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

# CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned, Kevan D. Bloomgren, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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/ Kevan D. Bloomgren 
Kevan D. Bloomgren
Chief Financial Officer
Date:  May 15, 2007

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.
H. R. 2175

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To protect infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection

Act of 2002’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,

is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘§ 8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as

including born-alive infant

‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or

of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include every

infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at

any stage of development.

‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect

to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete

expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member,

at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction

breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord,

or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether

the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the

expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced

labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,

expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to

any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to

being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.’’.
H. R. 2175—2

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by

adding at the end the following new item:

‘‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
1 The sec ond paragraph of footnote three in the original

opinion reads as follows:

Furthermore, we must observe that if either the United States Attorney or the Federal Public Defender believes

the colloquy is inadequate under Rule 11, as officers of the court they have “both an obligation and an interest in insuring that a guilty plea proceeding complies with

all constitutional and statutory requirements,” United

States v. Echegollen-Barrueta

, 195 F.3d 786, 790 n.2 (5th Cir. 1999), and accordingly should bring any failure in compliance with Rule 11 to the attention of the court.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-10976

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CUEVAS-ANDRADE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

_________________________________________________________________ December 29, 2000

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED as follows: The second

paragraph of footnote three 1 will be deleted and will be replaced

with the following:Furthermore, we must observe that neither the United

States Attorney nor Cuevas-Andrade’s attorney raised any contemporaneous objections to the district court’s failure to comply with Rule 11. (It should be noted, however, that Cuevas-Andrade is represented by new counsel on appeal.) As officers of the court, attorneys

have “both an obligation and an interest in insuring that

a guilty plea proceeding complies with all constitutional

and statutory requirements,” United States v. EchegollenBarrueta

, 195 F.3d 786, 790 n.2 (5th Cir. 1999), and accordingly should immediately bring any failure in compliance with Rule 11 to the attention of the district

court.

In all other respects, the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1991...... 82.8 21.4 5.8 25.5 2.5 27.6 6.1 7.6 15.1 54.0 

1992...... 83.7 23.6 6.7 24.6 2.9 26.0 6.2 8.0 16.8 52.8 

1993...... 92.6 28.7 6.2 24.7 2.5 30.6 6.1 8.3 17.1 61.0 

1994...... 85.7 16.8 6.4 25.4 3.2 33.9 5.8 7.4 16.5 56.0 

1995...... 84.1 12.7 5.2 27.3 2.7 36.1 5.4 8.3 16.0 54.4 

1996...... 87.3 10.6 4.0 35.9 2.4 34.5 5.0 7.1 13.9 61.3 

1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 

1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 

1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 

2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 

2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 

1999: Q2... 61.8 3.5 3.8 36.4 8.7 9.5 5.4 7.4 16.0 33.0  Q3... 43.9 2.2 3.2 25.0 5.1 8.4 4.6 6.4 13.2 19.7  Q4... 47.0 7.1 5.0 22.0 3.4 9.4 3.0 5.3 13.7 24.9 2000: Q1... 59.4 3.6 4.8 37.6 6.3 7.1 4.1 6.6 12.7 36.0  Q2... 57.4 4.8 4.4 31.5 4.1 12.7 5.1 7.9 15.1 29.3 

