alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 LILM, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George I. Norman, III,
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.


/s/   GEORGE I. NORMAN, III
---------------------------------------
George I. Norman, III
Principal Accounting Officer
June 25, 2007



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by 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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Henry Staples Potter, Respondent, v. Bartholomew Dunn, as Executor, etc., of Thomas J. Dunn, Deceased, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
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 Gold Holdings Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Demitro Marianovich , 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 to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

By /s/ Demitro Marianovich  
Demitro Marianovich
#### Maria Luz MARTINEZ; Eduardo Martinez, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Perry TARRANT, Sgt.; Bobby Martin, Sgt.; Robert Callan, Officer, Badge No. 23302; Paul Albert Patterson, Officer; Robert Allen, Officer; K. Vaughn, Officer, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-15991.

D.C. No. CV-99-00332-WWE.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2003.*

Decided March 24, 2003.

Before KOZINSKI, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*999MEMORANDUM **

1. Even assuming that the substitution motion served to retract Plaintiffs’ express waiver regarding Judge Marquez’s familial relationships, Plaintiffs never asked Judge Eginton to revisit rulings on the ground of Judge Marquez’ alleged partiality. The failure to object to those rulings when the district court still had an opportunity to correct any irregularity constitutes acquiescence. *See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp.,*486 U.S. 847, 868, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (stating that remedies for violations of the recusal statute depend on making “a timely request for rehef’); *see also Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.,*259 F.3d 1101, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that failure to raise issues or raising issues too late constitutes waiver); *E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co.,*967 F.2d 1280, 1295 (9th Cir.1992) (“To hold otherwise would encourage parties to withhold recusal motions, pending a resolution of their dispute on the merits, and then if necessary invoke [recusal] in order to get a second bite at the apple.”).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to present Plaintiffs expert witness, who was disclosed after the court’s deadline for discovery had passed. *See Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Sandlin,*846 F.2d 1175, 1181 (9th Cir.1988) (“District court judges possess broad authority to regulate the conduct of discovery....”). Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the late disclosure was due to excusable neglect. Fed. R.Civ.P. 6(b). Nor did Plaintiffs demonstrate that the failure to comply with mandatory disclosure requirements within the discovery period was “substantially] justified]” or “harmless.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

mnorabl e Enlcs T . Parker 

county Attorney 

aray County 

Pampa, Texas 

Dear We Parker: Opinion Ho. O-7290 

ROl The pay8 jury fee 

Tour letter stats8 that a 

Justice Court, and that the 

abil1t.v to p&y Costs,~ and 

resulted In a judment for 

al;t then appeaY ed to the 

fee may be obtained. 

Article 2432 of the Revised Btatute8, which ia now Rule 

BSQ of CIVII Woeedure, provides that the suooe8aful party ia the 

Justice Court shall reaorer his oosts l ~!r .athe lnYoser st except 

-bea otherwise provided by law- 

~u]e 121 of the Civil Procedure, rhlch was Artlale 2086, 

provides that in'the County and District Court the eU~ceaati~ Wrt7 
tory tn1t teorm 

AtmnBu8RuKRALO?nuA8 

l o .* w. Ba r a s 

A88Z8tASt
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 amended Annual Report of Arotech Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert S. Ehrlich, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that
the amended 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 amended Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
  By:     /s/ Robert S. Ehrlich
 Robert S.
Ehrlich
 Chairman and
CEO
 (Chief Executive
Officer)
 
 Date:     April
28, 2008
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 12 85

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ W ei do ng Su n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Je ffer so n B . Ses si on s, II I, Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 26 , 20 17 Fi le d: Octo be r 4, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Ch in es e ci ti zen W ei do ng Su n p et it io ns for rev ie w of a Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA) or de r affi rm in g, wit ho ut op in io n, an Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (IJ ’s) Ju ne 20 16 de ci si on de nyin g hi s se co nd m ot io n se ek in g to res ci nd a rem ov al or de r en te red in ab se nt ia , an d to reo pe n pr oc eed in gs (m ot io n to res ci nd /re op en )

. See Has hm i v. Mu ka se y , 53 3 F.3 d 70 0, 70 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (wh ere BIA affi rm s IJ ’s de ci si on wit ho utop in io n, th is co ur t rev ie ws IJ ’s de ci si on as fin al ag en cy act io n)

. Su n’s se co nd m ot io n

to res ci nd /re op en w as ba se d on hi s cl ai m th at hi s se co nd at to rn ey pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l. In hi s br ie f to th is co ur t, Su n ha s no t pr es en te d an y arg um en t

as to why th e reject io n of hi s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m was erro r. Thu s, he ha s waiv ed th e is su e. See Lem us -Ari ta v. Ses si on s, 85 4 F.3 d 47 6, 47 9 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (wai ve r).

