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 OCTuS, Inc. (“OCTuS”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), the undersigned, George Ecker, Chief Financial Officer of OCTuS, 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 OCTuS.
 
 This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to OCTuS and will be retained by OCTuS and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 Date:   September 26, 2011
 
 /s/ GEORGE ECKER
 George Ecker
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Gambia *v.*Howe.

In case of a judgment confessed by virtue of a warrant of attorney, the cause of action must be described either in a declaration or in the warrant of attorney. The record must also show that the execution of the warrant of attorney was duly proved.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

Pekiuns, J.

This was a judgment confessed by virtue of a power of attorney.

Two errors are assigned; 1. The record does not show with sufficient certainty the ground of liability on which the judgment was rendered; 2. It does not show that the execution of the power of attorney, by virtue of which it was confessed, was proved.

These errors are well assigned. We take it, that in judg*134ments confessed by warrant of attorney, as well as in cases of suits prosecuted in the usual manner, the rec<prd must disclose, with reasonable certainty, the nature of the liability for which the judgment is rendered. When a declaration is filed, it may appear in that. When there is no declaration, it must be set out in the warrant of attorney with the same certainty as is required in a declaration. It was not so set out in this case, and no declaration was filed. The warrant simply authorizes an attorney of the *Allen*Circuit Court to appear, &c., and confess judgment for a certain sum on three promissory notes then in the hands of a third person. Copies of the notes are not set forth, nor are descriptions of them given.

*R. Brackenridge,*for the plaintiff.

*J. B. Howe,*for the defendant.

The record should also show that the execution of the warrant of attorney was duly proved. That fact is not shown in this case. A copy of a paper, purporting to be signed by *Robert L. Douglass,*and called an affidavit, appears upon the record, which paper was received in the Circuit Court as proof of the power of attorney; but it has no jurat nor certificate of having been sworn to attached. It amounts to nothing more than a simple certificate.

The judgment in this case is unauthorized.1

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with cogts. Cause remanded, &c.
Moody National REIT II, Inc. 10-K/A

 

**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

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

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Moody NationalREIT II, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer ofthe Company, certifies, to his knowledge, that:

 

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

Date:August 9, 2019

 

|   | By:    | /s/ Robert W. Engel                          |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Robert W. Engel                              |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer        |
|   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
#### Zia Zhu LI Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General Respondent.

No. 02-61132.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 2, 2003.

William Chu, Addison, TX, for Petitioner.

John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Civil Division-Appellate, Washington, DC, Anne M Estrada, US Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Terri Jane Scadron, Robbin K Blaya, US Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration, Washington, DC, Caryl G Thompson, US Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*

Zia Zhu Li petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum. Li argues that the immigration judge’s (“U”) finding that he is ineligible for asylum is not supported by substantial evidence. Li contends that this court should not defer to the IJ’s finding that he was not credible.

The IJ’s determination that Li was not credible is “a reasonable interpretation of the record and therefore supported by substantial evidence.” *See Chun v. INS,*40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1994). “Without credible evidence, the BIA had no basis upon which to grant asylum or withhold deportation.” *Id.*Li was not denied due process based on any translation problems at his asylum hearing. Li’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# 			ER-2		

## 			News & Articles		

See All News

Article5 Min Read
ER-2 High-Altitude Airborne Science Aircraft

## 					Multimedia				

					Go To Galleries				

				Go To Galleries			

## 			Discover More Topics From NASA		

								SCaN News							

								Research Programs							

								Flight Programs							

								Apollo 1 Resources
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1307

VIRGINIA N. ABLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BELLSOUTH CORPORATION, as Plan Sponsor and Administrator of BellSouth Disability Pension Plan, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-01-3693-3-19) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: June 22, 2005 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and Henry E. HUDSON, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Merritt, Jr., BERRY, QUACKENBUSH & STUART, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Ruth H. Fife, BELLSOUTH CORPORATION, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

### 2 PER CURIAM: Virginia Able appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of BellSouth Corporation on her claim arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Able claims that the administrator of BellSouth’s ERISA plan miscalculated the amount due to her as disability pension benefits under the plan. We have reviewed the record and find Able’s arguments to be meritless. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. (Supp. J.A. at 288-97.) 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
## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

April 22, 2005

ERRATA

Appeal No. 04-1103

Hoffer. v. Microsoft Corp.

Decided: April 22, 2005. Precedential

In the majority opinion, the following change is made:

At page 6, line 4, of the slip opinion, replace

"claim 1" with -- claim 21 --.
ORDER

#### In the Matter of CHARLES S. ADUBATO, an attorney at law.

May 28, 1987.

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court recommending that CHARLES S. ADUBATO, of VINELAND, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1980, be publicly disciplined, and respondent, by his attorney, having consented to the imposition of discipline recommended by the Board, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the findings and recommendations of the Disciplinary Review Board are hereby adopted, and respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months and until the further order of the Court, retroactive to June 17, 1986; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to *R.*1:20-9, and that he is to continue drug counseling until he is medically discharged; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s restoration to the practice of law is conditioned upon his submission of a medical report by an independent physician to be appointed by the Board that he is alcohol and drug free and his six month supervision by a proctor who is to be selected by respondent and approved by the Board; and it is further

ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, together with this order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file of said CHARLES S. ADUBATO as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further

*656ORDERED that CHARLES S. ADUBATO be and hereby is restrained and enjoined from practicing law pending his restoration to the practice of law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that CHARLES S. ADUBATO reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer of Martek Biosciences Corporation (the Company), each hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



|(a) |  | the Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and nine
months ended July 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) |  | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.                                                                                                                                       

|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Henry Linsert, Jr.