 Q3... 42.6 5.1 3.7 23.4 3.0 7.4 3.8 6.3 11.3 21.2  Q4... 41.2 5.8 5.1 17.8 2.3 10.2 3.7 5.3 11.4 20.8 

2001: Q1... 54.3 3.6 4.3 23.7 4.7 18.0 3.3 5.7 13.9 31.4 

 Q2... 58.0 4.1 5.5 25.9 6.7 15.9 4.8 7.1 14.1 32.1 

 Q3... 38.6 4.1 3.5 17.7 2.8 10.5 3.7 5.3 10.2 19.5 

 Q4... 55.6 8.4 5.6 19.4 2.4 19.8 3.2 5.6 12.5 34.3 

2002: Q1... 58.5 6.5 5.4 28.5 3.4 14.7 3.3 5.8 16.1 33.2 

 Q2... 57.9 4.7 5.0 33.1 2.5 12.6 5.3 7.9 15.3 29.4 

 Q3... 56.4 3.3 4.1 29.4 4.3 15.3 4.3 6.0 12.7 33.4 

 Q4... 51.9 6.9 5.9 24.0 1.3 13.7 3.5 5.4 12.9 30.0 

 Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 8, 2020

No. 04-19-00714-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS ex. rel. Todd A. Durden, In His Official Capacity as County 

Attorney,

Appellants

v.

James T. 'Tully' SHAHAN, In His Official Capacities as County Judge; Mark Frerich, In His 

Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Joe Montalvo, In His Official Capacity as County 

Commissioner; Dennis Dodson, In His Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Tim Ward, 

In His Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Kinney County Commissioners Court and 

Kinney County,

Appellee-s

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4845

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss. Appellant is ORDERED to file a response to 

the appellees’ motion on or before January 21, 2020.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-113-01-PB

 

Shane Sylvester

O R D E R

The defendant, Shane Sylvester, moved for court appointed

counsel to assist him in the pursuit of a sentence reduction

based upon the cocaine base ("crack cocaine") amendment to the

Federal Sentencing Guidelines implementing the Fair Sentencing

Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010) ("Fair

Sentencing Act") (document no. 33). That amendment was given

retroactive effect on November 1, 2011. Because there is no

reasonable probability that the defendant is entitled to a

sentence reduction based on this retroactive amendment, his

request for counsel is DENIED. 

The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, by omission, prohibits persons

who received a career offender guideline sentence from receiving

a sentence reduction based upon the retroactive application of

the cocaine base amendment. Specifically, the United States

Sentencing Commission amended § 1B1.1, (Application Instructions)
and adopted a three-step approach to determine the sentence to be

imposed. Under § 1B1.1, the court first determines the guideline

range and then considers any departures or variances. Consistent

with that approach, the proposed guideline at §1B1.10, comment

(n.1[A]) was also amended to reflect that "eligibility for

consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by

an amendment listed in subsection (c) that lowers the applicable

guideline range (i.e., the guideline range that corresponds to

the offense level and criminal history category determined

pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before consideration

of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any

variances.)." The only exception to reducing the defendant's

term of imprisonment to a term that is less than the minimum of

the amended guideline range would be a sentence which resulted

from a downward departure pursuant to a government motion for

substantial assistance, which has no application in this case.

Thus, because the defendant received a career offender

guideline sentence, and that guideline was not lowered by the

2010 Fair Sentencing Act cocaine base amendment, he is not

eligible for a further reduction of his sentence. As a result,

2
it would be futile, and an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer

monies, to appoint counsel to pursue a sentence reduction on his

behalf. Defendant's motion to appoint counsel (document no. 33)

is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: December 28, 2011 __________________________________

Paul J. Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Shane M. Sylvester, pro se

Counsel of Record

3
---



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 of Carrington Laboratories, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I Carlton E. Turner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
 18 U.S. C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



Date:     March 28, 2008



/s/ Carlton E. TurnerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

AKHNATEN CASEY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D2 02 3

- 1949

April 19, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Samantha L. Ward

, Judge

.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, BLACK , and LABRIT , JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending October 15, 2011FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodPATRIOT FINANCIAL PARTNERS LP                                                                                           CICPatriot Financial Partners, GP, L.P., Patriot Financial Partners, L.P., Patriot Financial Partners Parallel, L.P., Patriot Financial Partners, GP, LLC, Patriot Financial Managers, L.P., Patriot Financial Manager, LLC. and Messrs. Ira M. Lubert, W. Kirk Wycoff and James J. Lynch, all of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to purchase up to 24.9 percent of Porter Bancorp, Inc., Louisville, KY.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 09/21/2011Polonia Bancorp, Inc.                                                                                                   * SLHC Formation
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2143 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2143

