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

I, Patrick McGowan, Chief Financial Officer of GeneMax Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: April 17, 2006 | "Patrick A. McGowan"Patrick A. McGowan, Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and a director
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. A signed original of this statement 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will 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 the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mauro Menard, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 880]

Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, J.), rendered on or about November 3, 2003, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2020-10-14 12:07:09","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2020"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"8"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["AFRC","ARC","GRC","GSFC","HQ","JPL","JSC","KSC","LaRC","MSFC","NSSC","OGC","OIG","SSC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["3","4","6","28","66","9","32","16","8","10","3"," ","13","7"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["3","7","7","31","88","16","35","7","4","7","7"," ","14","9"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["1","2","2","16","17","1","13","15","4","9","1"," ","2"," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2020","quarter":"Q4"}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL RICHARDS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 574 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 97.

#### Thos. G. Waters, Sheriff, *et al.*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Greenway Brothers & Co. defendants.

[1.] 'Whore a client does not participate in a fund brought into Court, but is - postponed to older liens, the Attorney is not entitled to commissions upon the money.

Rule, in Floyd Superior Court. Decided by Judge Tripp®, . December Term, 1854.

A sum of $1100 had been raised by levy and sale, by order-of Court, under an attachment in favor of Fellows & Co. against A. J. Murray, of the goods and chattels of said Murray.

The money was claimed *bj fi. fas.*of older date than the attachment in favor of Greenway Brothers & Co. and D. C. Hide & Co. against the firm of Burns & Murray, of which firm A. J. Murray was a party.

Tho Counsel of Fellows & Co. contended that they were entitled to five per cent, of the amount, for having raised and brought the money into Court. This was refused by the Court,,, and this decision is assigned as error.

Underwood, for plaintiff in error.

Printup, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] A large amount of money, to-wit: $1119, having been' raised under an attachment, at the instance of Fellows & Co.. against Andrew J. Murray, was brought into Court by the Sheriff and ordered to be paid over to executions of an older date, in favor of Greenway Brothers and Co. and D. C. Hide & Co. against Burns & Murray.

Before applying the fund to these prior liens, Counsel for-Fellows & Co. claimed to have their commissions allowed upon' *593the fund, but were refused by the Court, upon the ground, that as their client got no money, the Attorneys were not entitled to fees. And we see no error in the judgment. It does not conflict with the opinion of this Court in *McDonald and Na*pier, (14 *Ga. R.*89.)
Appeal No. 2023AP890-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2022CT150

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

 V.

LAUREN DANNIELLE PETERSON,

 DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

FILED

Jan. 11, 2024

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

ERRATA SHEET

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

Electronic Notice

Court of Appeals District I

Electronic Notice

Court of Appeals District II

Electronic Notice

Court of Appeals District III

Electronic Notice

Christina Plum, Sarah Motiff

Electronic Notice

Court of Appeals District IV

Electronic Notice

Hon. Patricia A. Barrett

Circuit Court Judge

Electronic Notice

Carrie Wastlick

Clerk of Circuit Court

Sauk County Courthouse

Electronic Notice

Natalia J Gess

Electronic Notice

Jeremiah W. Meyer-O’Day

Electronic Notice

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that corrections were made to footnote 2 

and paragraph 12 in the above-captioned opinion which was released on 
No. 2023AP890-CR

2

December 29, 2023. A corrected electronic version in its entirety is available on the 

court's website at www.wicourts.gov. 
No. 2023AP890-CR

3
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17
                                                                          VIACOM

William A. Roskin
Senior Vice President
Human Resources and Administration
Tel 212-258-6230
Fax 212-846-1716

                                       December 1, 1998



Alva J. Phillips, Jr.
4721 Star Ridge Lane
Frisco, TX   75034


Dear Joe:

     This is to confirm our understanding that your employment agreement dated
as of January 1, 1998 shall be amended to change the last day of the employment
term from June 30, 2001 to June 30, 2002.  Except as amended hereby, your
employment agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

     Please sign and return the attached copy of this letter to indicate your
agreement with the foregoing.

                                       Very truly yours,


                                       /s/ William A. Roskin



ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


/s/ Alva J. Phillips, Jr.
___________________________
   Alva J. Phillips, Jr.
Exhibit 31.1

Certifications

I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Petro Stopping Centers Holdings, L.P.;

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 officer(s) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

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
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 30, 2006



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.              
|(J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1





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


I, Kamal Nath, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sify Technologies Limited for the year ended March 31, 2013, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sify Technologies Limited.





Date: July 30, 2013





By: /s/ Kamal Nath Name: Kamal NathTitle: Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### The State *v.*Brewer.

