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

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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. 

 

 

| August 7, 2009 | By: /s/ | Thomas J. McInerney                    |
|----------------|--------------|----------------------------------------|
| (Date)         |         | Thomas J. McInerney

President

  |

 

|   |
|--------|

 

 

 

 

 

----
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 of BLACKWATER MIDSTREAM CORP. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended MARCH 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Suder,
Chief Executive 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:




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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  June
      26, 2009By:
                        /S/ MICHAEL D. SUDERMichael
      D. SuderChief
      Executive
Officer


1
10565.

#### Munday *v.*The State.

Bboxxes, P. J.

Under the principle underlying the ruling in *Cooper*v. *Brown,*10 *Ga. App.*730 (73 S. E. 1101), where a defendant has been convicted of a criminal offense and has filed a bill of exceptions and given bond for his appearance to abide the final judgment in the case, *112and pending tlie hearing of the writ of error he is convicted of another criminal offense and sentenced to the chain-gang, from which he escapes, the bond given in the first case becomes functus officio and the obligation of the sureties is annulled. It follows that the defendant is a fugitive from justice not only in the latter case but in the first one; and the bill of exceptions will be dismissed, unless the defendant gives himself up to the officers of the law within thirty days from the time the case was submitted to this court. *Madden*v. *State,*70 *Ga.*383; *Osborn*v. *Slate,*70 *Ga.*731; *Gentry*v. *State,*91 *Ga.*669 (17 S. E. 956).

Decided July 19, 1919.

Conviction of assault and battery; from Morgan superior court —Judge Park. April 14, 1919.

*Allen & Pollle,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor,*contra.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7181

HANNIBAL TYR KONR BUCHANAN, a/k/a Paul Gregory Chapman,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:15-cv-00710-LO-TCB)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hannibal Tyr Konr Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hannibal Tyr Konr Buchanan appeals from the district 

court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, after 

construing it as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Buchanan v. Virginia, No. 1:15-cv-00710-LOTCB (E.D. Va. filed July 9, 2015 & entered July 10, 2015). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
10859.

#### Henderson *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for larceny after trust; from Floyd superior court— Judge Wright. August 9, 1919.

Luke, J.

An indictment, drawn under section 193 of the Penal Code (1910), -which alleges that the defendant’ was entrusted with promissory notes for stated sums of money, for the purpose of collecting the money which was due thereon, is subject to special demurrer, where there is no allegation that the notes were of value. See *Davis*v. *State,*40 *Oa.*229. The court erred in overruling the demurrer which attacked the indictment for insufficiency in failing to allege that the notes were solvent or of any value.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J., concur.*

*354
      *M. B. Eubanks,*for plaintiff in error.

*O. II. Porter, solicitor-general,*contra.
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Thomas
G. Tachovsky, Ph.D. and Patricia G. Kriss hereby certify that:

1.    They
are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Entropin, Inc.

2.    The
Form 10-QSB report of Entropin, Inc. that this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

3.    The
information contained in the Form 10-QSB report of Entropin, Inc. that this certification accompanies fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Entropin, Inc.

Dated:
August 14, 2002

| |  | By: |  | /s/THOMAS G. TACHOVSKY, PH.D.Thomas G. Tachovsky, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |     |  |                                                                                              
| |  | By: |  | /s/PATRICIA G. KRISSPatricia G. Kriss
Chief Financial Officer                                

---

QuickLinks
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAHINAH IBRAHIM, an individual

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TERRORIST SCREENING CENTER; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department
of Homeland S ecurity; JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, in his official capacity as Attorney General; CHARLES H. KABLE IV, Director, in his official capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; CARL GHATTAS, in his offi cial capacity as
Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch; NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER; RUSSELL "RUSS" TRAVERS, in his official capacity as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; DEPARTMENT OF STATE; REX W.
TILLERS ON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA

