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 3rd Quarter Report of **BioLok
        International Inc.** (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2005, as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and
        the undersigned officer certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
        adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
        to such
        officer’s knowledge:
 
 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
        Registrant as of the dates and the periods expressed in the  Report.
 
 
 **BioLok
        International Inc.**
 
 /s/
        Ingo K Kozak
 Ingo
        K.
        Kozak
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 September
        13, 2005
 
 
 19
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 2, 2016

s0418

Order 

Clerk

May 2, 2016

151476

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151476

COA: 325431

Wayne CC: 97-500792-FC

LONNELL VENTURA HAYWOOD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 11, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Wayne Circuit Court on the 

defendant’s first-degree murder conviction, and we REMAND this case to the trial court 

for resentencing on that conviction pursuant to MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a. See 

Montgomery v Louisiana, 577 US ___; 136 S Ct 718; 193 L Ed 2d 599 (2016), and Miller 

v Alabama, 567 US ___; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012). In all other respects, 

leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
MNM2 Mgt. Inc. v Kay 2024 NY Slip Op 30795(U) March 11, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 650780/2024 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001 (U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

### [* 1]

### [* 2]

### [* 3]

### [* 4]

### [* 5]

### [* 6]

### [* 7]

### [* 8]

### [* 9]

### [* 10]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KENNEDY MINNIFIELD, )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0529-KD-N

 )

GRANT CULLIVER, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and a review of the additional

evidentiary materials (Docs. 14, 15) submitted by petitioner following entry of the Report and

Recommendation, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 and dated March 17, 2010 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

Petitioner’s affidavit and assorted state court records raise the fact that there was no blood

or DNA evidence found at the crime scene; he offers this apparently in furtherance of an “actual

innocence” exception to the limitations period. However, the lack of evidence presented at trial is

not new and is not evidence. As the state court found, the jury based its verdict on eyewitness and

other evidence. The lack of certain kinds of evidence does not render the petition timely and does

not alter the Court’s reasoning.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the instant action is DISMISSED with prejudice and that

all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. A certificate of appealability shall not issue.

DONE and ORDERED this the 15th day of April 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DUBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00529-KD-N Document 16 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 1
11285.

#### Hall *v.*Glass & Smith.

Jenkins, P. J.

This case is controlled by the decision of this court in *Floyd*v. *Massachusetts Mills,*25 *Ga. App.*519 (103 S. E. 801), the exceptions being taken to the action of the trial judge in sustaining the plaintiif’s demurrer to the defendant’s plea and in refusing to allow an amendment thereto. It not appearing that any final judgment has been entered in the case and that exceptions have been taken thereto, the bill of exceptions must be dismissed. It is directed that the official copy of. the bill of exceptions now of file in the office of the *711clerk of the trial court shall operate as exceptions pendente lite. Civil Code (1910), §§ 6152-6154.

Decided October 19, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Dawson — Judge Edwards. January 20, 1920.

*Yeomans & Wilkinson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Parks & Parks,*contra.

*Writ of error dismissed with direction.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aphton Corporation
(the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip C. Gevas, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, as amended; 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: August 14, 2003



By:

/s/    PHILIP C.
GEVASPhilip C. GevasChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
11171.

#### Long *v.*The State.

Decided March 2, 1920.

Luke, J.

The error assigned upon two excerpts from the charge of the court is wholly without merit. The charge of the court was most fair, and fully presented the issues in the case. The evidence amply authorized the verdict finding the defendant guilty.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

*11Indictment for robbery; from Fulton superior court —Judge Humphries. November 15, 1919.

*Claude D. Rowe, G. H. Cornwell,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens,*contra.
October 20, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSE REFUGIO FLORES, Appellant

NO. 14-10-00976-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below, and having 

inspected the record, this Court holds there was no error in the judgment requiring 

reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable of reformation 

by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED, to reflect that appellant, Jose 

Refugio Flores, pleaded "Not True" to the enhancement paragraph alleged in the 

indictment.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED, and orders this 

decision certified below for observance.
Feedback in response to the NIST RFI regarding Cybersecurity Workforce Development.

Areas of Consideration:

Cybersecurity education curricula and/or Training programs and courses - academic 

curricula needs to be developed in partnership with industry professionals/organizations. This 

partnership is critical to ensure that curriculum provides the needed skills that industry requires. 

In the development of our Masters in Cybersecurity & Information Assurance, the following 

courses have been included based on industry feedback and partnerships with our Industry 

Advisory Board:

https://www.suu.edu/cose/csis/masters/outline.html

Recommendations on how to support and improve the workforce in both the public and 

private sectors - Just as important as partnerships between academia and industry in regards to 

curriculum, is the importance of the same partnership when it comes to providing 

internship/apprenticeship opportunities for students or early career professionals. These types of 

programs enable individuals to gain necessary and critical skills that contribute, directly, to the 

field of security, as well as boost the capabilities of an organization's security posture and team.

Independent of each other (academia, industry, and government) we can only do so much, but 

together there can be a synergy of efforts that can boost the cybersecurity skills within the nation 

to not only protect its citizens and their information, but also each of the 16 critical infrastructure 

sectors of our nation.

As part of this section's recommendation there are some programs in place that help facilitate and 

improve the workforce talent in the nation, these programs include: U.S. Cyber Challenge; 

CyberCompEx.org, GenCyber, and the CAE-CD/CAE-R programs. These are just some of the 

programs that could benefit from additional funding to improve the facilitation of talent into the 

cyber security workforce.

These are just a few of my thoughts in regards to improving cyber security education and 

increasing the pool of talented professionals in this important industry.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice these thoughts.