*Thursday, January 4, 1844.*

Indictment for malicious trespass. Verdict as follows: “We the jury find the defendant guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and assess his fine at twelve dollars and two days’ imprisonment in the county jail.” The prosecuting .attorney remitted the imprisonment except six hours, and judgment was rendered against the defendant for twelve dollars, and that he he imprisoned six hours, and pay the costs. *Held,*that the prosecuting attorney had no authority to enter the *remittitur. Held,*also, that the judgment though erroneous for not agreeing with the verdict, could not be reversed on a writ of error brought by the state. •

ERROR, to the *Wells*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— Indictment for malicious trespass. Plea,

not guilty. Verdict as follows: “ We the jury find the defendant guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and assess his fine at twelve dollars and two days’ imprisonment in the county jail.” Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were made by the defendant and overruled. The following entry appears afterwards of record : u And the said prosecuting attorney here remits all the imprisonment in this behalf except six hours. It is therefore considered by the Court, that the said state of *Indiana*do have and recover against the said defendant the said sum of twelve dollars, and be imprisoned for the space of six hours, that he pay costs,” &c.

The prosecuting attorney had no authority to enter any remission in this case, and the judgment not agreeing with the verdict is no doubt erroneous. But still the judgment cannot be reversed on a writ of error brought by the state. The defendant has been tried upon a good indictment, and a verdict and judgment have been rendered against, him. If the judgment could be reversed at the instance of the state, the defendant would be in danger of having another judgment in the cause rendered against him, and be thus put in *46jeopardy a second time for the same offence. . The constitution forbids such a proceeding. Ind. Const. Art. 1. sect. 13.

*W. H.*Coombs, for the state.

*T.*Johnson, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                              GARDEN BOTANIKA, INC.
                             CALCULATION OF EARNINGS
                     PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                                  (EXHIBIT 11)
                  (amounts in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              (UNAUDITED)
                                                                            SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                       --------------------------
                                                                       JULY 31,        AUGUST 1,
                                                                         1999             1998
                                                                       --------        ----------
<S>                                                                    <C>              <C>
PRIMARY:
   Earnings -
      Net earnings (loss) applicable to common
         and common equivalent shares                                  $(12,416)        $(15,170)
                                                                       ========         ========
   Shares -
      Weighted average common shares outstanding                          7,069            7,069
      Net effect of stock options, based on
         treasury stock method using average
        market price(1)                                                      --               --
                                                                       --------         --------
  Weighted average common and common equivalent shares                    7,069            7,069
                                                                       ========         ========

 Primary earnings (loss) per common and common equivalent share        $  (1.76)        $  (2.15)
                                                                       ========         ========
FULLY DILUTED:

   Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share is not presented,
   as there were no potentially dilutive securities.
</TABLE>

NOTES:

(1)     In the calculation of weighted average common and common equivalent
        shares, nonqualified stock options and warrants to purchase common stock
        are considered common stock equivalents. Such options and warrants are
        converted using the treasury stock method, which assumes that the shares
        issuable upon exercise of the options or warrants were outstanding for
        the full period. In accordance with generally accepted accounting
        principles, no common stock equivalents are shown for the first six
        months of either fiscal 1999 or 1998, as their effect would have been
        anti-dilutive.



                                       17
# Let’s Twist Again

The X-53 was a modified F/A-18 fighter used for a joint Air Force, Boeing and NASA project called the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW), which flew between 2002 and 2005. Taking a cue from the Wright Brother's original airplane, which used wing warping to help steer, the basic idea of the AAW was to direct computer-managed control surfaces into the slipstream to effectively twist the wing into different shapes in hope of improving the aircraft's handling characteristics at various speeds, including supersonic.

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/lets-twist-again/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- Aeronautics
- Quesst
Image CreditNASASize1041x781pxNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Jun 12, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Lillian Gipson								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector GONZALEZ-GOVEA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10403.

D.C. No. CR-01-01464-JMR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

Russell Marsh, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lee Tucker, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Gonzalez-Govea appeals his conviction and 33-month sentence following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gonzalez-Govea’s counsel has submitted a brief stating that he has found no meritorious issues for review. No supplemental pro se brief was filed, and the government did not file a brief.

Our consideration of counsel’s brief and our independent review of the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues requiring further review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration
Advanced 

Air Mobility

NASA’s vision for Advanced 

Air Mobility is to develop a 

safe, accessible, automated, 

and affordable air transportation system allowing 

passengers and cargo to 

travel on-demand in innovative aircraft across town, 

between neighboring cities, 

or to other locations typically 

accessed by car today.

@NASAaero

https://www.nasa.gov/aam

https://www.nasa.gov/stem
#### STATE v. PULLIAM

No. 468P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 205

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 October 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 2001. Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 October 2001.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Credence Systems Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David A. Ranhoff, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been,
and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 10, 2006                                  
|                                                      
|/S/ DAVID A. RANHOFF                                  
|David A. Ranhoff President and Chief Executive
Officer