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 February 28, 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:
                May 24,
                2006*/s/
                Bryan M. Chance*Bryan
                M. ChanceChief
                Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15(d)-14(a)**

I, Jeffrey   A. Paolucci, certify that:

 

 

 

1.

I have   reviewed this annual report on Form10-KSB of First Reliance Bancshares,   Inc.;

 

 

 

2.

Based on my   knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material   fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,   in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not   misleading with respect to the period covered by this  report;

 

 

 

3.

Based on my   knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included   in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial   condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and   for, the periods presented in this report;

 

 

 

4.

The   registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing   and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange   Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

 

 

 

a)

designed   such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls   and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material   information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated   subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,   particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

 

 

 

b)

evaluated   the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and   presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the   disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by   this report based on such evaluation; and

 

 

 

 

c)

disclosed in   this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial   reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter   (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that   has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the   registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

 

 

5.

The   registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our   most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the   registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of   directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

 

 

 

a)

all   significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation   of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to   adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and   report financial information; and

 

 

 

 

b)

any fraud,   whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have   a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial   reporting.

Date:  March 31, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeffrey A.   Paolucci

 

 

Chief   Financial Officer

 

 

(Principal   Financial and Accounting Officer)
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1856 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2007 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to make technical 

corrections to the new border tunnels and passages offense. 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

S 1856 RFH

1 SECTION 1. OFFENSE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 27 of title 18, United 

3 States Code, is amended by redesignating section 554 

4 added by section 551(a) of the Department of Homeland 

5 Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109–295; 

6 120 Stat. 1389) (relating to border tunnels and passages) 

7 as section 555. 

8 (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections for 

9 chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 

10 by striking the item relating to section 554, ‘‘Border tun11 nels and passages’’, and inserting the following: 

‘‘555. Border tunnels and passages.’’. 

12 SEC. 2. CRIMINAL FORFEITURE. 

13 Section 982(a)(6)of title 18, United States Code, is 

14 amended by striking ‘‘554’’ and inserting ‘‘555’’. 

15 SEC. 3. DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING 

16 COMMISSION. 

17 Section 551(d) of the Department of Homeland Secu18 rity Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109–295; 120 

19 Stat. 1390) is amended in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) by 

20 striking ‘‘554’’ and inserting ‘‘555’’. 

Passed the Senate July 23, 2007. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7252
JAMES POLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusWILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center; CARL LEGURSKY, Former Warden W.V.P.; GEORGE TRENT, Warden W.V.P./Mt. OliveCorrectional Complex; NICHOLAS J. HUN, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-562-2) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Poling, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### Betty LEEPER, Appellant, v. Harold B. BANKS, d/b/a Banks Wonder Market, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 20, 1972.

*59Tyler C. Bourne, Bourne & Alexander, Paducah, for appellant.

Burke B. Terrell, Terrell, Schultzman & Hardy, Paducah, for appellee.

EDWARD P. HILL, Jr., Justice.

This is an appeal from an order granting a summary judgment to appellee in appellant’s civil action for damages based upon a charge of breach of an implied warranty on a can of starch sold by the appellee to appellant on November 30, 1967.

The lone question presented in appellant’s brief is “whether a purchaser of a packaged item from a retail grocer is barred from recovery for a claim of alleged breach of warranty under Section KRS 355.2-607 because the purchaser did not notify grocer until civil action was filed which was about a year after said purchaser discovered alleged breach of warranty.” This action was filed against the appellee, a retail merchant, not against the manufacturer of the product. Under the provisions of KRS 355.2-607(3) (a), “the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.”

“ ‘Buyer’ means a person who buys or contracts to buy goods”; and “ ‘seller’ means a person who sells or contracts to sell goods.” KRS 355.2-103(1) (a) and (d). We conclude that the appellant was a “buyer” within the meaning of the foregoing statute and that the retailer was a “seller.” It was, therefore, incumbent upon appellant to give notice to appel-lee within a reasonable time after she discovered the alleged breach of the implied warranty if she intended to sue him. She did not do this. See San Antonio v. Warwick Club Ginger Ale Co., 104 R.I. 700, 248 A.2d 778. She admitted her claimed injuries were received on January 30, 1968. Her suit was not filed until January 29, 1969. Appellant gave no notice to the ap-pellee of her claim for breach of warranty although she did notify the manufacturer, Colgate-Palmolive Company, on April 4, 1968. But such notice did not satisfy the requirement of KRS 355.2-607 insofar as an action solely against the retailer was *60concerned. Her failure to give reasonable notice to the appellee barred her suit for damages, and summary judgment was proper.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
#### COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellant, v. Ransom J. BRUMBACK et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 19, 1974.

*6Carl T. Miller, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Dept, of Highways, Frankfort, Robert Lee Hall, Dept, of Highways, Covington, for appellant.

Charles E. Carter, Owenton, for appel-lees.

STEINFELD, Justice.