,

Defendants

- Appellees. Nos. 14

- 16161

14

- 17272

D.C. No. 3:06

- cv

- 00545

- WHA Northern District of California,
San Francisco

ORDER 

# FILED

DEC 29 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

THOMAS , Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

th ese case s be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

35(a) and Circuit Rule 35

- 3. The three

- judge panel disposition in th ese case s shall

not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge s Graber , Murguia, Owens, and Friedland did not participate in the

deliberations or vote in th ese case s

.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4152 

To amend section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to make unlawful the 

importation, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after 

importation, of articles falsely labeled or advertised as meeting a United 

States Government or industry standard for performance or safety. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2004 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. CAMP) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to make 

unlawful the importation, sale for importation, or sale 

within the United States after importation, of articles 

falsely labeled or advertised as meeting a United States 

Government or industry standard for performance or 

safety. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 337 OF TARIFF ACT 

4 OF 1930. 

5 Section 337(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

6 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)) is amended— 
2 

•HR 4152 IH 

1 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and (E)’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘(E), and (F)’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(F) The importation into the United 

5 States, the sale for importation, or the sale 

6 within the United States after importation by 

7 the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles 

8 that are labeled or advertised as meeting a 

9 United States Government standard for per10 formance or safety, or an industry standard for 

11 performance or safety, but do not in fact meet 

12 that standard.’’. 

Æ
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30672

Summary Calendar

__________________

Wallace Ray Ritter,

Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

Ricky Hawthorne; Roger Smith,

Defendants,

and

The Village of Sun, 

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(CA-94-2249-E)

______________________________________________

January 15, 1996

Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Village of Sun, Louisiana, appeals from a denial of

summary judgment. Sun contends that it is protected from suit by
2

the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no

reversible error. Sun is a municipal corporation in Louisiana, is

not an "arm of the state," and is not entitled to the immunity

afforded the State of Louisiana under the Eleventh Amendment.

Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons given by the

district court. 

AFFIRMED.
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 12 Off-Ridge Vents

Item 12 Off-Ridge Vents – Apply fine metal mesh screens to roof vents to prevent ember intrusion.

Off-ridge vents with fine

metal mesh screen (not visible)

Vents without fine metal mesh screen

Off-ridge vent without fine metal mesh screen 

exposed roof to embers causing damage

Off-ridge vents with fine metal mesh screen (not visible)

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 12: Off-Ridge Vents 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
#### Ursula L. Harrison v. Alexander M. Harrison and Loyal Crane.

*Divorce*— Wife’s *claim for pi'ope/t'iy.*

A wife appealed from a decree which granted her a divorce but denied her claim for property. It appeared that she had put into-her husband’s business money which she had acquired since their marriage, hut that he had conveyed land to her which was a full-equivalent therefor and of her full share of the property. *EM*that the decree would not be disturbed.

Appeal from Yan Burén.

Submitted June 28.

Decided October 18.

Bill for divorce. Complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

*A. J. Mills*and *Howard & Moos*for complainant.

*Bewjamin F. Heclcert*for defendant Harrison.

A husband will not be made to account to his wife for money which she has earned since their marriage and voluntarily turned over to him where it does not exceed the value of her services: 1 Bish. Married Women §§ 732, 212; 2 id. § 446.

*241Mabston, J.

In. this canse a decree of divorce was granted the complainant, and claim made by her to the property of the defendant was denied, and from this part of the decree she appeals. .

Without attempting to decide what legal or equitable claim the complainant might have against her husband for moneys she acquired after their marriage and put into his business as detailed in the testimony, we are of opinion that in the land conveyed to her she has received the full equivalent thereof and her full share of all the property.

The case is not one that calls for any extended discussion upon the facts, and we think the decree should not be disturbed.

The decree will therefore be affirmed without costs to either party.

The other Justices concurred.
No. 87-1354.

#### CBS Inc. et al. *v.*Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.
#### SHIRLEY SMITH v. JACK ECKERD CORPORATION

No. 417A96

(Filed 9 May 1997)

Appeal by plaintiff, Shirley Smith, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2), from an unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 123 N.C. App. 785, 474 S.E.2d 418 (1996), affirming the judgment entered by Freeman, J., on 26 April 1995 in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 April 1997.

*Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy and Kennedy, L.L.P., by Harvey L. Kennedy and Harold L. Kennedy, III, for plaintiff-appellant.*

*Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., by J. Dennis Bailey, for defendantappellee.*

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Forsyth County, for a new trial which shall be limited solely to the issue of plaintiff’s damages in connection with her claim for relief for battery.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
David C. Cole, certify that:



|Date: |  | March 14, 2008 |  |        |  |                                                                           
|----- |  | -------------- |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |                |  |        |  | /s/DAVID C. COLE                                                          
|      |  |                |  |       
|      |  |                |  | Name:  |  | David C. Cole                                                             
|      |  |                |  | Title: |  | Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      1,681
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                               2,034
<ALLOWANCES>                                   43
<INVENTORY>                                   217
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            4,118
<PP&E>                                    116,858
<DEPRECIATION>                             54,444
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             68,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       7,139
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       74
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       1,344
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                 18,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               68,864
<SALES>                                     3,920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               62
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               4,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,631)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,631)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,759)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.22)




</TABLE>
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 1 Skylight

Photo 

5810

Damaged skylight

Skylight with multi paned 

tempered glass

Item 1 Skylight – Skylights can melt or break from heat and allow ember intrusion. 

Damaged skylight

Damaged plastic skylights

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 1: Skylight 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
EXHIBIT 99

                 STRATFORD AMERICAN CORPORATION 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 of Stratford American Corporation and
Subsidiaries (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), we, Mel L. Shultz, President and Director of the Company, David H.
Eaton, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, and
Daniel E. Matthews, Controller, Secretary and Treasurer 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 the 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.

/s/  Mel L. Shultz
-------------------------
Mel L. Shultz,
President and Director
May 15, 2003


/s/ David H. Eaton
--------------------------
David H. Eaton, Chief
Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board
May 15, 2003


/s/ Daniel E. Matthews
--------------------------
Controller, Secretary and
Treasurer
May 15, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4222 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4222

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Newell George 
                        Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4222

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Newell George 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 550 
Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Newell George Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Newell George Post Office 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

Walter Industries, Inc.    Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Walter Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2008 (the "Report"), I, Victor P. Patrick, Director, Vice Chairman and Director, Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, Principal Executive and 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:



Date:
May 9, 2008

| | /s/VICTOR P. PATRICKVice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel (Principal Executive and Financial
Officer)
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
IOT TRUSTWORTHINESS SCORE 

FRANÇOIS-FRÉDÉRIC OZOG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

40 years ago, at 16, I was selling BIOS security patches to USA based Zenith Data 

Systems. Traces of my white hacker past. 

In the pas three years I have been leading efforts in the Arm eco-system to 

standardize secure boot and OTA. 

Now I do a big split between selling Software Defined Vehicle strategic 

positioning or OEMs/Tier1s and build a specialized hypervisor for silicon 

simulation for the automotive market with two silicon makers. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IOT TRUSTWORTHINESS SCORING 

automotive safety: safety claims --> safety score ASIL-[A to D] 

IoT trustworthiness: trust claims --> trust score ITIL-[A to G] 

Scoring done once Faster to completion 

Wide application Profile definitions per industry 

Legitimate interest for 

Some IoT devices are more complex than servers. any object 

I Led Arm processors coding and standardization of surrounding customers 

firmware secure boot / OTA 

Not boiling the ocean 
 

 

 

BUILDING TRUST SCORE 

Claims are made against criterias that can be collected from NIST and other parties 

(UN CE 155...) 

Following Arm Platform Security Architecture label, a claim confidence can be 

attached (self assessment up to lab verified with white hacking). Consumer/Gov may 

want same claim but we different confidence requirement. 

Product 

Alarms – IETF MUD 

Hardware – Fault injection 

Behavior – Initial certs 

Behavior – Key duplicate 

Product building 

Supply chain 

Provisioning 

Traceability 

Product lifecycle 

Continuity with building 

Ownership changes 

Neutralization (trashing Things) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MANDATORY DISCLOSURES 

Hardware and Software BOMs: 

Disclose processing elements , functions, what they can affect. 

Google discovered micro-controller attack surface decades too late 

NSA was the only allowed to neutralize the attack vector 

Reversing shall he allowed to verify the claims. 

What is at stake on false disclosures? 
 

 

 

 

SCALING SCORING PROCESS 

Should scoring evolve per HW, SW revisions? 

Hundred of thousands of combination of HW and Software 

Who do what? 

Hiring labs. 

Claim confidence choice 
THANK YOU 

WWW.SHOKUBAI.TECH