Opinion

______________________ The following changes have been made to the concu rring

- in

- part, dissenting

- in

- part opinion filed by Circuit Judge O’M ALLEY in the opinion released June 25, 2013: Page 9, line 35, “We unanimously” is changed to “Judge Prost and I”. Page 10, line 5, “the majority concludes” is changed to “Judges Prost and Newman conclude”.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Solera National Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period ended
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|                      |  | SOLERA NATIONAL BANCORP, INC.                                                                                                
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 27, 2008 |  |                                                                                                                              
|                      |  | By: /s/ Paul M. FergusonPaul M. Ferguson
President
(Principal Executive Officer)                                             
|Dated: March 27, 2008 |  |                                                                                                                              
|                      |  | By: /s/ Robert J. FentonRobert J. Fenton
Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer
(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Solera National
Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Solera National Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
<Page>

                             P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.

                                  EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of P&F Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Joseph A. Molino,
Jr., 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:

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

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


/s/ Joseph A. Molino, Jr.


Joseph A. Molino, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00187

- CR

MICHAEL RAY WARD APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGME NT

----------

We have considered “ Appellant = s Motion To Withdraw Notice Of Appeal

And Dismiss Appeal

. ” The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of

appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having

been delivered b efore we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

1 See Te x. R. App. P. 47.4.2

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 19, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40974

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

RODOLFO SARMIENTO-CERVANTES,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CR-318-1

Before SOUTHWICK, WILLETT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodolfo SarmientoCervantes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sarmiento-Cervantes has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40974 Document: 00514520657 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
No. 17-40974

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40974 Document: 00514520657 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
#### Antonio Leo v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railway Company (2 cases).

Motions denied, with ten dollars costs in each case.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Gary Cope, Chief Executive Officer of Orko Silver Corp. (the Company) do hereby 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.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





Date: April 25, 2008





/s/  Gary Cope

Gary Cope

President and Chief Executive Officer













#
Exhibit 4.37

 

Equity interest in Renova: summary of the Share Purchase Agreement

 

On June14, 2013 Cemig GT signed a share purchase agreement with Petrobras, for acquisition of 49% of the equity of Brasil PCH (‘the Brasil PCH Share Purchase Agreement’).

 

On August 8, 2013, Cemig GT signed an investment agreement with Renova Energia to establish, among other matters, the structuring of Chipley SP Participações S.A., owned 40% by Cemig GT, 59% by Renova Energia and 1% by Renovapar, and assignment to Chipley of the Brasil PCH Share Purchase Agreement.

 

As a result of the stockholder Jobelpa S.A., holder of 2% of the voting stock, exercising its joint sale (‘tag-along’) right, the equity holding purchased in the acquisition was 51% of the voting stock of Brasil PCH.

 

Completion of the acquisition, and actual transfer of shares, was made conditional upon certain conditions precedent, including consent of the creditors of Brasil PCH, consent from Aneel, and approval of the transaction by the Brazilian Monopolies Authority (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica, or Cade). Following compliance with the conditions precedent, the investment, in the amount of R$ 739.9 million, was made on February 14, 2014.
#### Thomas Bascombe and Others, Appellants, *v.*Mary J. Marshall, Respondent, and Others, as Executors, etc., of Mary Ann Bascombe, Deceased, and Emma Lyons.

(No. 2.)

Second Department,

December 30, 1908.

Practice — trial by court—findings after dismissal of complaint.

Although the court at trial dismissed the complaint in a suit to have a deed declared to be a mortgage, it is not thereafter precluded from filing a decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law as a basis for a final judgment of dismissal.

*519Appeal by the plaintiffs, Thomas Bascombe and others, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Richmond Special Term, presided over by the justice who held the Special Term for the trial of issues herein, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Richmond on the 6th day of April, 1908, denying the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate and set aside the findings of fact theretofore made by the court.

*Alexander Thain [Otto G. Foelker*and *Charles A. Strauss*with him on the brief], for the appellants.

*George M. Pinney, Jr.,*for the respondent.

Jenks, J.:

This is a suit in equity to declare a deed a mortgage. The record on the appeal from the judgment now before us *(Bascombe*v. *Marshall, No. 1,*129 App. Div. 516), which is in amplification of the record on this appeal, shows that at the close of the plaintiffs’ case the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was no proof of the cause of action alleged in the complaint. The court granted the motion, under exception. Thereafter the court filed its decision that contained findings of fact that the grantor made, executed and delivered to the defendant Marshall a warranty deed of the premises in question, which was absolute and was not given or intended as a mortgage, and conclusion of law that Marshall was the owner of the premises, entitled to the possession thereof, and that she was entitled to final judgment in her favor dismissing the complaint. Thereupon a judgment was entered in accord. Generally, “ a mere order for a decree ” in equity, “ before it is extended in due form and in apt and technical language, cannot be held to be a complete record of the judgment of the court.” *(Thompson*v. *Goulding,*5 Allen, 84, 85; cited in Freem. Judg. [4th ed.] § 39.) Moreover, the disposition at the trial was not the decision in the case, inasmuch as the decision must be in writing and filed in the clerk’s office. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.) The oral declaration of the court of its intended disposition of the case as adverse to the plaintiff was not conclusive upon the court, and did not preclude it from such decision as it finally determined to render. And when it *520came to the making of its decision in the manner prescribed by law, it was entirely proper that it should state it in its present form. *(Wood*v. *Lary,*124 N. Y. 87.)

