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 quarterly report of Titan Global Holdings Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bryan
      M. Chance, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. 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 and 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.








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Titan Global Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Titan Global Holdings,
      Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.


Date: July
              14, 2006
            
            /s/ Bryan
              M.
              ChanceBryan
              M. ChanceChief
              Financial Officer
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2275 

To expand project eligibility to certain public infrastructure projects under 

chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2014 

Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Mr. 

MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To expand project eligibility to certain public infrastructure 

projects under chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transit-Oriented De5 velopment Infrastructure Financing Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 601(a)(12) of title 23, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

10 the end; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2275 IS

1 (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period 

2 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(E) a project to improve or construct 

5 public infrastructure that is located within 

6 walking distance of and accessible to a fixed 

7 guideway transit facility, passenger rail station, 

8 intercity bus station, or intermodal facility, in9 cluding transportation, public utility, and cap10 ital projects described in section 5302(3)(G)(v) 

11 of title 49, and related infrastructure.’’. 

12 (b) ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS.—Section 

13 602(a)(5)(B) of title 23, United States Code, is amend14 ed— 

15 (1) by striking ‘‘(B) INTELLIGENT TRANSPOR16 TATION SYSTEM PROJECTS.—In the case’’ and in17 serting the following: 

18 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTIONS.— 

19 ‘‘(i) INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION

20 SYSTEMS.—In the case’’; and 

21 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

22 ‘‘(ii) TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOP23 MENT PROJECTS.—In the case of a project 

24 described in section 601(a)(12)(E), eligible 

25 project costs shall be reasonably anticiVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:09 May 03, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2275.IS S2275

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2275 IS

1 pated to be equal to or exceed 

2 $10,000,000.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00212-CV

Charles Fred Meshell

v.

Katherine Antoinette Lippi §

§

§

§ From the 415th District Court

of Parker County (CV14-1368)

May 12, 2016

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Ch arles Fred Meshell s hall pay all of the

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Lee Ann Daup hinot______

________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
#### ANDREA VERHULST v. GEORGE DURNYA, T/A GEORGE’S TRIANGLE DINER, RUSSELL KJERSCAARD AND GRACE ROTH.

October 15, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.

                    These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as                           ( print page 53723)                        salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.                

                    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the                     **Federal Register**                    . NSF intends to publish a notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF Web site:                     *http://www.nsf.gov.*                     This information may also be requested by telephoning, 703/292-8182.                

Dated: August 27, 2010.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-21813 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### John Lee SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46099.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 25, 1973.

*155Ralph Taite (Court appointed on appeal), Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Mike G. McCollum, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of robbery by assault; punishment was assessed at 99 years’ confinement.

The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, and appellant contends there is not sufficient evidence to hold him as a principal. The meat department manager of a Piggly Wiggly store in Dallas testified that on March 11, 1970, the day of the robbery, he observed appellant and two other men inside the store. His suspicions became aroused since all three men had on dark hats and three-quarter length coats. He further testified that the appellant walked alongside the meat counter snapping his fingers, yelling “Hey, man, come here a minute.” The witness complied; appellant then proceeded to the front of the store. Appellant was observed nodding at one of his companions. The three men left the store together.

The assistant manager of the store testified that on the day in question, he observed three persons enter the store together. He identified appellant as one of these three persons. The witness stated he saw one of the other men walk up to the manager and hold a small gun on him and hand him a paper sack. Also, he observed appellant motion to one of the female checkers in the store to come over toward him. When the three persons exited the store, the witness attempted to follow them and get the license number of their automobile. However, one of the offenders pulled a gun and the witness became fearful for his safety and abandoned the pursuit.

The evidence is clearly sufficient to support the finding of appellant as a principal and the ultimate verdict.

In another ground, appellant alleges that the court erred in not removing the court-appointed attorney. He states in his brief that the “record is clear that the appellant desired attorneys other than those that had been appointed.” The record evidences a competent and vigorous defense. As this Court has only recently held, a trial court is under no obligation to search for an attorney until it selects one suitable to the accused. Rogers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 833 (1973).

*156In appellant’s last ground, he charges that the court erred in not having a hearing outside the presence of the jury on the issue of photo identification, when the matter first arose. The portion of the record we are referred to indicates that it was *defense counsel*who raised the issue of the photo identification. Also, a hearing outside the presence of the jury was, in fact, conducted and the witness testified that his identification of appellant was based strictly on what he observed during the robbery. Appellant has shown no error.

A pro se brief filed by appellant has been examined, but we find nothing which merits further discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### MARIANA HAMPARIAN v. KNOLL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY.

December 23, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of HealthAxis Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John M. Carradine, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company and Ronald K. Herbert, Chief FinancialOfficer, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 

 
| By: /s/ John M. Carradine  |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |
| John  M. Carradine         |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer   |   |
| November 14,  2008    |   |
|                       |   |
|                       |   |
| By:  /s/ Ronald K. Herbert |   |
|                       |   |
| Ronald  K. Herbert         |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer   |   |
| November 14,  2008    |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE THIRD QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,353,926
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,956,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     11,090,037
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,235,472)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,956,521
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,103
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               280,751
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             714,846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (646,494)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (646,494)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,472,332
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   825,838
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    37.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    37.41
        

</TABLE>
##### 



THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS
of
MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.
(hereinafter called the Corporation)
 
 Section 1.1. Registered Office.
 Section 1.2. Other Offices.
 