Henry Linsert, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
September 15, 2003
|                                                                                     
|/s/ Peter L. Buzy

Peter L. Buzy
Chief Financial Officer
September 15, 2003          

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: January 13, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Alexey Kotov              |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                   |   | Alexey Kotov                  |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |

----
- Home
- Learning Resources
- NASA’s Picture...

- NASA’s Picture Dictionary

# F is for ...

## 

#### 

#### 

# Check out what F stands for ...

Facility

Fluid

Force

## Facility

Something built to serve a certain purpose, usually a building, structure or warehouse.

**Sentences:**NASA has **facilities** in 11 different states.Our town’s water plant **facility** cleans our water.**Related Links:**NASA Centers and Facilities

Go back up

## Fluid

A substance that flows; any liquid or gas.

**Sentences:****Fluids** like tea and juice become round like balls when they are floating on the space station.Water is a **fluid.**

Go back up

## Force

A push or pull.

**Sentences:**Gravity is a** force** that keeps us from floating off Earth.The* ***force** of the wind blew the tree down.

Go back up

## Explore More Letters

				Go Back to NASA's Picture Dictionary                			

NASA's Picture Dictionary – GNASA's Picture Dictionary – HNASA's Picture Dictionary – INASA's Picture Dictionary – J
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                       959
<INVENTORY>                                    109,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183,989
<PP&E>                                         130,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 251,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,014
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           856
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   251,421
<SALES>                                        202,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,765
<CGS>                                          143,603
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (364)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,792
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,041
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,218
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,823
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

NOTICE

Appellate case name: In the Matter of Approximately $80,600.00

Appellate case number: 01-14-00424-CV

Trial court case number: 1417446

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

Appellate case number 01-14-00424-CV is associated with trial court case number 

1417446. Appellant Abraham M. Fisch’s notice of appeal identifies that he appealed actions 

taken by the trial court in trial court case number 1417446 and trial court case number 1210228. 

No appellate case number has been created associated with trial court case number 1210228. No 

docketing statement has been filed to clarify whether Fisch intended to appeal under both trial 

court case numbers. Appellant’s brief in the existing appellate case number challenges the 

validity of the complained-of order in trial court case number 1210228 and the propriety of the 

result of the order in trial court case number 1417446. 

This Court requests clarification from the parties concerning (1) whether Fisch intended 

to file a direct appeal of trial court case number 1210228, (2) whether a new appellate case 

number should be created to be associated with trial court case number 1210228, (3) whether a 

record needs to be filed and the parties should be allowed to file new briefs under this new 

appellate case number, and (4) whether Vikram Patel should be treated as a party to the appeal 

under this new appellate case number and should be provided notice to be able to respond to the 

issues raised. 

The parties have ten days from the date of this notice to respond. During this time and 

pending a resolution of the matters identified in this notice, appellate case number 01-14-00424-

CV will remain on the submission docket for September 23, 2015. The Court also requests the 

parties to provide a mailing address for Vikram Patel in case notice becomes necessary.

Clerk’s signature: 

Date: September 9, 2015
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50275

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JE KEOPOLOUS NEAL

Defendant-Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-185

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Je Keopolous Neal has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Neal has not filed a response. Our independent review of

the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
No. 06-50275

2

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### Ramirez v. PP&L

*345C.P. of Lehigh County,

no. 98-C-1662.

*Richard J. Orloski,*for plaintiffs.

*Steven E. Hoffman,*for defendant PP&L.

February 4, 1999

BLACK, *J.,*

Plaintiffs acknowledge that they have no expert medical testimony to present, but claim that the existence of a causal relationship between the injury complained of and the alleged negligent act is so obvious that expert testimony is not needed. See *Lattanze*v. *Silverstrini,*302 Pa. Super. 217, 223, 448 A.2d 605, 608 (1982). Plaintiff Alwin T. Ramirez has alleged tiredness and dizziness as a result of being struck in the head by a heavy metal filing cabinet, and also that this condition was exacerbated when defendant PP&L coerced him to come to work the following day against his doctor’s advice.

We believe it sufficiently obvious, without expert medical testimony, that a blow to one’s head from a heavy metal filing cabinet can cause tiredness and diz*346ziness. Therefore, to this extent, we deny the motion for summary judgment.

However, to the extent plaintiffs’ claim that the injury was exacerbated by later events, this is not something that a layperson can properly evaluate. It is not obvious that plaintiff Alwin T. Ramirez suffered additional tiredness or dizziness as a result of working several hours the day following his injury. Although he claims to have felt “terrible” while working that day, he might have felt just as poorly if he had remained at home. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to plaintiffs’ claim that the injury was exacerbated by defendant PP&L when it directed Mr. Ramirez to report to work.

ORDER

Now, February 4, 1999, upon consideration of defendant PP&L’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ response thereto, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is ordered that said motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

> (1) The motion is granted with respect to plaintiffs’ claim that the physical injury alleged to plaintiff Alwin T. Ramirez was caused by negligence on the part of defendant PP&L in inducing said plaintiff to come to work against his doctor’s advice, and the averments with respect to this claim are stricken from the complaint.

> (2) The motion is denied with respect to plaintiffs’ claim that defendant PP&L failed to provide a safe work area.

*347It is further ordered that this case shall be submitted to compulsory arbitration pursuant to Leh.R.C.P. 1301 et seq.

It is further ordered that this case shall be stricken from the pretrial list for March 24, 1999, and the jury trial list for April 5, 1999.