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 Fresh Choice, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the year ended March 21, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Pertl,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), that:

(1)          The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ David E.
  Pertl                                  
| | ------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                       
| | David E.
  Pertl                                      
| | Senior Vice
  President and Chief Financial 
  Officer

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.

---

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randall L. Fewel, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By

/s/ Randall L. FewelRandall L. Fewel, President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: November 12, 2010
#### In the Matter of David Rivera, Appellant, v Brion D. Travis, as Chair of the Division of Parole, Respondent.

[786 NYS2d 748]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Con-nor, J.), entered October 23, 2003 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding was rendered, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before the Board in June 2004, the instant matter is now moot and must be dismissed *(see Matter of Rivera v Travis,*8 AD3d 716 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pediatric Services of America, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel J. Kohl, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(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. 

 

Date: May 10, 2006
#### Meeker *v.*Doe, on the Demise of Place.

In ejectment against a trespasser, notice to quit need not be proved.

The declaration in such action may be amended, as to the date of the demise, at any time before verdict, provided the amendment do not injure or impose any hardship on the defendant.

*170
      *Friday, June*21.

APPEAL from the *La Porte*Circuit Court.

*J. B.*Niles, for the appellant.

*J. W.*Chapman, for the appellee.

Sullivan, J.

— Ejectment. The lessor of the plaintiff is the mortgagee of *Lather*Mann, who was the owner of the fee at the date of the mortgage. The defendant entered into the consent rule and pleaded not guilty. Trial by the Court and judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendant, on the trial in the Circuit Court, set up no right to the possession. His defence appears to have been, that he had not received notice to quit. The Court decided that notice to quit was not necessary. The Court was right. Notice is necessary only where the relation of landlord and tenant exists. In this case, so far as we can perceive, *Meeker*was a mere trespasser and liable to be ejected without demand or notice.

On the trial, the Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the declaration by altering the date of the demise from the 18th of August, 1842, to the 18th of February, 1843, which last date was previous to the commencement of the suit, to which the defendant objected and excepted. There was no error in this. The date of the demise as laid in the declaration, is now regarded as merely formal, and may be amended at any time before verdict, provided it do not injure or impose any hardship upon the defendant. *Doe*v. *Pilkington,*4 Burr. 2447.-6 Cowen, 590.—7 Cranch, 478.-9 Wheat. 576.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Water Pik Technologies, Inc. pertaining to the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan
(Form S-8 No. 333-30016 and post-effective amendments thereto), Broad-Based Stock Option Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-96447), 1999 Incentive Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-96449), Teledyne, Inc. 401(k) Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-96451 and post-effective amendments thereto), 1999 Non-Employee Director Stock Compensation Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-96455), Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-96457), Retirement Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-43962), 1999 Incentive Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-54318), Broad-Based Stock Option Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-54320), 1999 Non-Employee Director Stock Compensation Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-60236), Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(Form S-8 No. 333-60240), and 1999 Incentive Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-117442) of our report dated October 27, 2004,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Water Pik Technologies, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the nine months ended
September 30, 2004.

/s/
ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Woodland
Hills, California
December 13, 2004

---



QuickLinks
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2182

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to permit 

the planting of chicory on base acres. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2004

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for himself and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 to permit the planting of chicory on base acres.

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

3 SECTION 1. PLANTING OF CHICORY ON BASE ACRES. 

4 Section 1106(b)(3)(B) of the Farm Security and 

5 Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7916(b)(3)(B)) 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘and dry peas’’ and inserting ‘‘dry 

7 peas, and chicory’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne Brown, Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 614]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered November 1, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00048-CR

Christopher Lee ALLNUT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR8760

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 16, 2011

DISMISSED

The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a 

plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

Rule 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant 

has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(d). Accordingly, on February 7, 2011, this court issued an order stating this appeal would 

be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows 
04-11-00048-CR

- 2 -

defendant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. See Daniels v. State,

110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1. 

On March 3, 2011, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a letter stating “this court has no 

choice but to dismiss the appeal.” In light of the record presented, we agree with defendant’s 

counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Empire Financial
Holding Company (the "Company") for fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Donald A. Wojnowski Jr., Principal Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

/s/ Donald A. Wojnowski Jr.                         August 18, 2006
---------------------------                         ---------------
Donald A. Wojnowski Jr.                                   Date
Principal Executive Officer
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

**Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

The Board of Directors

 

Sify Technologies Limited

 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statement (No. 333-165248) on Form S-8 of Sify Technologies Limited and its subsidiaries(the ‘Company’) of our report dated July 18, 2014 with respect to the consolidated statement of financialposition of Sify Technologies Limited as of March 31, 2014 and March 31, 2013 and related consolidated statements ofincome, comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for the years ended March 31, 2014, March 31, 2013 andMarch 31, 2012 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2014, which reportappear in the March 31, 2014 annual report on Form 20-F of Sify Technologies Limited.

