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 annualreport of Photonic Products Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, William S. Miraglia, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidatedfinancial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidatedresults of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

 
| Dated: March  22, 2006 |
|------------------------|
|                   |
|                   | /s/ William S. Miraglia |   |
|                   | William S.  Miraglia |
|                   | Vice  President - Chief Financial Officer |
|                   |  and Secretary |

 

This certification has been furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Sections [302] [906] has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.

 

----
**Exhibit 99.2**

**WRITTEN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350**

          The undersigned, Edward Kirnbauer, the Chief Financial Officer of Procom Technology, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,hereby certifies that:

|   | (i)                                | the Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and |
|--------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                               |                                                                                                                                                                        |
|   | (ii)                               | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                        |
|   |                               |                                                                                                                                                                        |
|   | /s/ EDWARD KIRNBAUER          |
|   |                                    |
|   | **Edward Kirnbauer**               |
|   | **Acting Chief Financial Officer** |
|        |                                    |                                                                                                                                                                             |  |

Date: March 17, 2003
Third District Court of Appeal 

State of Florida 

Opinion filed April 10, 2019. 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 

________________ 

No. 3D18-1371 

Lower Tribunal No. 09-6638 

________________ 

Javier A. Carrillo, et al., 

Appellants, 

vs. 

IndyMac Fed Bank (FSB), et al., 

Appellees. 

 An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Rodolfo A. Ruiz, Judge. 

 Javier A. Carrillo and Mayra E. Farias, in proper persons. 

 Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Kimberly S. Mello and Vitaliy Kats (Tampa), for 

appellee, U.S. Bank National Association. 

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ. 

 PER CURIAM. 

Affirmed on the authority of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). 

Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a) (“After service of the initial brief ... the court may 
 2 

summarily affirm the order to be reviewed if the court finds that no preliminary basis 

for reversal has been demonstrated.”).
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Incentra Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Thomas P.
Sweeney III, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 14, 2006                             By: /s/ Thomas P. Sweeney III
                                                      -------------------------
                                                      Thomas P. Sweeney III
                                                      Chief Executive Officer




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

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                             239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   239
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,168
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       449
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,831)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,831)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered November 9, 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01171

- CV

AMY ROBILIO REED AND AMY ROBILIO REED, P LLC, Appellant s

V.

CENTURION TERMINALS, LLC AND CENTURION PECOS TER MINAL, LLC,

Appellee s

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 18

- 06689



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellants’ November 8, 2018 unopposed motion for extension of

time to file their brief . We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than

December 14, 2018. Because this is an accelerated appeal, we caution that further extension

requests will be disfavored.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
Case 1:11-cv-02605-RBJ Document 4 Filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-02605-RBJ Document 4 Filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MANUEL A. COLON-MONTANER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2239

[August 15, 2024]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; August A. Bonavita, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502023CT003823AXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jaclyn Lopez, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sorraya M. SolagesJones, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00407-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. EDWIN LEHI, JR.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

A Notice of Disposition was filed in the above matter on November 18, 2011. A

Change of Plea hearing is set for Wednesday, December 21, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. 

Counsel for the parties shall deliver all change of plea documents separately to

Judge Daniel’s chambers AND to the Probation Department not later than 72

HOURS before the hearing date. If the documents are not timely submitted, the

hearing will be VACATED. There will be no exceptions to this policy, and

sanctions may be imposed for failure to comply.

 Dated: November 18, 2011.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

d0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

140419 & (26)(27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140419 COA: 294052 Oakland CC: 2006-207430-FC RONDO JUERONIMORE SMITH-BEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 6, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion for appointment of counsel and motion to remand are DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02610-WJM-MJW

PARK MONACO ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss filed

June 1, 2012 (ECF No. 39). The Court having reviewed the Motion and being fully

advised hereby ORDERS as follows:

The Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The above-captioned matter

is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall pay its own attorney’s fees

and costs.

Dated this 4th day of June, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02610-WJM-MJW Document 40 Filed 06/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
178 La. 87

#### In re UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. In re BANK OF NEW ROADS et al.

No. 32458.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 30, 1933.

Bouanchaud & Kearney, of New R\*ads, and Chas. T. Wortham, of Donaldsonville, for Bank of New Roads.

E. R. Stoker, of Baton Rouge, for Louisiana Highway Commission.

Borron, Owen & Borron, of Baton Rouge, for Consolidated Companies, Inc.

A. S. Cain, Jr., of New Orleans, for Sullivan, Long, and Haggerty.

G. Ross Kearney, Jr., of New Roads, for B. Olinde & Soná, Inc.

Claiborne, Claiborne & Shepard, of New Roads, for C. W. Dawson.

Walter Lemann, for United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

ST. PAUL, J.

This is a concursus proceeding brought under the provisions of Act No. 224 of 1918 (page 406) “relating to contracts for public works.”

Plaintiff deposited in the court below the amount admittedly due and called upon various claimants to assert inter sese their several claims to the fund so deposited.

The judge, on the application of plaintiff, appointed a commissioner to hear and report upon the various claims which might be presented.

The relators here, the several claimants for the fund, sought to have said appointment rescinded, but the judge persisted therein; hence this application.

