alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2



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


In connection with the Annual Report of Aviation Upgrade Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Torbjorn B. Lundqvist, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.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/ Torbjorn B. Lundqvist
                                                   -------------------------
                                                       Torbjorn B. Lundqvist
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                                       March 28, 2005
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMITMENT OF A.L.U.

April 30, 1984.

Petition for certification denied. (See 192 *N.J.Super.*480)
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61077-61078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24147]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than October 24, 2014.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Augustin S. Hart, III, Rebecca S. Hart and Broadwater Partners 
LP, all of

[[Page 61078]]

Oquawka, Illinois; Douglas S. Hart, Powell, Wyoming; the general 
partner of Broadwaters Partnership LP, Broadwaters, Inc., Cody, 
Wyoming; Kathryn Stuart Lansing, Lake Forest, Illinois; Douglas S. 
Hart, Powell, Wyoming; and Harriet Heather Hart, Bozeman, Montana; to 
retain voting shares of Western Illinois Bancshares, Inc., and thereby 
retain voting shares of Western Illinois Bank, both in Monmouth, 
Illinois.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. John R. Von Holtum, Minneapolis, Minnesota; to retain voting 
shares of Central Trust Company, Edina, Minnesota, and thereby 
indirectly retain voting shares of Central Bank and Trust, Lander, 
Wyoming, CenBank, Buffalo Lake, Minnesota, and VH Bancorporation, Inc., 
Edina, Minnesota, and its subsidiary Grand Marais State Bank, Grand 
Marais, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 6, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-24147 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LYLE Q. BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRACY McCOLLUM,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-6234

(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-01137-R)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

Oklahoma prisoner Lyle Brown brought a habeas petition in federal district

court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. But because it challenged his conviction’s validity

and not his sentence’s execution, the district court held that it properly arose

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir.

2000). Observing that Mr. Brown has previously and unsuccessfully challenged

the same conviction in an earlier federal habeas petition, see Brown v. McCollum,

515 F. App’x 759 (10th Cir. 2013), the district court concluded that the current

petition was a successive one that Mr. Brown could not pursue without first

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Appellate Case: 14-6234 Document: 01019418659 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 1 
seeking and obtaining this court’s permission. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

Because Mr. Brown hadn’t sought or secured that much, the district court

dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and concluded that the interests of

justice did not warrant its transfer to this court. See, e.g., In re Cline, 531 F.3d

1249, 1251-52 (10th Cir. 2008); Pease v. Klinger, 115 F.3d 763, 764 (10th Cir.

1997). It is this decision Mr. Brown now asks us to revisit.

But before Mr. Brown may appeal any adverse decision under § 2241 or

§ 2254 arising from a state court conviction Congress requires him to obtain a

certificate of appealability. See Montez, 208 F.3d at 867. To win a COA, a

petitioner must show that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000). And this much Mr. Brown has not done: he does not address

the district court’s procedural decision and for our own part we see no error in it. 

Moreover, even were we to exercise our discretion to reformulate this appeal as a

request for leave to file a successive § 2254 application, something we may but

need not do, see Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1219 n.8 (10th Cir. 2006), we

do not see how it might satisfy the standards 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) imposes on

such requests.

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 14-6234 Document: 01019418659 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 2 
The COA request is denied, as are the motions for appointed counsel and

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the appeal is dismissed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 14-6234 Document: 01019418659 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Billy R. Hughes Sr., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03505-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/30/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8613 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8613 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 2
#### James M. Lawson's Admr. *v.*B. *F.*Doty

Judgment hy Default — Pleadings—Sufficiency of Petition — Administrator— Action Against.

A petition was filed against the sureties on a constable’s bond, and against the administrator of the deceased constable, for failure to pay over money collected on claims put in his hands for collection as constable. No defense was made to the action, and a personal judgment was rendered against the administrator and the two sureties: Held that

without allegation or proof that any assets came into the hands of the administrator, it was erroneous to render a judgment against him, and even with such proof the judgment against him could be only for the debt, interest and costs to be levied of assets in 'his hands to be administered.

APPEAL PROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 6, 1867.

Opinion op the Oourt by

Judge Peters:

This action was brought against James M. Lawson, Wm. Mc-Carby and Wyatt Parkins, on the official bond of Lawson as Constable of Garrard county, the other two being his sureties, for failure to pay over money collected on claims put in his hands for collection as Constable as aforesaid.

After the institution of the suit, the principal in the bond died, and the action was revived against Wm. Lawson, Admr. of James M. Lawson deceased. No defense was made to the action, and a personal judgment was rendered against Wm. Lawson Admr., and the two sureties for the sum claimed in the petition and $15.40 ten per centum damages on the same. And from that judgment the defendants below have appealed.

The judgment is complained of because there is neither allegation nor proof that, any assets came to the hands of the Admr., and that the judgment is personal against him. Certainly without such allegation and proof if it had been controverted by an answer it was erroneous to render judgment against Lawson; and with the proper allegation and proof the judgment against the Admr. could only have been for the debt, interest, costs and dam*188ages, to be levied of assets in his hands to be administered. Bott’s Admr. vs. Fitzpatrick, 5 *Mon.*897.

Bradley, *for appellant.*

Anderson, *for .appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the canse remanded with directions .for further proceedings consistent herewith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF CNL INCOME FUND XIV, LTD. AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND ITS STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO THE FORM 10-Q OF CNL INCOME FUND XIV, LTD. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,432,495
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                       390
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      27,191,121
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,929,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,061,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,909,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,061,047
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,826,851
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  711,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,218,131
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,218,131
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,218,131
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>DUE TO THE NATURE OF ITS INDUSTRY, CNL INCOME FUND XIV, LTD. HAS AN
UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET; THEREFORE, NO VALUES ARE SHOWN ABOVE FOR CURRENT
ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES.
</FN>






</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Victoriano VILLA-BOJORQUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-30044.

