alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
      32**


**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 on Form 10-Q of Reliv’ International, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert L.
      Montgomery, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven D. Albright,
      as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 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; 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/
      Robert L. Montgomery





Robert
      L.
      Montgomery


Chief
      Executive Officer





Date:
      August 7, 2007





/s/
      Steven D. Albright





Steven
      D.
      Albright


Chief
      Financial Officer





Date:
      August 7, 2007





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      and
      is not being “filed” as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure
      document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as
      amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to liability under that
      section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
      into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
      Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32 is expressly and specifically
      incorporated by reference in any such filing.





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.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1868

AN ACT

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1868 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Higher Edu3 cation Extension Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS. 

5 Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act 

6 of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘July 31, 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘Oc8 tober 31, 2007’’. 

9 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

10 Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Ex11 tension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be con12 strued to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of ap13 propriations for, or the durations of, programs contained 

14 in the amendments made by the Higher Education Rec15 onciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–171) to the pro16 visions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Tax17 payer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004. 

Passed the Senate July 24, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1868

AN ACT

To temporarily extend the programs under the 

purposes.Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other
**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**

The undersigned, Jon Young, Chief Financial Officer of Liberty Star Gold Corp., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Liberty Star Gold Corp. for the period ended January 31, 2005 (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 Liberty Star Gold Corp.                                                               |

Dated: January 12, 2006

/s/ Jon Young

Jon Young

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting 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 Liberty Star Gold Corp. and will be retained by Liberty Star Gold Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Leon MELTON, Appellant, v. William J. LILE, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 9, 1973.

Cecil Davenport, Louisville, for appellant.

Raymond L. Suell, J. Bruce Miller, Louisville, Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Frankfurt, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Justice STEPHENSON,

Reversing and Remanding.*

*

 Opinion ordered not to be published.
#### Jack I. RENTSCHELER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46058.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 11, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1973.

Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Robert T. Baskett, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is sale of marihuana; the punishment, life.

Garland police department undercover agent, Steve Pray, testified that on Decern-*154ber 11, 1969, he purchased twelve (12) marihuana cigarettes from appellant for $10.

Appellant’s first ground of error complains of the following statement made by the prosecutor during argument:

> “This is the first time I have had an opportunity to talk directly with you and it’s my duty now to answer some of the things Mr. Scoggins has had to say, and then to say a few words on behalf of the people that Mr. Stephens and I represent, that is the law abiding citizens of this county.”

Appellant’s objection to the remark was sustained but no further relief was requested. In order to properly preserve a point for review, appellant must pursue his objection until he receives an adverse ruling. Burks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 925, and the cases cited therein.

Appellant’s reliance on Bray v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 89, is misplaced. In that case the prosecutor said that he was glad that he did not have to make his living representing a man involved in a robbery and also otherwise cast aspersions, which are not present here, on appellant’s court appointed counsel.

Appellant’s first ground of error is overruled.

Appellant’s next ground of error challenges the sufficiency of the chain of custody of the contraband. At the time the cigarette, which had been submitted to the chemist and found to contain marihuana, was offered in evidence no objection was interposed. We have, however, examined the record and find that the chain of custody was properly established.

Appellant’s second ground of error is overruled.

Appellant’s last ground of error contends that the court erred in permitting the following portion of the indictment to be read to the jury:

> [the Grand Jurors] good and lawful men of the County of Dallas, State of Texas, duly elected, tried, impaneled, sworn and charged . . . upon their oath.”

It is his contention that the words quoted above constitute bolstering of the State’s case, placed emphasis on the character of the Grand Jury and gave undue emphasis to the charge set forth in the indictment. Article 36.01, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., requires that the indictment be read to the jury.

Appellant’s third ground of error is overruled.

We have examined appellant’s pro se brief and conclude it raises no additional grounds which require discussion.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Order entered May 15, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01505-CV

DALLAS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant

V.

CALITEX CORP., ELSHIR ENTERPRISES, L.P. AND THOMAS, L.P., Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-14157

ORDER

By notice filed May 5, 2014, appellant informs us that it has been deemed an impaired 

insurer and placed into rehabilitation by Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of 

Delaware. Attached to the notice is a “Rehabilitation and Injunction Order” entered by the 

Chancery Court. Accordingly, pursuant to section 462.309 of the Texas Insurance Code, this 

appeal is automatically STAYED for a period of six months from the date appellant was deemed 

impaired–-April 28, 2014. See Tex. Ins. Code Ann. 462.309(a) (West 2009). It shall be 

reinstated October 6, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a).

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1




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


        I, Jerome T. Fadden, President and Chief Executive Officer of Platinum
Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and
belief that this Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters
Holdings, Ltd.


Date:  March 26, 2003



/s/ Jerome T. Fadden
--------------------
Jerome T. Fadden
President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>              SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                          1,446
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                     529
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,985
<PP&E>                         49,659
<DEPRECIATION>                (31,615)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 20,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           6,693
<BONDS>                             0 
<COMMON>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                        546 <F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   20,029
<SALES>                         3,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,808
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                4,223
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (415)
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                     (415)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  (0.349)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (0.349)<F2>
<FN>
<F1> Partner equity - 1,190 Partnership units outstanding.
<F2> Per Partnership Unit in thousands.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Staley, Okada & Partners                     Suite 400 - 889 West Pender Street
Chartered Accountants                             Vancouver, BC Canada  V6C 3B2
                                                               Tel 604 694-6070
                                                               Fax 604 585-3800
                                                           info@staleyokada.com
                                                            www.staleyokada.com













CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We have issued our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
dated June 16, 2005.accompanying the financial statements of Natco
International Inc. (formerly Spectrum International Inc.) contained in the
Form 10KSB.  We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the
Form 10KSB, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption
Principal Accountant Fees and Services.