The judge, for his authority to make said appointment, relies upon section 7 of said Act No. 224 of 1918, reading as follows: “That any proceeding brought under this act shall be tried summarily, and shall be referred to a Commissioner *as is now or may hereafter he provided hy law,*who shall report his findings to the Court at the earliest date possible.” (Italics ours.)

But there is no law relating to the appointment of a commissioner in such cases or prescribing his qualifications or the method of proceeding before him, except Act No. 52 of 1912 (page 61) which applies only “to cities of 50,000 population or over.” Hence the section relied upon is defective and inoperative in places of less than 50,000 population; for “a statute which authorizes the result to be brought about, but does not provide the means of bringing that result about, * * * is defective, and can have no operation. Such a statute is in the same condition as those constitutional provisions which, for the same reason of not having provided the means of being carried in effect, are held not' to be self-operative.” Succession of Pizzati, 141 La. 645, 669, 75 So. 498, 507. Such a law is what Ulpian terms “lex minus quam perfecta” or “lex imperfecta,” a law which states the legis*841lative will but fails to provide *a sanction.*“Every law must bave its sanction; that is to say, its means of enforcement. Without such, is can hardly be deemed a law.” Nolan County Commissioners’ Court v. Beall, 98 Tex. 104, 108, 81 S. W. 526, 528.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned the alternative writ of prohibition herein issued is now made absolute, and the order appointing the commissioner herein is set aside.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) by Beverly Hills Bancorp Inc. (the
Company), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |                           
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------
|                     |  | BEVERLY HILLS BANCORP INC.
|                     | 
|Date: August 5, 2005 |  | /s/ JOSEPH W. KILEY III   
|                     |  | Joseph W. Kiley III       
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer   



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 required by Section 906, has been provided to
Beverly Hills Bancorp Inc. and will be retained by Beverly Hills Bancorp Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of
the Form 10-Q.
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

<R>



In connection with the Annual Report of Exchange Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marion Layman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



/s/  Marion Layman



Marion Layman

Chief Executive Officer / President

July 6, 2005

</R>

1



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

<R>



In connection with the Annual Report of Exchange Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Funk, Chief Financial 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 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.



/s/  Thomas E. Funk



Thomas E. Funk

Chief Financial Officer

July 6, 2005

</R>



2
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-88,099-01

EX P ARTE JOSH UA STOCKER, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W-15307-A- 1 IN THE 47T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM RAN DALL COUNTY

Per curiam . R

I C H A R D S O N , N E W E L L A N D W A L K E R , JJ., dissentin g.

O R D E R Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenc ed to life y ear s’ imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Stocke r v. State , No. 07-05-0284- CR (Tex. App.

— Amarillo May 16, 2007) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant claims that two of his co-de fenda nts, Tori Patrick and Guinn Gar cia wer e g rante d

use immunit y ag ree ments two y ear s befor e his trial took place and that both witnesses wer e instructed to lie ab o u t t he ag ree ments. Applicant contends that the prosec utor sponsored his investiga tor to lie about the exis tence of the ag ree ments to bolster the testimony of the co-de fenda nts2

throug h ag g rava ted perjury

. I n response to this Court’s rema nd order , the trial court conducte d a live habea s hear ing and mad e fi n d i n g s of fac t and conclusions of law. The trial court conclude s that Applicant has suffe red a Brady violation by the untimely disclosure of the use immunit y ag ree ment signe d by co-de fenda

nt Tori Patrick, by the State’s denial of the exis tence of the ag ree ment, and by the State’s failure to corr ect misleading testimony about the ag ree ment during Applicant’s trial. The trial court conclude s that it is likely that the jury might have rea ched a differ ent conclusion had they been inf ormed of T ori Patrick’s sig ned use immunity ag ree ment. This Court’s independe nt revie w of the entire rec ord sug g ests that althoug h the State did fail to disclose the exis tence of the signe d use immunit y ag ree ment with Tori Patrick, Patrick did testify at Applicant’s trial that her understanding was that her testimony would not be used ag ainst her. The State did disclose to the defe nse the exis tence of a signe d u s e i m m unity ag ree ment with Guinn Gar cia, and there was testimony from the State’s investiga tor indicating that all the State’s witnesses

wer e g iven an opportunity to sign a u s e immunit y ag ree ment. Ba sed on the entire trial rec ord, it appea rs that the streng th of the other evidenc e at trial was such that the result of the trial would not likely have been differe nt had the jury been inf ormed that Tor i Patrick had sig ned a use immunit y ag ree ment. Relief is denied.

Filed: Apr il 1, 2020 Do not publish
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jackie Olewine, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The statements of the codefendant, made to others in the presence of the defendant and not denied by her, were properly admitted into evidence *(see, People v Baldassara,*151 AD2d 1004, *lv denied*74 NY2d 845; *People v Lord,*103 AD2d 1032, 1033). By failing to raise the argument that the acquittal on the charge of felony murder was inconsistent with the conviction on the charge of burglary in the second degree before the jury was discharged, defendant has failed to preserve that issue for review *(see, People v Alfaro,*66 NY2d 985, 987). That argument is without merit because the jury’s determination that the affirmative defense to felony murder had been established does not negate an essential element of the charge of burglary in the second degree *(see, People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1, 7). Upon our independent review of the record, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.