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

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President of ATEL Financial Services, LLC,
General  Partner of ATEL Cash  Distribution  Fund V, L.P.  (the  "Partnership"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

1. The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended
September  30, 2004 (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 Partnership.

Date:
November 11, 2004


/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi
----------------------------------------
Paritosh K. Choksi
Executive Vice President of General
Partner, Principal Financial Officer of Registrant


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.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2357 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2357

   To direct the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
 Engineers, to maintain a minimum quantity of stored water in certain 
 reservoirs in the vicinity of the upper portion of the Missouri River.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2004

  Mr. Baucus introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
 Engineers, to maintain a minimum quantity of stored water in certain 
 reservoirs in the vicinity of the upper portion of the Missouri River.

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

SECTION 1. UPPER MISSOURI RIVER WATER STORAGE.

    (a) Water Storage.--Notwithstanding any project or activity carried 
out by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
Engineers, under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program authorized 
by section 9 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891), or any 
other law, the Secretary shall cease to support water releases for 
navigation purposes at any time at which the total volume of water 
stored in the reservoirs described in subsection (b) is less than 
44,000,000 acre-feet.
    (b) Reservoirs.--The reservoirs referred to in subsection (a) are 
the following reservoirs located in the vicinity of the upper portion 
of the Missouri River:
            (1) Fort Peck Lake.
            (2) Lake Sakakawea.
            (3) Lake Oahe.
            (4) Lake Sharpe.
            (5) Lake Francis Case.
            (6) Lewis and Clark Lake.
                                 <all>
```
92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976), and NRS 176.035(1) plainly 

gives the district court discretion to run subsequent sentences 

consecutively, see Hobbs v. State, 127 Nev. „ 251 P.3d 177, 179 

(2011) ("If the statute's language is clear and unambiguous, we enforce the 

statute as written."). 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion 

at sentencing, and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Parrhguirre Saitta 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

U)) 1947A 44e4;74
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00284-CR

John Hernandez

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 16th District Court

of Denton County (F-2014-1924-A)

June 16, 2016

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_______________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Operating Partners 1992-B, Ltd's Balance Sheet and Statment of Operations
contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1,309
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  462,804
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               470,386
<PP&E>                                         9,741,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,728,767)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,928,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          222,041
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,161,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,928,667
<SALES>                                        1,409,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,431,127
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  884,565<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                408,597
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            408,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   408,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation deple-
tion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and interest
expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATON OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to


§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, (the ”Report”), I, William P. Hales, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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/ William P. Hales


William P. Hales


President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)














August 15, 2011

















A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### GORDON R. HIGLEY v. RYUH OK HIGLEY.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### The State Bank *v.*Slaughter, Administrator.

*Friday,*May 31.

A promissory note was payable to two persons not partners, and indorsed by them. *Held,*that notice by the holder of the maker’s non-payment should he given to each of the indorsers.

APPEAL from the *Tippecanoe*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— This was an action of assumpsit brought by the administrator of *Chamberlin*against the state bank, for *134^erta*n dividends on bank stock belonging to the intestate’s Plea, non assumpsit. The cause was submitted to the Court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

On the trial, the defendant’s possession of the dividends was admitted; and the defence was, that the intestate’s estate was indebted to the defendant, and that the latter therefore was not liable, by a provision of the bank charter, to pay the dividends, whilst that indebtedness of the estate continued.

To prove the alleged debt to the bank, the following promissory note and indorsements were introduced: “ $200. Lafayette, *Ind., Sept.*11, 1839. Ninety days after date, I promise to pay to *Edward .Barroll*and *John C. Chamberlin*or order 200 dollars, negotiable and payable at the branch at *Lafayette*of the state bank of Indiana, for value received. *James White.*Credit the drawer. *E. BarrollJ*(Indorsed) “Pay the state bank of *Indiana. Edward Barroll. J. C. ChamberlinJ*The maker’s non-payment of this note, and due notice of the default to the plaintiff, *(Chamberlin*being dead,) were also proved. Barroll, the other indorser, resided at *Lafayette*where the default occurred, and had there a. place of business. The only notice ■ for him of the maker’s default was deposited in the post office at *Lafayette,*which was not a legal notice. *Curtis*v. *The State Bank,*6 Blackf. 312.—Story on Bills, 451.

We are of opinion that, according to these facts, the bank had no claim against the plaintiff. The note was payable to two persons not partners, each of whom had indorsed it. The contract created by the indorsement being joint only, the indorsers, if liable at all, could be only jointly liable; and to render them so liable, the notice of the non-payment should have been given to them both. The following is the language of Justice *Story*as to bills of exchange : “ Where there are several persons, who ai'e joint drawers or indorsers, entitled to notice, who are not partners, each is entitled to notice, and, therefore, notice should be directed to his own proper domicil or place of business. Where they are partners, notice to either of the partners will suffice, at the domicil of either of them, or at their usual place of business.” Story on Bills, 335. The law as to notice to joint indorsers *135must be the same, whether the indorsement be of a promissory note or bill of exchange; and the indorsers in the present case, therefore, according to the authority cited, were discharged for want of legal notice to each of them.