From a judgment in a condemnation case the Commonwealth appeals, complaining that the instructions were erroneous. They established the maximum and minimum limits the jury could find as the value of the appellees’ property before and after some of it was taken. We held in Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Spillman, Ky., 489 S.W.2d 811, 814 (1973), that this type of instruction should not be given but that the Commonwealth was not prejudiced because “ * * * the jury was not confused as the values it determined were neither the maximum nor minimum amounts mentioned in the instructions and were within the range of the values expressed by one of the valuation witnesses.” Here, the highest “before-taking” value expressed by any witness and fixed by the instructions was $50,000. In its verdict the jury declared that exact amount as the “before-taking” value.

In Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Campbell, Ky., 510 S.W.2d 1 (decided April 19, 1974), we overruled Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Spillman, supra, and held that the instructions in condemnation cases “ * * * should not state either maximum or minimum limits of recovery.” Our holding in *Campbell*is dispositive of this case.

The judgment is reversed for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion. If there is another trial, the instructions should follow the pattern we approved in such cases as Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Priest, Ky., 387 S.W.2d 302 (1965), and those found in 1 Stanley’s Instructions to Juries in Kentucky, Sec. 359a.

We deem it unnecessary to consider the other points claimed for reversal.

All concur, except REED, J., who concurs in result only for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Campbell, supra.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0398

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JASON DANIEL SHEWALTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 27, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 22 2024

07/22/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0398
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 for Hallwood Energy  Partners,  L.P. and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such From 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000768172
<NAME>                        Hallwood Energy Partners, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                         13,373
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               25,020
<PP&E>                                         614,930
<DEPRECIATION>                                 526,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,988
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     67,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,830
<SALES>                                        12,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,870
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (420)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,296
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5,296
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,296
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .48
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. TAYLOR

No. 576P00

Case below: 123 N.C. App. 786

Petition by defendant pro se for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 March 2001.
**EXHIBIT8.1**

**AMENDEDLIST OF**

**SIGNIFICANTSUBSIDIARIES OF GOLD FIELDS LIMITED**

(AS OF JUNE 30,2006)

GFI Mining South Africa (Proprietary) Limited,incorporated in South Africa.

GFL Mining Services Limited, incorporated in SouthAfrica

Orogen Holdings (BVI) Limited, incorporated in theBritish Virgin Islands

Gold Fields Holdings Company (BVI) Limited,incorporated in the British Virgin Islands

Gold Fields Ghana Holdings Limited, incorporated inthe British Virgin Islands

Gold Fields Ghana Limited, incorporated in Ghana

Abosso Goldfields Limited, incorporated in Ghana

Gold Fields Australasia Limited, incorporated in the BritishVirgin Islands

Gold Fields Australia Pty Limited, incorporated inAustralia

St. Ives Gold Mining Company (Pty) Limited,incorporated in Australia

Agnew Gold Mining Company (Pty) Limited, incorporatedin Australia

Gold Fields Corona BVI Limited, incorporated in theBritish Virgin Islands

Gold Fields La Cima S.A., incorporated in Peru

Gold Fields Exploration B.V., incorporated in theNetherlands

Gold Fields Finland O.Y., incorporated in Finland

Gold Fields Artic Platinum O.Y, incorporated inFinland

Gold Fields Venezuela Holding B.V., incorporated inthe Netherlands(1)

Carisma Corporation AVV, incorporated in Aruba

Promotora Minera de Venezuela S.A., incorporated inVenezuela

Promotora Minera de Guayana S.A., incorporated inVenezuela

 

----

(1)          Infiscal 2007, Gold Fields Venezuela Holding B.V. changed its name to Gold FieldsNetherlands Services B.V.

1

----
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 of Advance Display Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/S/ MATTHEW W. SHANKLE
---------------------------------------
Matthew W. Shankle
President, Chief Executive and Financial Officer

November 13, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000769333
<NAME> COLUMBIA II-B FDS 9/30/96
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          19,260
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,873
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,021
<PP&E>                                       1,386,685
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,007,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 416,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,838
<BONDS>                                        334,052
<COMMON>                                     8,845,937
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,847,569)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   416,258
<SALES>                                        366,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               370,422
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               281,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,191
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,885
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,829
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,829
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,829
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered November 16, 2012

004985

In The

Court of 21 ppeals

 istmt of at Pallas

No. 05-12-01293-CV

JAMES A.WALTER, Appellant

V.

2IST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-10-08240-A

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s November 9, 2012 "motion for extension of the time

to perfect an appeal," in which he requests an extension of time to file his brief. The Court

GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to brief by 10,201L.

MOLLY

JUSTICE
Exhiibt 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 of Fidelity Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Richard G. Spencer, Chief Executive Officer, and Lisa L. Griffith, Chief Financial Officer, certify, 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/ Richard G. Spencer  |   | /s/ Lisa L. Griffith    |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| Richard G. Spencer      |   | Lisa L. Griffith        |
| Chief Executive Officer |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |   |                    |
|                    |   |                    |
| May 15, 2008            |   |                    |
<PAGE>

                                Exhibit 23.1(a)

                       INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT
                       --------------------------------


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on
Form S-3 of our report dated January 31, 2001, except for Note 12, as to which
date is February 26, 2001 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern), which appears on page F-1 of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Imaginon, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000, and to the reference to our
Firm under the caption "Experts" in the Prospectus.


GELFOND HOCHSTADT PANGBURN, P.C.

Denver, Colorado
June 15, 2001