The order is affirmed, with costs.

Woodward, G-aynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 816 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 816

To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the treatment of 
   certain transportation and subsistence expenses of retired judges.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1995

  Mr. Hayes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the treatment of 
   certain transportation and subsistence expenses of retired judges.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That section 456(f) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:
    ``(f) The official duty station of a retired judge shall be 
established in accordance with section 374 of this title. The official 
duty station of a retired judge shall be considered as his or her home 
for purposes of section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
regulations issued thereunder. Reimbursed transportation and 
subsistence expenses paid under this section to a retired judge 
recalled or designated and assigned to perform judicial duties shall, 
if such expenses are not allowable as a deduction under such section 
162 after the application of the preceding sentence, be excludable from 
income under such Code, whether or not the judge is required to remain 
away from his or her official duty station overnight in performing such 
duties, and regardless of the duration of such duties.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          19,016
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    941,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,221
<PP&E>                                       2,610,775
<DEPRECIATION>                                 693,985
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,983,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          826,131
<BONDS>                                         10,954
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       350,407
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,795,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,983,272
<SALES>                                        445,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               445,230
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               641,663
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (210,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (211,087)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (211,087)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
This financial data schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the consolidated financial statements included in P & F
Industries, Inc.'s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           593,308
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 14,194,026<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                   26,454,559
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              42,632,821
<PP&E>                                        18,327,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,049,293
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                62,160,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         26,570,725
<BONDS>                                        7,670,228
<COMMON>                                       3,504,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                    23,923,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  62,160,403
<SALES>                                       54,983,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              55,558,804
<CGS>                                         38,232,924
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 38,232,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               973,328
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,749,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,800,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,949,373
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,949,373
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .79
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE NET OF ALLOWANCE
</FN>




</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-07-00380-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

ENER RENE GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

ROCIO RIVERA GARCIA, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on June 2, 2008. On August 4,

2008, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and

that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this

letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly
2

injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. Appellant has not responded to the

Court’s notice. 

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a

motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 30th day of October, 2008.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gerson NUNGARAY-BELTRAN, also known as La Grande, Appellant.

No. 02-1930.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 28, 2003.

Decided March 11, 2003.

Before BOWMAN, MURPHY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After Gerson Nungaray-Beltran (Nungaray-Beltran) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and 846, the district courtWest’s N.C.G.S.A. § l-l1 sentenced him to 145 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Nungaray-Beltran filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing the district court erred in applying a firearm enhancement and in denying him safety-valve relief. He also argues: (1) the government failed to prove whether the drugs underlying his offense were 1 or d-methamphetamine, or whether they were methamphetamine at all; (2) the Attorney General improperly reclassified methamphetamine in powder form from a Schedule III to a Schedule II controlled substance; and (3) counsel was ineffective at sentencing. After careful review of the record, we affirm.

We reject Nungaray-Beltran’s arguments for reversal. The firearm enhance-*910merit was proper, as firearms were found with drug-packaging materials both at Nungaray-Beltran’s residence and at his rental house. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 3; *United States v. Cave,*293 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.2002) (standard of review); *United States v. Jones,*195 F.3d 379, 383-84 (8th Cir.1999). As a result, safety-valve relief was preempted. *See*U.S.S.G. § 501.2(a)(2).

Further, section 841(b) does not differentiate between 1 and d-methamphetamine, *see United States v. Maza,*93 F.3d 1390, 1400 n. 4 (8th Cir.1996), *cert. denied,*519 U.S. 1138, 117 S.Ct. 1008, 136 L.Ed.2d 886 (1997); Nungaray-Beltran acknowledged in his plea agreement he was pleading guilty to a charge involving 500 grams or more of “methamphetamine”; and laboratory reports introduced at sentencing reflected the substance in question was methamphetamine, *see United States v. Hyatt,*207 F.3d 1036, 1037-38 (8th Cir. 2000). Finally, Congress has given the Attorney General authority to transfer drugs from one schedule to another regardless of the drug’s initial placement, *see*21 U.S.C. §§ 811(a)(1) and 812(c), and the ineffective-assistance claim is not properly before us, *see United States v. Martin,*59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir.1995).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.