alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2  TEMPCO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES  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 on Form 10-Q of Tempco, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned, Kimberly A Conley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.  By:/s/ Kimberly A ConleyKimberly A Conley
Chief Financial Officer  Dated:November 19, 2012
EXHIBIT 2

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-2 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:16744
2

Table 1. Initial Comparison of Patents-in-Suit, Prior Arts, 

Accused Products and Separate Patents on Accused Products

Patents-in-Suit D737,723 Patent Patents-in-Suit D738,256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit D784,195 Patent Patents-in-Suit D785,112 Patent

Prior Arts D739,906 Patent

Accused Product A Separate Patents – D808,857 Patent

Accused Product B Separate Patents – D808,856 Patent

Accused Product C Separate Patents – D808,857 Patent

Accused Product D Separate Patents – D891,297 Patent

Accused Product E Separate Patents – D808,857 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-2 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:16745
3

Table 2. Initial Comparison of Patents-in-Suit, Prior Arts, 

Accused Products and Separate Patents on Accused Products

Patents-in-Suit D737,723 Patent Patents-in-Suit D738,256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit D784,195 Patent Patents-in-Suit D785,112 Patent

Prior Arts D739,906 Patent

Accused Product A Separate Patents - D808,857 Patent

Accused Product B Separate Patents - D808,856 Patent

Accused Product C Separate Patents - D808,857 Patent

Accused Product D Separate Patents - D891,297 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-2 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:16746
4

Accused Product E Separate Patents - D808,857 Patent

Table 3. Comparison of Patents-in-Suit, Prior Arts, 

Accused Products and Separate Patents on Accused Products

Patents-in-Suit D737,723 Patent Patents-in-Suit D738,256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit D784,195 Patent Patents-in-Suit D785,112 Patent

Prior Arts D739,906 Patent

Accused Product A Separate Patents - D808,857 Patent

Accused Product B Separate Patents - D808,856 Patent

Accused Product C Separate Patents - D808,857 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-2 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:16747
5

Accused Product D Separate Patents - D891,297 Patent

Accused Product E Separate Patents - D808,857 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-2 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:16748
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         203,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  234,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (205,743)
<INVENTORY>                                     79,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               330,164
<PP&E>                                       2,151,629
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,019,970)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,317,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          608,488
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,356,750
<COMMON>                                        30,695
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,753,575)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,317,358
<SALES>                                        124,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,872
<CGS>                                           55,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               414,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (398,411)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (398,411)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.8



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
report dated May 14, 1997, on the financial statements of Ameron Broadcasting, 
Inc. (and to all references to our firm) included in or made a part of this
registration statement.

                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



St. Louis, Missouri
May 1, 1998
Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, the undersigned  officer of ING USA Annuity
and Life  Insurance  Company  (the  "Company")  hereby  certifies  that,  to the
officer's knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
Section 13(a) or 15(d),  as applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


May 14, 2004                    By /s/ David A. Wheat
    (Date)                         ---------------------------------------------
                                   David A. Wheat
                                   Director, Senior Vice President and
                                     Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>




EXHIBIT 99.9


                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 on Form 10-Q of Patriot Scientific
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended February 28, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Lowell W. Giffhorn, 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, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


                                          /S/ LOWELL W. GIFFHORN
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Name:  Lowell W. Giffhorn
                                          Title:  Exec. V.P. and CFO
                                          Date: April 18, 2003










                                       28


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          13,829
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  135,252
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,276)
<INVENTORY>                                     13,873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,925
<PP&E>                                         658,195
<DEPRECIATION>                               (287,415)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,224,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,313
<BONDS>                                        631,857
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,452
<OTHER-SE>                                     296,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,224,072
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               824,308
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  593,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,647
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,643
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                144,040
<INCOME-TAX>                                    56,535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             87,505
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    87,505
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.11
        

</TABLE>
#### Commonwealth *v.*Greenup Nichell.

Indictment and Information — Allegations of Offense — Bar.

An indictmen/t must allege tlie offense witli such. Certainty as to enable accused to know what he is called upon to defend, and to constitute a bar to 'any subsequent prosecution for the same offense.

