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



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF SPINNAKER EXPLORATION COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Spinnaker Exploration Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert M. Snell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to 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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|/s/    |  | ROBERT M. SNELL        
|      
|Name:  |  | Robert M. Snell        
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:  |  | March 11, 2004         



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Spinnaker Exploration Company and will be retained by Spinnaker Exploration Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 16,409.

#### Martin *v.*The State, ex rel.

Filed June 11, 1892.

From the Blackford Circuit Court.

*R. S. Gregory*and *A. C. Silverburg,*for appellant.

Elliott, C. J.

— Affirmed upon the authority of *Luzadder*v. *State, etc.,*131 Ind. 598.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0328 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. DAVID RICHARD SENTI,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Tamara Stuckey is granted an extension of time to and including May 6 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 10 2020

04/10/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0328
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMPWAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

# STATEOFTEXAS jjL* ,. |§g§i|$^ 0. PENALTY FOR ^ ^; g ' ~ PRIVATE USE #i > '^-•W^,.^ ZIP 78701 02 W 0001401623 JUN 17. 2015 I " 

### $ 000.275 6/10/2015 PROPER, JOEY SHANE WR-35,475-18 On this day, the original applicatioh'«fqrwrit.of rpandamus has been received and presented to the Court.

ME6H3B 75202 

### *s*a&&' JOEY SHANE PROPER 

# ATO 

# NOTIN DALLAS COUNTYJAI Abel Acosta, Clerk

UT.F
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
     TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         25,379
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              2
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    43,651
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        344,013
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          332,504
<LOANS>                                       297,704
<ALLOWANCE>                                     3,868
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                761,244
<DEPOSITS>                                    614,437
<SHORT-TERM>                                        0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             5,836
<LONG-TERM>                                    96,306
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          790
<OTHER-SE>                                     43,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                761,244
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                11,645
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              10,105
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                4,018
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               25,768
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             13,266
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          12,502
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 8,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,134
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,649
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.37
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.36
<LOANS-NON>                                     2,752
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  116
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                3,841
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     109
<RECOVERIES>                                       15
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               3,868
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            3,868
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         3,417



</TABLE>
#### Ellen Martin *v.*George W. Martin.

Injunction — Motion to Modify.

When a cause is submitted to the court on motion to dissolve an in-; junction it is error for the court to make final disposition of the order of injunction by perpetuating it, or to determine the issues involved in the action, suck issues not being submitted on suck motion.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

January 16, 1875.

*Jeff.*Brown, *for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

On the 25th of October, appellant filed a demurrer to appellee’s petition, and also filed notice, and moved the court to dissolve the temporary injunction. Both parties filed various *ex parte*affidavits, and by consent the cause was set for trial on the 7th of November; and it was also agreed that the demurrer, and the motion of appellant to dissolve the injunction should be continued until that day for hearing.

On the 8th of November the cause was assigned to the 9Ü1 day of January, 1874. On said last named day, an order was made which shows that the motion of the defendant then pending in the cause was heard in part; and there not being time to conclude, the further hearing of the same w(as postponed until the following Monday.

The motion referred to must be the motion to dissolve the injunction, as there was no motion pending in the action. The bill of exceptions not only confirms this conclusion, but states in terms that it was the motion of the defendant to dissolve and discharge the injunction of the plaintiff. That was filed by the court. Such being the case, the only judgment or order the court could properly render or make, was either to sustain or overrule the motion, or if proper so to do, the injunction might have been modified. Sec. 323, Civil Code of Practice.

It was error, upon the hearing of the motion to dissolve, to make a final disposition of the order of injunction by perpetuating it, and still more manifest error to determine the issues involved in the action for a new trial, those issues not having been submitted to the court for adjudication. Judgment *reversed*and cause remanded for further proper proceedings.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Effective date:*                         December 17, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 11, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 104 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2015-19, CP2015-23.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Requirements.

[FR Doc. 2014-29477 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### R. Y. Daniel *v.*J. W. Steerman.

Sale of Personal Property — Contract—Delivery.

Although a contract for the sale of goods is complete and binding in other respects, the title remains in the vendor if any material act remains to be done before delivery to distinguish the goods sold or to ascertain the price or to fit them for delivery, unless what remains to be done devolves upon the purchaser and the possession is given him either actually or constructively.

APPEAL PROM OHIO CIRCUIT COURT.

