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

 

Certification Pursuant

To 18 U.S.C. 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cyanotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William R. Maris,Vice President – Finance and Administration of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)                                      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

 

2)                                      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:    | February 8, 2006 |                       | /s/ William R. Maris |   |
|----------|-----------------------|----------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|     |                  | William R. Maris           |
| * * | * *              | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1917 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1917

 To include Idaho and Montana as affected areas for purposes of making 
 claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 
        note) based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2007

    Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Tester) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To include Idaho and Montana as affected areas for purposes of making 
 claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 
        note) based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF IDAHO AND MONTANA IN RADIATION EXPOSURE 
              COMPENSATION.

    Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon; and
            (3) by adding after subparagraph (C) the following:
                    ``(D) the State of Idaho; and
                    ``(E) the State of Montana; and''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                        Subsidiaries of Platinum Holdings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                JURISDICTION OF
SUBSIDIARY                                                       INCORPORATION
---------------------------------------------------             ---------------
<S>                                                             <C>
Platinum Underwriters Bermuda, Ltd..........................    Bermuda
(100% owned by Platinum Holdings)

Platinum Regency Holdings...................................    Ireland
(100% owned by Platinum Holdings)

Platinum Underwriters Finance, Inc..........................    Delaware
(100% owned by Platinum Regency Holdings)

Platinum Underwriters Reinsurance, Inc......................    Maryland
(100% owned by Platinum Underwriters Finance, Inc.)

Platinum Administrative Services, Inc.......................    Delaware
(100% owned by Platinum Underwriters Finance, Inc.)

Platinum Re (UK) Limited....................................    United Kingdom
(100% owned by Platinum Regency Holdings)

Platinum UK Services Company Limited........................    United Kingdom
(100% owned by Platinum Underwriters Bermuda, Ltd.)

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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 1626 New
York Associates Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                  10,191,000 <F1>
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,718,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              (748,000)
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                 268,489,000
<DEPRECIATION>                        (133,198,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         164,498,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                282,751,000 <F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<COMMON>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                            (129,299,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           164,498,000
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         9,827,000
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            8,649,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       6,764,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (5,517,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (5,517,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                            (5,517,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (3,945.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (3,945.52)
<FN>
<F1>       Cash includes $9,818,000 of restricted cash.
<F2>       Includes accrued interest of $43,720,000.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 11, 2008*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.228 Total Miscellaneous Financial Claims** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1634

JESSE R. LANCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WONDERLYN BELL; G. TURNER PERROW; K. DOUGLAS

THORNTON; BENJAMIN H. CULBERTSON; JACK M.

SCOVILLE, JR.; DAVID H. MARING; FRED H. MOORE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-96-1984-2-8BD)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse R. Lance, Appellant Pro Se. K. Douglas Thornton, THORNTON

LAW FIRM, Georgetown, South Carolina; William Walter Doar, Jr.,

MCNAIR & SANFORD, P.A., Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellees;

G. Turner Perrow, Fred H. Moore, Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Lance v. Bell, No. CA-96-1984-2-8BD (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 1997). We deny

Perrow's motion for summary disposition. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

  We consent to the use in the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on  Form S-1 of U.S. Geothermal Inc. of our report, dated June 16, 2005, relating  to the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ deficiency,  and cash flows for the year ending March 31, 2005, and for the period inception,  February 26, 2002, to March 31, 2005, which report appears in the Annual Report  on Form 10-KSB of U.S. Geothermal Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2005.

 

| Vancouver, Canada  | “Morgan & Company” |
|--------------------|------------------------------------|
|               |                               |
| September 25, 2007 | Chartered Accountants              |

 

| Tel: (604) 687-5841 |                                     | P.O. Box 10007 Pacific Centre |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Fax: (604) 687-0075 | Sute 1488 - 700 West Georgia Street |
| www.morgan-cas.com  | Vancouver, B.C. V7Y 1A1             |

----
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.98-50448

Summary Calendar

JULIAN CHARLES MITCHELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DELTA AIR LINES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(A-97-CV-605)

NOvember 12, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Julian Charles Mitchell appeals from a

favorable but disappointing summary judgment of the district court,

awarding him $2,500.00 against Defendant-Appellee Delta Air Lines,

Inc., for damage to Mitchell’s electric wheelchair which he had he

checked with Delta when flying from Atlanta, Georgia to his home in1 See 14 C.F.R. § 254.4.

2

Austin, Texas . The amount of the judgment was for the maximum

amount under a tariff posted by Delta and is double the amount of

the standard limit of liability for loss or destruction of a

passenger’s personal property. 1

In our de novo review of this summary judgment case, we have

carefully considered the entire record on appeal, the essentially

uncontested facts of the case, and the legal argument advanced by

able counsel in their respective appellate briefs; and we have

considered the Order and Judgment filed by the district court on

March 23, 1998. Like the district court before us, we are

sympathetic with Mitchell’s predi cament but are firmly convinced

that the applicable law affords no relief greater t han the

$2,500.00 maximum specified in Delta’s duly posted tariff. We base

our conclusion on the same reasoning reflected in the district

court’s careful a nd complete analysis, and, rather than wasting

judicial resources simply to paraphrase the opinion of the district

court, we adopt it in toto, incorporate it herein by reference, and

attach a copy h ereto. For those reasons, the judgment of the

district court is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 21.1**

** **

**SUBSIDIARIES OF PHOTONIC PRODUCTS GROUP,INC.***

 

The following is a list of theSubsidiaries of Photonic Products Group, Inc.:

 
| **NAME**                    |   | **STATE OF  INCORPORATION** |   | **NAMES  UNDER WHICH  SUCH SUBSIDIARIES DO  BUSINESS** |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   |                        |   |                                                   |   |
| Laser Optics Holdings, Inc. |   | New Jersey                  |   | Laser Optics                                           |   |

 

----
#### Phillips, Exrx., *v.*City of Cleveland.