D.C. No. CR-02-30011-HO.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 28, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 9, 2003.

Robert Thomson, Assistant United States, Medford, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert M. Stone, Esq., Medford, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SKOPIL, FERGUSON, and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Victoriano Villa-Bojorquez appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to one count of manufacturing more than fifty grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(vüi). Because the district court did not clearly *808err in denying Villa-Bojorquez a sentence below the mandatory minimum under the “safety valve” provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, we affirm. *See United States v. Franco-Lopez,*312 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2002).

To qualify for safety valve relief, VillaBojorquez had the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he “has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5); *see Franco-Lopez,*312 F.3d at 993. The district court agreed with the government that Villa-Bojorquez had not been fully truthful about his drug offense. Villa-Bojorquez claimed that he had bought all the methamphetamine from one individual, and after converting it into another form, sold it back to that same individual. He does not claim on appeal that he made any profit from the transactions. Further, the telephone number he provided for his source (and purported customer) was incorrect. The court did not clearly err in denying him the sentence reduction.

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 

, , , 1 ADMINISTRATOR 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 

r 

I I 4 

I 

EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER 

STAFF ASS'TS ORGANIZATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

I <AND A.II0CIATI AW!"#STRATO*, II ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

I 

I 

I 

r-LI NATX OF SCIENCES ACADEMY' I 

EXICUTI'E IICSEllrl" *SI., *D1IN,$TR.,OI LST ANALYSIS IYINlrTILTOrl I OF NAT'L ENGINEERIN9 ACADEMY I SECRETARIAT I 

SPACE SCIENCE TRACKING AND ADVANCED RESEARCH 

SPACE FLIGHT AND APPLICATIONS DATA ACQUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY 

.llKi.TE IO"IULIRITOI1 riXOCI*TE ImINIITRATOe IsSoCIATE AalHlSTIITOR IlSSOC8ATE *D*IYIITR.TOC 

1 MANNED GODDARD JET PROVULSION 

LABORATORY 

ICOltTI.CTO.Oit..li-, 

0.3.OENI CALW "UWT ilLLE "L' C'rENBEII MO 

WALLOPS STATION 

*,CLOP I5il"D "1 

JOHN f KENNEDY 

SPACE CENTER 

viN*63,iPlCr irw--il rll 

EFFECTIVf - 

APPROVED 

I 1 AMPS FLIGHT 

RESEARCH CENTER RESEARCH CENTER 

MOFFi,, FlELD ClLlF EDWA4DS C.LW 

r i LANGLEY . LEWIS 

RESEARCH CEIffER RESEARCH CENlER 

"LIPTOU "* CLEYlUa mo 

RESEARCH CENTER
**Exhibit 99.2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FC Banc Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Christman, President & Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as enacted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|                                                                           | (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the 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/ JOHN R. CHRISTMAN                                                          |   |
|                                                                                |   |
| **John R. Christman President & Principal Executive Officer May 13, 2003** |   |
|                                                                                |        |                                                                                                                                                      |  |
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ BETSY FADEN , Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD , Respondent.

__________________________ 201 3-3 167

__________________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No

. NY0752120231 -I-1.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R Betsy Faden moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon consideration thereof , I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is granted

. Case: 13-3167 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 09/18/2013FADEN v. MSPB 2 F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk s24 Case: 13-3167 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 09/18/2013
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2435

AN ACT

To permit Inspectors General to authorize staff to provide

assistance to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 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,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Missing Child Cold

5 Case Review Act of 2004’’.
 †

2

S 2435 ES

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.

2 Title XXXVII of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42

3 U.S.C. 5779 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section

4 3701 the following:

5 ‘‘SEC. 3701A. AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—An Inspector General appointed

7 under section 3 or 8G of the Inspector General Act of

8 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) may authorize staff to assist the

9 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children—

10 ‘‘(1) by conducting reviews of inactive case files

11 to develop recommendations for further investiga12 tions; and

13 ‘‘(2) by engaging in similar activities.

14 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—

15 ‘‘(1) PRIORITY.—An Inspector General may not

16 permit staff to engage in activities described in sub17 section (a) if such activities will interfere with the

18 duties of the Inspector General under the Inspector

19 General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
†

3

S 2435 ES

1 ‘‘(2) FUNDING.—No additional funds are au2 thorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec3 tion.’’.

Passed the Senate October 1, 2004.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2435

AN ACT

To permit Inspectors General to authorize staff to

purposes.Missing and Exploited Children, and for otherprovide assistance to the National Center for
#### Sean Schron et al., Respondents, v New York University et al., Appellants.

[788 NYS2d 386]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered January 8, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 claim and denied defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing said claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The plaintiff construction worker’s deposition testimony that he was injured at the work site when a wooden scaffolding plank struck him on the head was prima facie evidence of a violation of section 240 (1), shifting the burden to the owner/manager defendants to raise a factual issue on liability *(see Aragon v 233 W. 21st St.,*201 AD2d 353, 354 [1994]). Defendants failed to rebut adequately plaintiffs’ showing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 13 - 13 - 00667 - CR Ex Parte Jose Cuenca Motta On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Cause No. 12 - 4 - 26532 - A - 1

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appe al, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. November 20 , 2014