Kind Regards,

--

Rob Robertson, Ph.D., CISSP, GCFE, GCFA, GCIA

Department Chair, Computer Science & Information Systems

Associate Professor of Information Systems

Director of Graduate Program in Cyber Security & Information Assurance

Southern Utah University

Phone: 435.865.8560
11393.

#### Oliver *v.*The State.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Indictment for manufacture of liquor;-from Ben Hill superior court — Judge Gower. February 14, 1920.

*A. J. & J. C. McDonald, Vessie Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. B. Wall, solicitor-general, Jesse Grantham,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. In the light of the particular facts of the case, the charge as a whole, and the notes of the judge qualifying his approval of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, none of the special grounds of the motion shows cause for a reversal of the judgment below.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>1000                  
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            4796
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             804
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      35388
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          174848
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            173500
<LOANS>                                         310185
<ALLOWANCE>                                       2812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  553599
<DEPOSITS>                                      474427
<SHORT-TERM>                                      3117
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2898
<LONG-TERM>                                      38340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           260
<OTHER-SE>                                       34557
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  553599
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   6219
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 3525
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  9744
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                4291
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4978
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             4766
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2114
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1348
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1348
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.76
<LOANS-NON>                                       3539
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   557
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2782
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2812
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2812
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           2812
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 476 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 476

To provide that service of the members of the organization known as the 
United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II constituted active 
military service for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2003

 Mrs. Lowey (for herself, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs. Capito, 
   Mr. Capuano, Mr. Engel, Mr. Filner, Mr. Foley, Mr. Fossella, Mr. 
Gillmor, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Holden, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Lofgren, 
Mr. Markey, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. 
Olver, Mr. Paul, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Rush, and Mr. Strickland) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
  Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that service of the members of the organization known as the 
United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II constituted active 
military service for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the ``United States Cadet Nurse Corps 
Equity Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. SERVICE DEEMED TO BE ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of section 401(a)(1)(A) of the GI 
Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (38 U.S.C. 106 note), the Secretary of 
Defense is deemed to have determined that qualified service of a person 
constituted active military service.
    (b) Determination of Discharge Status.--(1) The Secretary of 
Defense shall issue an honorable discharge under section 401(a)(1)(B) 
of the GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977 to each person whose qualified 
service warrants an honorable discharge.
    (2) Such discharge shall be issued before the end of the one-year 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF RETROACTIVE BENEFITS.

     No benefits may be paid to any person as a result of the enactment 
of this Act for any period before the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

SEC. 4. DEFINITION.

     For purposes of this Act, the term ``qualified service'' means 
service of a person as a member of the organization known as the United 
States Cadet Nurse Corps during the period beginning on July 1, 1943, 
and ending on December 15, 1945.
                                 <all>
```
11136.

#### Reddick *v.*Strickland.

Smith, J.

1. “Exceptions pendente lite cannot be considered unless error is assigned thereon either in the main bill of exceptions or in the reviewing court by counsel for plaintiff in error before argument begins.’’ *Jones*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*22 (1) (93 S. E. 514). See also *Kent*v. *State,*18 *Ga. App.*30 (88 S. E. 913) ; *Shaw*v. *Jones,*133 *Ga.*446 (66 S. E. 240) *Nicholls*v. *Popwell,*80 Ga. 604 (9) (6 S. E. 21). The bill of exceptions in this case recites that exceptions pendente lite were ■ duly taken to the overruling of a special demurrer and to the over*276ruling of a motion to strike an amendment to tlie petition, but no assignment of error thereon is made either in the bill of exceptions or in this court, and the judgment overruling the demurrer and’the motion to strike cannot be considered.

Decided May 5, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Cairo — Judge Rigsby. November *24, 1919.*

*Ledford & Christopher,*for plaintiff in error.

*S. P. Cain,*contra,

2. Where exceptions pendente lite are ■ taken and error is not assigned thereon' in the bill of exceptions, and the exceptions pendente lite are brought up in the record, counsel should, before argument begins in this court, assign error thereon. If counsel -waits to do so until after the original argument and while the ease is pending on motion to rehear, it is too late. *Nicholls*v. *Popwell,*supra; *Stover*v. *Adams,*114 *Ga.*171 (1) (39 S.E. 864).

3. Where the defendant, by demurrer and motion to strike, brought in question the sufficiency of the description of the currency sought to be recovered, and in the bill of exceptions no assignment of error was made as to the judgment overruling the demurrer and motion, that decision became the law of the ease, binding alike upon the parties and the court. See *Grantham*v. *Fleming,*13 *Ga. App.*184 (2) (78 S. E. 1113) ; *Hawkins*v. *Studdard,*132 *Ga.*265 (63 S. E. 852, 131 Am. St. Rep. 190) ; *Cooper*v. *Chamblee,*114 *Ga.*116 (39 S. E. 917).

4. The exceptions to the charge of the court on the subject of fraud arc without merit. The court, after reading to the jury the code definitions of actual, constructive, and legal fraud (Civil Code of 1910, §§ 4622, 4623), instructed them that “in this case there must be the misrepresentation of a material fact, made wilfully to deceive, recklessly without knowledge, and acted on by the opposite party, in order for that to be applicable.”

5. There being evidence to support the allegations as made in the petition, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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 Genus, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, William W.R. Elder,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                                   By:
                                      ----------------------
                                   William W.R. Elder
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   Date:
                                        -------------


                                       37
<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4847 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4847

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 560 Bay Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, as the ``Lieutenant 
           General James V. Edmundson Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4847

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 560 Bay Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, as the ``Lieutenant 
           General James V. Edmundson 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 560 Bay 
Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Lieutenant General James V. Edmundson 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 ``Lieutenant General James V. 
Edmundson Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```