(No. 25452

Decided June 19, 1935.)

*Mr. Gerald A. Doyle*and *Mr. Francis B. Kavamagh,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Ezra Z. Shapiro,*director of law, and *Mr. Alfred Lawrence,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the rea*50son no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Matthias and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Jones and Day, JJ., not participating.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ANTOINE MICHAEL MERCADEL, AKA Catt, AKA Tony, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-50105 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00921-DSF-2
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014 ** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Antoine Michael Mercadel appeals his conviction for conspiracy to bribe a public official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Mercadel contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment based on 

# FILED
MAY 15 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).outrageous government conduct. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The criminal conspiracy was well underway when the government began its investigation. Indeed, the government’s involvement started after Defendant joined the conspiracy; after Defendant identified a correctional officer to participate in the scheme; after the conspirators determined the necessary specifications for the laptop; after Defendant established an outside contact to obtain the laptop; and after money was transferred to Defendant’s contact to purchase the laptop. “Because the governmentdid not initiate the criminal activity, but rather sought to crack an ongoing operation, its conduc t was not outrageous and did not violate due process.” United States v. Gurolla , 333 F.3d 944, 950 (9th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. So , 755 F.2d 1350, 1353 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Our sense of justice is not shocked . . . wh en the government merely infiltrates a criminal organization, approaches persons already engaged in or anticipating a criminal activity, or provides valuable and necessary items to the conspiracy.” (internal citations omitted)). Additionally, the district court did not clearly err in finding no evidence that the Bureau of Prisons purposefully delayed or cancelled Defendant’s prison transfer. See Gurolla , 333 F.3d at 950 (“[W]e accept the district court’s factual 2findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”). AFFIRMED.

3
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 210 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 210

   To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to fraudulent 
 representations about having received military declarations or medals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 2013

Mr. Heller (for himself and Mr. Tester) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to fraudulent 
 representations about having received military declarations or medals.

    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 ``Stolen Valor Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT RECEIPT OF MILITARY 
              DECORATIONS OR MEDALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 704 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``wears,''; and
            (2) so that subsection (b) reads as follows:
    ``(b) Fraudulent Representations About Receipt of Military 
Decorations or Medals.--Whoever, with intent to obtain money, property, 
or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a 
recipient of a decoration or medal described in subsection (c)(2) or 
(d) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, 
or both.''.
    (b) Addition of Certain Other Medals.--Section 704(d) of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``If a decoration'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) In general.--If a decoration'';
            (2) by inserting ``a combat badge,'' after ``1129 of title 
        10,''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Combat badge defined.--In this subsection, the term 
        `combat badge' means a Combat Infantryman's Badge, Combat 
        Action Badge, Combat Medical Badge, Combat Action Ribbon, or 
        Combat Action Medal.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 704 of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended in each of subsections (c)(1) and (d) by striking ``or 
(b)''.
                                 <all>
```
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 7, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.117 Life Insurance Companies** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the annual report on Form10-KSB of East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (the “Company”)for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the “Report”), I, Jill Zimmerman,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.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   /s/ Jill Zimmerman        |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Dated: March 31, 2005            |

 

----
#### Theodores TSAMOURIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44203.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 2, 1971.

John G. Gilleland, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and James Moseley, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense, murder without malice; the punishment, three (3) years.

Appellant’s retained counsel alleges four grounds of error. It is noted that no authority, statutory or otherwise, is cited in support of his assertions. Nevertheless, we have tried to “identify and understand such point[s] of objection,” and they are “reviewed notwithstanding any generality [or] vagueness.” Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

Appellant first urges error in the trial court’s having overruled his motion for an instructed verdict of “not guilty on the basis that the State failed wholly to prove its case of murder with malice.”

*142The ruling of the court was clearly proper. The evidence presented by the State included testimony that the appellant shot the deceased with a pistol. Malice can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon. Grant v. State, 449 S.W.2d 480 (Tex.Cr.App., 1970). See 4 Branch’s Ann.P.C.2d, Sec. 2189, p. 534. Appellant’s first ground of error is overruled.

Appellant’s second ground of error complains of the trial court’s overruling of his motion for a new trial wherein he asserted a prosecution witness gave perjured testimony. No evidence is offered in support of this contention at the hearing on the motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial is a mere pleading and does not prove itself. Brown v. State, 402 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Cr.App., 1966). Appellant’s second ground of error is overruled.

The third ground of error asserts that the conduct of the deceased’s mother in and about the courtroom constituted jury tampering. Appellant’s counsel gave testimony to support this allegation. At the hearing conducted on this question, other evidence was introduced which refuted his contention.1 The trial court was satisfied that no tampering was shown. The decision on a motion for a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. In the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, its decision will not be disturbed on appeal. Bryan v. State, 406 S.W.2d 210 (Tex.Cr.App., 1966). Appellant’s third ground of error is overruled.

Appellant’s fourth ground of error complains that the court erred in not allowing appellant to examine the jury immediately after they had returned their verdict as to possible misconduct. The trial Court asked upon what authority appellant’s motion was made and none was offered. No authority is cited by appellant here and we know of none. Appellant’s fourth ground of error is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. As a general rule manifestations of grief by a relative of the deceased will not alone provide a ground for a new trial. Todd v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 553, 248 S.W. 695 (1923) ; See 41 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 58, pp. 160-161.