*A.*Ingram, for the appellant.

*J. Pettit*and $. *A. Huff,*for the appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed, with 3 *per cent.*damages and costs.
Exhibit 99.3

 March 29, 2005


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
300 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017

Dear Sirs:

The undersigned duly authorized representative of A.I. Credit Corp, AICCO, Inc.
("AICCO I"), AICCO, Inc. ("AICCO II), Imperial Premium Finance, and Imperial
Premium Funding Inc. (collectively, the "Servicers") as Servicers pursuant to
the Series 2004-1 AICCO Premium Finance Master Trust, (the "Trust"), Sale and
Servicing Agreement dated November 8, 1999 (the "Sales and Servicing Agreement")
by and among the Servicers and JP Morgan Chase, as indenture trustee (the
"Trustee"), do hereby certify that the Servicers have complied in all material
respects with the following sections of Article 5 of the Trust's Base Indenture
(as supplemented by the 2004-1 Series Supplement), and Article III and IV of the
Trust's Sales and Servicing Agreement as noted below, subclause (c) of Section
2.01 of the Trust's Sales and Servicing Agreement and subclause (ii)(A) of
subsection 2.06(d) of the Trust's Sales and Servicing Agreement (copies of these
sections are attached).:


Article II (Sales and Servicing Agreement)
------------------------------------------
|X|      Section 2.01 (c)
|X|      Section 2.06(d)(ii)(A)

Article II (Base Indenture)
---------------------------
|X|      Section 2.20 (Not applicable)

Article III (Sales and Servicing Agreement)
-------------------------------------------
|X|      Any Section marked as "Reserved" is not applicable
|X|      Section 3.01 (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h)
|X|      Section 3.02
|X|      Section 3.03 (Not applicable)
|X|      Section 3.04 (b), (c), (d)
|X|      Section 3.05
|X|      Section 3.06
|X|      Section 3.07
|X|      Section 3.08
|X|      Section 3.09


<PAGE>
Article IV (Sales and Servicing Agreement)
------------------------------------------
|X|      Any Section marked as "Reserved" is not applicable
|X|      Section 4.01
|X|      Section 4.02
|X|      Section 4.03

Article 5 (Base Indenture)
--------------------------
|X|      Section 5.1
|X|      Section 5.2
|X|      Section 5.3
|X|      Section 5.4
|X|      Section 5.5
|X|      Section 5.6
|X|      Section 5.7
|X|      Section 5.8
|X|      Section 5.9

Article 5 (Series Supplement  2004-1)
----------------------------  -------
|X|      Any Section marked as "Reserved" is not applicable
|X|      Section 5.10
|X|      Section 5.11
|X|      Section 5.12
|X|      Section 5.13
|X|      Section 5.14
|X|      Section 5.15
|X|      Section 5.16
|X|      Section 5.17
|X|      Section 5.18
|X|      Section 5.19
|X|      Section 5.20
|X|      Section 5.21
|X|      Section 5.22
|X|      Section 5.23
|X|      Section 5.24
|X|      Section 5.25
|X|      Section 5.26
|X|      Section 5.27
|X|      Section 5.28
|X|      Section 5.29


                                       2
<PAGE>
    A.I Credit Corp.
    AICCO Inc. I
    AICCO Inc. II
    Imperial Premium Finance Inc.
    Imperial Premium Funding Inc.



By:  /s/ Jeffrey Lesnoy
     ---------------------------------
     Jeffrey Lesnoy
     Senior Vice President, Controller










                                       3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sofie Bates","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/slbates2\/","title":"NASA Planes Fly into Snowstorms to Study Snowfall","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"U7p0EBKuvs\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasa-planes-fly-into-snowstorms-to-study-snowfall\/\">NASA Planes Fly into Snowstorms to Study Snowfall<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasa-planes-fly-into-snowstorms-to-study-snowfall\/embed\/#?secret=U7p0EBKuvs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Planes Fly into Snowstorms to Study Snowfall” — NASA\" data-secret=\"U7p0EBKuvs\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/eastcoast_tmo_2022004.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":461}
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe quarterly report of Santa Fe Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not inits individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Trust.
|                             | /s/ MIKE  ULRICH                 |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                        | Mike Ulrich,                     |
| Date: November 5, 2004 | Vice President and Trust Officer |

 

----
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, 2006 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, 2006 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                           
|/S/    JOHN G.
MURCHIE                                     
|BY JOHN G. MURCHIE Vice President, Treasurer and Controller

Dated: March 29, 2007

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.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                    RESOURCE BANCSHARES MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.
               STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE,
                      BASIC and DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

                   ($ in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              For the Nine Months
                                                      Ended           For the Quarter Ended
                                               September 30, 1998       September 30, 1998 
                                              ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>                       <C>       
Net Income                                             $   35,945                $   13,252

Net Income per common share - basic (1)                      1.55                      0.57

Net income per common share - diluted (2)                    1.53                      0.56
</TABLE>


1) The number of common shares outstanding used to compute net income per share
- basic was 23,189,299 for the nine months ended September 30, 1998, and
23,394,524 for the quarter ended September 30, 1998.

2) Diluted earnings per share for the nine months and the quarter ended
September 30, 1998, was calculated based on weighted average shares outstanding
of 23,569,021 and 23,831,297, respectively, which assumes the exercise of
options covering 1,758,205 shares and computes incremental shares using the
treasury stock method.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Orlando Lovero, Also Known as Orlando Garcia, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 907]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Hoye, J.), rendered February 25, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, waived his right to appeal and was sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement to a prison term of 3 to 6 years. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and defense counsel’s brief, we agree. The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.