Su n’s br ie f se ek s to ch al le ng e on ly th e ba si s fo r th e IJ ’s Nov em be r 20 15 or de r de nyin g hi s fir st m ot io n to res ci nd /re op en

. Thi s co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e Nov emb e r 2 0 1 5 or de r, ho wev er, be cau se Su n di d no t ap pe al th e de ni al to th e BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )(1 ) (al ie n m us t ex ha us t al l av ai la bl e ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s be fo re co ur t m ay rev ie w fin al or de r of rem ov al ); Bal tt i v. Ses si on s, 86 2 F. 3 d 71 8, 72 2- 23 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (al ie n m us t pu rs ue al l st ag es of ad m in is tra ti ve rev ie w, an d al so rai se al l is su es be fo re ag en cy ); se e al so 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .39 (ex cep t whe n cert ifi ed to BIA, IJ ’s de ci s i o n b e c o mes fin al up on ex pi rat io n of ti m e to ap pe al if no ap pe al is
ta ke n) . The p et it io n fo r rev ie w is di sm is se d fo r la ck of ju ris di ct io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
Exhibit
      31.2





**CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Larry
      K. Davis, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Integrated Micrometallurgical
      Systems, 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 and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:





a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
      is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this report is being prepared;





b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by this report based on such evaluation.





5.
      The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      function):





a)
      all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
      which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to
      record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b)
      any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.





Date:
      November 20, 2007




/s/
              Larry K. DavisLarry K. DavisChief
                Financial Officer, Vice President (Principal Financial and Accounting
                Officer)




1
#### SENTILLES et al. v. FREY BROS.

No. 1457.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 14, 1935.

George R. Blum, of Donaldsonville, for appellant. ■ ■

Wm. A. Porteous, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellees.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

Mr. and Mrs. John D. Sentilles, plaintiffs-appellees, move to dismiss the appeal herein taken by Mose P. Bloomensteil, trustee, on the ground that the appeal was not perfected within the time fixed in the order of the lower court granting the appeal. The minutes of the lower court show that the appeal was granted on April 16, 1934. The attorney of record for appellees accepted service of notice of the appeal on April 18, 1934.

The appeal was devolutive only and was returnable to this court on May 10, 1934, but was not filed in this court until February 11, 1935, some 9 months later than the time fixed for its return.

It appears to us that the motion should prevail.

For the reasons stated, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal herein taken by M. F. Bloomensteil, trustee, be dismissed at the cost of appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      13,764,145
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  262,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 81,081,649
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,315,872
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,600,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             107,171,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     47,790,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       462,553
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,037,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               107,171,139
<SALES>                                     59,662,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            69,432,328
<CGS>                                       53,852,726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               58,123,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,921,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             327,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,230
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             59,230
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,230
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01



</TABLE>
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Jack S. Martin, appellant.

178 N. W. 2d 573

Filed June 26, 1970.

No. 37526.

A. Q. Wolf and Bennett G. Hornstein, for appellant.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Bernard L. Packett, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, and Newton, JJ., and Chadderdon, District Judge.

Smith, J.

A jury found defendant guilty of burglary, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment for 8 to 10 years. Defendant appeals. He complains that the court failed to instruct the jury on testimony of an accomplice and that the sentence was excessive.

No jury instruction on testimony of an accomplice was requested. Failure of the court to caution the jury on evidence given by an accomplice, in the absence of special request, will not ordinarily constitute *700reversible error. Cornell v. State, 138 Neb. 708, 294 N. W. 851 (1940), modified on other grounds, 139 Neb. 878, 299 N. W. 231 (1941). Refusal of a requested instruction on the subject distinguishes Jungclaus v. State, 170 Neb. 704, 104 N. W. 2d 327 (1960).

The maximum sentence for burglary is 10 years. § 28-532, R. R. S. 1943. A police officer eyewitness positively identified defendant as a participant in the burglary of the liquor store at 1514 North 24th Street. The adult probation officer reported defendant’s age to be 30. Defendant had been sentenced in 1959 to imprisonment for 3 years for assault with intent to commit robbery. He was discharged after having served 25 months. Afterward he received 2 fines and a jail sentence of 15 days for 3 minor misdemeanors.

Where punishment of a statutory offense is left to the discretion of the court, a sentence imposed within the statutory limits will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion appears. State v. Burnside, *ante*p. 234, 175 N. W. 2d 1 (1970). No abuse appears here.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6386 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 476
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6386

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2022

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             August 4, 2022

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 450 West Schaumburg Road in Schaumburg, Illinois, as the ``Veterans 
        of Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. VETERANS OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 450 West Schaumburg Road in Schaumburg, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Veterans 
of Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 476

117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6386

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 450 West Schaumburg Road in Schaumburg, Illinois, as the ``Veterans 
        of Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 4, 2022

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 15





PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP



November 6, 1996



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that Phelps Dodge  Corporation  has  incorporated  by reference our
report dated October 9, 1996 (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statements on
Auditing  Standards  No.  71)  in  the  Prospectus   constituting  part  of  its
Registration  Statements on Form S-3 (No. 33-44380) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-26442,
33-6141, 33-26443, 33-29144,  33-19012, 2-67317, 33-34363, 33-34362,  33-62486).
We are also aware of our responsibilities under the Securities Act of 1933.


Yours very truly,




Price Waterhouse LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6325 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6325

              For the relief of Melecio Andazola-Morales.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2021

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Melecio Andazola-Morales.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MELECIO ANDAZOLA-MORALES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Melecio Andazola-Morales 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Melecio Andazola-Morales enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
he shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, 
if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 
section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Melecio Andazola-Morales, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Melecio 
Andazola-Morales shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 
any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
                                 <all>
```