                                                  /s/Staley Okada & Partners

                                                     STALEY, OKADA & PARTNERS
Vancouver, B.C. Canada                                  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
June 30, 2005
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HealthAxis Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John M. Carradine,
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:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ John M. Carradine

John M. Carradine
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 10.2
 SYBASE, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED 2003 STOCK PLAN
 FORM OF NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION GRANT  AND  AGREEMENT
 Sybase, Inc.ID: 94-2951005One Sybase Drive
 California 94568
    
    Dublin,
  
 
 [name]
    
    Option Number [       ][home address]
    
    Plan: Amended 2003 Stock PlanID: [       ]




---



##### 



Sybase, Inc. Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Plan
      Dated: [DATE]For Sybase, Inc.: [NAME]
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eddie Lee JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. KCD 26342.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.

Feb. 4, 1974.

F. C. Cline, Public Defender, 13th Judicial Circuit, Columbia, for appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O’Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before PRITCHARD, P. J., and SWOFFORD and SOMERVILLE, JJ.

*33PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction by a jury for robbery in the first degree and a sentence of ten years. Appellant asserts two points on appeal. The first is that he was prevented from exercising his right to testify by the court’s acceptance of an equivocal waiver of that right. The second point claims he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his attorney’s failure to file a motion for new trial and by his failure to adequately advise appellant of his right to testify.

A review of the record discloses that the first point is without merit. Appellant clearly waived his right to testify by stating his understanding of his rights and his desire to not exercise them. While a segregated single statement, if read out of context with other statements made by the appellant, might not appear grammatically unequivocal, such statement clearly showed that his intent was to waive the right to testify and when the segregated single statement is read in context with all the other statements covering the waiver it clearly shows that he did not make an equivocal waiver but made an unequivocal waiver.

The appellant’s second point may not properly be reviewed on this direct appeal because the facts necessary to review the question of the lack of effective assistance of counsel were not sufficiently developed. State v. Cluck, 451 S.W.2d 103 (Mo.1970). A more detailed record of the actions about which appellant complains is needed for an adequate review. The record on a direct appeal is rarely sufficient to pass on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and it is for this reason that such claims are usually relegated to 27.26 proceedings. State v. Bosler, 432 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.1968); State v. Cluck, supra; State v. Sockel, 485 S.W.2d 393 (Mo.1972).

The verdict was supported by substantial evidence, and no error appears from the record. An opinion in this case would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M.R.

Judgment affirmed.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 10, 2010*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.121 Money Market Mutual Funds1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000769131
<NAME>                        RANCON REALTY FUND V
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         11,146
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12,360
<PP&E>                                         31,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                 17,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 51,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          331
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     33,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   51,212
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,783
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (216)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (216)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (2.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.22)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-634

In Re: MILTON J. TAYLOR,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-946-AM)

No. 98-7424

MILTON J. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KATHLEEN HAWKS; PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, Judge; JANET

RENO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-98-946-AM)

Submitted: February 23, 1999 Decided: March 12, 1999
2

Before ERVIN, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

No. 98-634 petition denied and No. 98-7424 affirmed by unpublished

per curiam opinion.

Milton J. Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Milton Taylor, a federal prisoner incarcerated in Virginia,

seeks to challenge the district court’s order transferring an

action to the United States District Court for the District of

Columbia. To that end, he has filed both an appeal of the transfer

order (No. 98-7424), and a mandamus petition seeking an order

returning the action to the Eastern District of Virginia (No. 98-

634). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in both actions.

Taylor challenged his sentence and sought release; accordingly, the district court did not err in construing his complaint

as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). Because the only court with jurisdiction to consider

Taylor’s § 2255 motion is the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia, the district court properly transferred the

case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (1994); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973); see generally Gower v. Lehman, 799

F.2d 925, 927-28 (4th Cir. 1986) (finding that transfer order

entered pursuant to § 1631 based on lack of jurisdiction is reviewable on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm the transfer order in No.

98-7424, and we deny Taylor’s motion to expedite as moot.

In his mandamus petition, Taylor seeks an order transferring

the case back to the Eastern District of Virginia. Because we have

concluded that the transfer order was not improper, we deny the petition in No. 98-634. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.
4

1987) (mandamus relief may only be granted when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought).

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.

No. 98-634 - PETITION DENIED

No. 98-7424 - AFFIRMED
**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**

The undersigned, Jon Young, Chief Financial Officer of Liberty Star Uranium & Metals Corp., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Liberty Star Uranium & Metals Corp. for the period ended January 31, 2007 (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 Liberty Star Uranium & Metals Corp.                                                             |

Dated: April 26, 2007

/s/ Jon Young

Jon Young

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting 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 Liberty Star Uranium & Metals Corp. and will be retained by Liberty Star Uranium & Metals Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

CW1178333.1