 

/s/ ASA & Associates LLP

**ASA & Associates LLP**

**Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

Chennai, India

July 18, 2014
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                                                                                                                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 12, 2008                                                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                                                     
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                                                               
|Paritosh K. Choksi Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Reply to Attn of:

Nationa! Aeronautics and

Space Administration

John H. Glenn Research Center
Lewis Field

Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

SFP 1 1 2009

FOIA Group, Inc,
Attn: Jeff Stachewicz
P.O. Box 368

Depew, NY 14043

Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request No. GRC-09-040

This letter is to advise you that a releasability determination regarding your FOIA request for a
copy contract NNCO6CB70C including attachments and modifications #1-24 has been made. This
determination has taken into consideration the relevant Statutes, case law, and guidance, as well as
comments received from the Contracting Officer and the submitter. Accordingly, it is my decision
to partially deny your request. The basis for this partial denial is set forth below.

Modifications #1-24 will be released in full. Contract NNCO6CB70C including attachments will
be released in full with the exception of the overhead and G&A rates and amounts listed on page
H-7, clause H.9 of the contract. This information has been identified as exempt from release
under Exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C § 552(b), which protects trade secrets, commercial or
financial information.

There is no charge for providing you this information.

You may appeal this initial determination to the NASA Administrator. Your appeal must (1) be
addressed to the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space (NASA), Mail Stop: P, 300
E. Street SW, Washington, DC 20546; (2) be clearly identified on the envelope and in the letter
as an “Appeal under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)”; (G3) include a copy of the request
for the Agency record and a copy of this initial determination; (4) to the extent possible, state the
reasons why you believe this decision should be reversed; and (5) be sent to the Administrator
within 30 calendar days of the date of the receipt of this initial determination.

If you need further assistance, please contact Angela Pierce, FOIA Officer, at (216) 433-2813 or
Via e-mail at foia@grc.nasa.gov.

eb) K

Howard D. Ross
Acting Director of External Programs
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 Annual Report of OurPets Company (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being the Vice President, Treasurer and Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 of OurPets Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) |  | 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|   |  |                                         
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------
|By |  | /s/    JOHN G.
MURCHIE                  
|   |  | John G. Murchie                         
|   |  | Vice President, Treasurer and Controller



Dated: April 7, 2006



This certification is made
solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained in that statute, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
OurPets Company and will be retained by OurPets Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 September 21, 2023 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics 

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the National 

Aviation Hall of Fame Dinner & Ceremony on September 22, 2023 

On September 22, 2023, the National Aviation Hall of Fame, a nonprofit organization under 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will hold their 59th Annual Enshrinement Dinner & 

Ceremony at the National Building Museum, 440 G. St., NW, Washington, DC, at 6:00 p.m. 

(reception) and 7:00 p.m. (dinner & ceremony). The purpose of the event is to celebrate the 

2023 inductees into the Hall of Fame, this year’s inductees include two former NASA 

Astronauts. NAHF is in control of the planning, organizing, and issuing invitations for this 

event. 

Approximately 600 people are expected to attend the event. Attendees will have a diversity 

of views or interests and will include personnel from congressional staffers, state and local 

officials, academia, industry representatives, administration personnel, media, and space 

investors. The estimated cost of the event, including all food and beverages, is 

approximately $500 per person. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to 

exchange information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the 

requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

NASA employees, including NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to 

sign the ethics pledge under Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a 

matter affecting the interests of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to 

the event. In those circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs 

any concern that the individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the 

performance of their duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the NAHF, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or 

administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their local 

ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. 

Adam F. Greenstone
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ahmed Abdelghany, Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 614]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered January 6, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Showup procedures are permissible when, as here, they are conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of a crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification *(see People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541 [1991]; *People v Pierre,*2 AD3d 461 [2003]). The defendant’s contention *712that the showup identification was unduly suggestive is without merit *(see People v Pierre, supra; People v Stepney,*278 AD2d 260 [2000]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.