Larceny — Indictment—Money—Description.

An indictment which simply charges that a number of United States Treasury notes and National Bank notes were feloniously taken by accused, without any further description of the same, was held insufficient.

APPEAL PROM ROWAN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 8, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

An indictment must allege the offense with such certainty as to enable the accused to know what he is called upon to defend and to constitute a bar to any subsequent' prosecution for the same offense.

In this indictment there is no description of the bank bills alleged to have been stolen either as to the number of bills, or the *62amount, and no description whatever given, except that a number of United States treasury notes and national bank notes were feloni-ously taken by the accused.

The accused from: this accusation is unable to know whether he is charged with stealing two bank notes or twenty bank notes of the denomination of .five dollars or one hundred dollars, and hence could prepare no defense based upon the idea that he had and owned as his own property certain treasury notes answering the description given by the indictment, as he is in entire ignorance as to the description of the paper the commonwealth will produce evidencing his guilt.

The judgment is *affirmed.*

-, *for appellee.*
<PAGE>

   Exhibit 99.3 - Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by
   section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Tarpon Coast Bancorp,
Inc., the undersigned hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that this
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


Date: April 28, 2003                         /s/ George E. Cline
                                             ---------------------------
                                             George E. Cline
                                             Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD, December 5, 2014, 08:00 a.m. to December 5, 2014, 04:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 30, 2014, 79 FR 210, page 64608.                

The meeting notice is amended to add an open session and agenda from December 5, 2014, 08:00 a.m. to December 5, 2014, 12:30 p.m. as follows below. The closed session commences immediately afterward.

*Name of Committee:*                         Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.                    

*Date:*                         December 5, 2014.                    

Open: 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

*Agenda:*                         A report by the Scientific Director, NICHD, on the status of the NICHD Division of Intramural Research, and seminars by various intramural scientists.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

Closed: 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

Dated: November 13, 2014.

Michelle Trout,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-27347 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 408 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.408

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
   To provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE.

    (a) In General.--When title to the land described in subsection (b) 
has vested in the United States in fee simple, the boundary of Sleeping 
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is revised to include such land in that 
park.
    (b) Land Described.--The land referred to in subsection (a) 
consists of approximately 104.45 acres of unimproved lands generally 
depicted on National Park Service map number 634/80078, entitled 
``Bayberry Mills, Inc. Crystal River, MI Proposed Expansion Unit to 
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore''. The Secretary of the Interior 
shall keep such map on file and available for public inspection in the 
appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
    (c) Purchase of Lands Authorized.--The Secretary of the Interior 
may acquire the land described in subsection (b), only by purchase from 
a willing seller.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ACQUISITION BY EXCHANGE OR CONVEYANCE.

    The Secretary of the Interior may not acquire any of the land 
described in subsection (b) of section 1 through any exchange or 
conveyance of lands that are within the boundary of the Sleeping Bear 
Dunes National Lakeshore as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00401-CR

IN RE Sigifredo DAVILA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 22, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On June 8, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial 

court’s failure to rule on his various pro se motions. However, counsel has been appointed to 

represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is currently 

confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 

240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with 

regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 

240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-6623, styled State of Texas v. Sigifredo Davila, pending in the 

227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding. 
04-11-00390-CR

- 2 -

on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1535

___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee ,

v. Nickolas Trent Lamm, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant .

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern

____________ Submitted: August 5, 2022 Filed: August 15, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Nickolas Lamm appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense under a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence. We will enforce the appeal waiver because Lamm’s appeal waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily, his challenge to the sentence falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50669 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAMON MUNOZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-522-DB

-------------------- October 30, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ramon Munoz-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to illegally reenter the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Munoz-Garcia contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Munoz-Garcia maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which chargedNo. 02-50669 -2- only attempted simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Munoz-Garcia acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 26, 2012 

h0319 

Order 

 

March 26, 2012 

143858 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143858 

 COA: 301387 

Wayne CC: 95-002711-FC 

JOHNNY RILEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 30, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).