April 5, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

Under the provisions of the contract between the appellant and appellee, the title to the tobacco in contest remained in the latter. Although a contract for the sale of goods be completed and binding in other respects, the title remains in the vendor, and the goods at his risk, if any material act remains to be done before delivery to distinguish the goods sold, or to ascertain the price, or to fit them for delivery, unless what remains to be done is to be done by the purchaser, and the possession is delivered to him either actually or constructively.

The tobacco in contest was not delivered, nor was it ready for delivery, and t:he price was not ascertained. The tobacco was to be as*664sorted, tied up into hands, and delivered by the vendor; and until these things were done the title remained in him.

*McHenry & Hill, for appellant.*

*Walker & Hubbard, for appellee.*

The appellant’s remedy was by action for a breach of the contract, and not for the recovery of the tobacco. The court, therefore, properly instructed the jury to find for the defendant. Nor was there any error in afterward allowing the defendant to introduce evidence as to the value of the tobacco which had been taken possession of by the appellant, or in the assessment of the value by the jury.

Judgment *affirmed.*
**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**

I, Zeynep Hakimoglu, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ClearOne Communications, Inc.

| August 15, 2011

By:

/s/ Zeynep Hakimoglu

Zeynep Hakimoglu 

Chief Executive Officer

*(Principal Executive Officer)* |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Ex.-31)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey Mayer, certify that:

l. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Structured Asset Mortgage
Investments Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1999-4.

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in
the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the
terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and except as
disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided
by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that
is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. as Master Servicer
EverHome Mortgage Company (f/k/a Alliance Mortgage Company), as Servicer
Impac Funding Corporation, as Servicer

Date: March 26, 2004




                                 By:  /s/ Jeffrey Mayer
                                    ---------------------------------
                                 Name:    Jeffrey Mayer
                                 Company: Structured Asset Mortgage
                                          Investments Inc.
                                 Title:   President
#### Samuel Black, et al., *v.*John Walker, et al.

Cities — Public Improvements — Power—Defense.

Cities, in conformity with, their charters, have power to cause alleys and streets to he improved either upon petition or without it.

*86Public Improvements.

An alley is a public highway.

Defense.

It is no defense to a suit brought by a contractor to recover assessments for improvements made, that the real estate assessed had been assessed for other public improvements.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

September 26, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

There is no doubt but what the alley improved is a public alley, and if the improvement made is authorized by the city charter, and its provisions complied with, there is no reason why the property-owners should not be responsible for the costs. That the city council failed to improve to the extent asked for by the petitioners is no reason why they should be relieved from the tax; the council had the power to order the improvement without any petition, and having done so in the manner provided by the charter, the tax should be enforced. The contract was made and performed by the appellants in strict compliance with the law, and no reason appears for withholding from them their money. The rule of the charter is that the costs shall be charged to the quarter-square binding on the improvement, 13th and 17th streets, designated by some as alleys and others as streets; if streets, there is no difficulty in making the assessment as provided by the charter and ordinance. The assessment as made in this case is against the property fronting or binding on the improvement, as provided by the old charter. The ordinance directing the mode of taxation must be complied with. Where the apportionment is improperly made, it is the duty of the court to correct it. Sec. 12, city charter, provides that the general council, of the courts in which the suits are pending, shall make all corrections, to do justice to the parties concerned. If the ordinance has been complied with in every other respect, as has been done in this case, and the property-owner is made to pay too much by the apportionment, the chancellor should make him pay only the amount for which he is liable. That the property included in the quarter-square has been taxed to make other improvements is no reason why it should be exempt from taxation in this case. In this case the city had the power to make the improvement. The contractors have performed their contract and must have their money. The *87judgment is reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Alex G. Booth, for appellants.*

*J. T. White, T. L. Burnett, for appellees.*
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29041]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 5, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline K. Brunmeier, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Centra Ventures, Inc., Foley, Minnesota; to acquire 100 percent 
of the voting shares of Community Pride Bank Corporation, Ham Lake, 
Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Community 
Pride Bank, Isanti, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 8, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-29041 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                         301,964
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,032,618
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,534,237
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,752,552
<PP&E>                                      13,801,037
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,224,748
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,619,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,822,160
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,481,695
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,364,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,619,432
<SALES>                                     14,127,819
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,127,819
<CGS>                                        9,138,304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,745,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (49,522)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,293,213
<INCOME-TAX>                                   343,982
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,949,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,949,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EDWARD DEVINE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1823

[November 24, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Edward H. Merrigan, 

Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 07-009874CF10A.

Edward Devine, Orlando, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Gaiam, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jirka Rysavy, Chief Executive Officer of Gaiam, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/
Jirka Rysavy

Jirka
Rysavy
Chief Executive Officer
March 10, 2003



QuickLinks