 Section 2.1. Annual Meetings.
 Section 2.2. Special Meetings.
 Section 2.3. Notice of Meetings.
  1




---



##### 



Section 2.4. Adjournments.
 Section 2.5. Quorum.
 2




---



##### 



Section 2.6. Organization.
  Section 2.7. Inspectors.
 3




---



##### 



Section 2.8. Voting; Proxies.
  4




---



##### 



, ,
     Section 2.9. Fixing Date for Determination of Stockholders of Record.
 5




---



##### 



Section 2.10. Advance Notice of Stockholder Proposals
   th
 6




---



##### 



th
 7




---



##### 



Section 3.1. Powers; Number; Qualifications.
 8




---



##### 



Section 3.2. Election; Term of Office; Resignation; Removal; Vacancies.
    Section 3.3. Regular Meetings.
 9




---



##### 



Section 3.4. Special Meetings.
 Section 3.5. Participation in Meetings by Conference Telephone Permitted.
 Section 3.6. Quorum; Vote Required for Action.
 Section 3.7. Organization.
 Section 3.8. Action by Directors Without a Meeting.
 Section 3.9. Compensation of Directors.
 
 Section 4.1. Committees.
 10




---



##### 



Section 4.2. Committee Rules.
 
 Section 5.1. Officers; Election.
 Section 5.2. Term of Office; Resignation; Removal; Vacancies.
 11




---



##### 



Section 5.3. Powers and Duties.
 
 Section 6.1. Certificates.
  Section 6.2. Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Stock Certificates; Issuance of New Certificates.
 12




---



##### 



Section 6.3. Electronic Securities Recordation.
 
 Section 7.1. Fiscal Year.
 Section 7.2. Seal.
 Section 7.3. Waiver of Notice of Meetings of Stockholders, Directors and Committees.
 Section 7.4. Indemnification and Insurance.
  13




---



##### 



provided however provided however
   14




---



##### 



15




---



##### 



Section 7.5. Interested Directors; Quorum.
 16




---



##### 



Section 7.6. Form of Records.
 Section 7.7. Inconsistent Provisions with Certificate of Incorporation.
 Section 7.8. Amendment of Bylaws.
 17
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RUFUS C. WATKINS.

November 12, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
Petition s for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and

Dissenting Opinions filed April 28 , 2020.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00845

- CV

NO. 14

- 19

- 00847

- CV

IN RE FACEBOOK, INC. AND FACEBOOK, INC. D/B/A INSTAGRAM , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 334th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 2018

- 69816 , 2018

- 82214

NO. 14

- 19

- 00886

- CV

IN RE FACEBOOK INC. D/B/A INSTAGRAM , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 151st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 162622 

### MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION
I respectfully dissent from the se denial s of mandamus and I urge the Texas Supreme Court to review these cases . Federal law grants Facebook immunity from
suits such as these

. See 47 U.S.C. § 230. Because Facebook has immunity, the se suit s have no basis in law, and dismissal under Texas Rule of Pr ocedure 91a is

proper.

The Real Part ies in Interest urge our court to adopt a construction of Section 230 that has been adopted by only a few courts. The vast majority of the courts reviewing this law have adopted the arguments made by Facebook. The artful pleading by the Real Part ies in Interest should not prevail over the statute.
Fewer cases discuss the 2018 amendments to Section 230 known as the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (“FOSTA”). However, this exception to immunity

— on its face

— does not apply to a civil action in state court.
Because Facebook has federal statutory immunity from these suits, I respectfully dissent.

/s/ Tracy Christopher Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant.
Exhibit 12.3Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Rogers Cable Inc., a corporationorganized under the laws of Ontario (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of theundersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Dated:March 8, 2006 /s/ Edward S. Rogers     Edward S. Rogers    Vice Chairman   Dated:March 8, 2006 /s/ Alan D. Horn     Alan D. Horn    Vice President
**Exhibit 13.2**

** **

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Securitiesand Exchange Commission

100 F Street,N.E.

Washington,D.C. 20549

 

Ladies andGentlemen:

 

The certificationset forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the“Report”) for the purpose of complying with the Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code and 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

BenjaminTseng, the Chief Financial Officer of AU Optronics Corp., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.       theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.       theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof AU Optronics Corp.

  

Date: March 30, 2017

 

 

**The foregoingcertification is not deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act and is not deemed to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act.**

 

** **

****

** **
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6166

JOHN MARK BERRILL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK KEOHANE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-98-1191-AM)

Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: July 24, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Mark Berrill, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

December 15, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on December 18, 1999. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date the the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take

as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson

v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

John Mark Berrill appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Berrill v. Keohane, No. CA-98-1191-AM (Dec. 18,

1998).* 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, the undersigned officer of PFGI Capital Corporation
(PFGI Capital) hereby certifies, to the best of such officers knowledge, that PFGI Capitals Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PFGI Capital.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Kevin R. Glass                                                 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Kevin R. Glass                                                     
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)