            To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2001

 Mr. Weldon of Florida (for himself, Mr. Armey, Mr. Doolittle, Mrs. Jo 
  Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Toomey, Mr. DeMint, Mr. 
 Wamp, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Graves, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Tancredo, 
 Mr. Ney, Mr. Goode, Mr. Paul, Mr. Largent, Mr. Flake, Mr. Pombo, Mr. 
Aderholt, Mr. Shimkus, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Terry, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Manzullo, 
   Mr. Putnam, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. 
   Isakson, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Pitts, and Mr. Everett) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. ESTATE TAX REPEAL MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``shall not apply--'' and 
        all that follows and inserting ``(other than title V) shall not 
        apply to taxable, plan, or limitation years beginning after 
        December 31, 2010.'', and
            (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``, estates, gifts, and 
        transfers''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in section 901 of the Economic Growth and 
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned, Kevan D. Bloomgren, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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/ Kevan D. Bloomgren 
Kevan D. Bloomgren
Chief Financial Officer
Date:  February 13, 2007

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02195-PAB-MEH

MARSHA ATENCIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING SOOPERS, 

ANN PIERCE, 

SCOTT BRINSON, 

NASH FORACI, and

CHARLES BIGLEN,

Defendants.

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.

Pursuant to the Order of Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered on December 5, 2012

it is

ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Brief

[Docket No. 17] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s first and fourth claims for relief are

dismissed without prejudice as preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 et seq. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the case is remanded to the District Court for the City

and County of Denver, where it was originally filed as Civil Action 2011 CV 4619. It is

Case 1:11-cv-02195-PAB-MEH Document 34 Filed 12/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant King Soopers, Ann Pierce, Scott Brinson,

Nash Foraci, and Charles Biglen are AWARDED their costs, to be taxed by the Clerk of

the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 7th day of December, 2012.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/Edward P. Butler

Edward P. Butler

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02195-PAB-MEH Document 34 Filed 12/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### KAREN GARDENS, Inc. v. WALEN et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

March 19, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 27, 1954.

Fleming, O’Bryan &■ Fleming,' Fort Lau-derdale, for appellant.

J. B. Patterson, Fort Lauderdale, for ap-pellees.

BUFORD, Justice.

The appeal is from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in a tort action wherein it was alleged, in effect, “that on or about April 8, 1951, at approximately 1:00 o’clock A.M., the defendant, Karen Gardens, Inc., was possessed of and in control, and had the responsibility and duty of maintaining the safe condition of a certain breezeway situate just west of the swimming pool located at Karen Club Apartments in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and did: * * * so negligently allow the floor which was constructed with terrazzo to be in- a slick and slippery and therefore in an unsafe condition, after knowledge by the defendant of said condition, and so negligently failed to warn the plaintiff, Jackie Walen, of the known dangeriand unsafe condition of the said floor of said breezeway, and so negligently permitted the said floor in the said breezeway to be in slick and slippery condition after knowledge thereof, and which slick and slippery condition was not observable to tenants of the Karen Club Apartments using the said breezeway, that the negligent acts * * * caused the plaintiff, Jackie Walen, to fall while she was lawfully walking upon and using said breezeway * * *; that as a proximate result thereof, plaintiff, Jackie Walen, was seriously and permanently injured.”

The complaint stated a cause of action.

Whether' the proof. established as true the allegations of the complaint was a question for the jury to determine and one about which reasonable minds might differ. See Mertz v. Krueger, Fla., 58 So.2d 160, and cases there cited.

We have examined the evidence in this case and feel that we are not warranted in disturbing the verdict and judgment. Therefore, the judgments are affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., DREW, J., and TAYLOR, Associate Justice, concur.