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 Annual Report of The InterGroup Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David T. Nguyen, Treasurer and Controller of the Company,
serving as Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
    Company.


Date: September 28, 2007                        /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                                ----------------------------
                                                David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                                and Controller (serving as
                                                Chief Financial Officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The InterGroup Corporation, Inc. and will be retained by The
InterGroup Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATURES WAY MARINE, LLC, )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-316-CG-M

EVERCLEAR OF OHIO, LTD.,

and NIRK MAGNATE HOLDING 

CORP.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion requesting entry of 

judgment and extending the time for filing post-judgment motions. (Doc. 208). The 

Court previously set December 8, 2014 as the deadline for filing all post-trial 

motions, and December 15, 2014 as the deadline for filing any responses to said 

motions. (Doc. 209, p. 3). 

The Court has not yet entered a separate judgment in accordance with the 

verdict of the jury. By separate document, the Court will enter judgment after 

determining the issue of attorneys’ fees. The schedule for filing post-trial motions 

concerning attorneys’ fees remains the same. (Doc. 209, p. 3).

Because the Court has not entered judgment, the parties may not ask the 

Court to alter or amend its judgment. Defendants’ motion to extend the time for 

filing motions to alter or amend the judgment is therefore GRANTED. As set forth 

Case 1:12-cv-00316-CG-M Document 211 Filed 12/02/14 Page 1 of 2
2

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the parties must file their motions to alter 

or amend the judgment no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00316-CG-M Document 211 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 2
##### 



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 of Bay View Capital Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the
Report), I, Charles G. Cooper, President and 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 to the best of
my knowledge:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company for the periods presented therein. Date: August 13, 2004 /s/ Charles G. CooperCharles G. CooperPresident and ChiefExecutive Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Bay View Capital Corporation and will be retained by Bay View
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                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 Quarterly Report of Historic Preservation Properties 1989
LP ("HPP'89") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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 his knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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 HPP'89.


/s/ Robert Gunn
---------------------------
Robert Gunn
Asset Manager
(Performing similar functions of Financial Officer)

Date: May 9, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HILLARY BERNARD BALDWIN, : 

 :

Petitioner, : 

 : CIVIL ACTION 09-0713-KD-M 

v. :

 : CRIMINAL ACTION 08-00275-KD-M 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

 : 

Respondent. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and there having been no

objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and dated April 8, 2010, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

It is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate (Docs. 32-33) is DENIED and

that this action is DISMISSED. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of June 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00275-KD-M Document 38 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 October 28, 2013

p1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2013

146532 & (58)

THEODORE SLICER,

Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 146532

COA: 298068

Clinton CC: 09-010506-CK

CITY OF ST. JOHNS,

Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff- Appellee/Cross-Appellee,

and

COUNTY OF CLINTON,

Defendant,

and 

CLINTON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant- Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 of First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rick L. Wessel, 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 to my knowledge:  (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:  April 25, 2011  /s/ Rick L. Wessel Rick L. Wessel Chief Executive Officer
#### Miguel PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank RIVERA, Police Officer, # 10352 and David Vinuales, Newspaper Reporter, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 00-0231.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 8, 2001.

Miguel Perez, Woodboume, NY, pro se.

Present MESKILL, KEARSE, and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was submitted by plaintiff.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Chief *6Judge MukaseyA Order of Dismissal dated May 4, 2000.

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DARNELL OLIVER, *

(AIS #: 207467) *

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00520-KD-B

*

JOHNNY L. JOHNSON, et al., *

Defendants. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues 

raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which

objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated August 19, 2014 

and made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is 

GRANTED in part and Plaintiff’s claims arising out of the incident occurring on July 10, 2011 and 

involving Defendants Shelton Forney, L. Bailey, K. Reynolds, R. Armstrong, Johnny L. Johnson, C. 

Kimbrel, and Thaddeus Betts are DISMISSED, and Plaintiff’s claims arising out of the incidents 

occurring on August 24-25, 2011 and involving Defendants Johnny L. Johnson, C. Kimbrel, J. 

Broadhead, Earnest Stanton, A. Gipson, C. Daughtry, Russell Johnson, and Carroll are DISMISSED;

and DENIED in part and this action will proceed with regard to Plaintiff’s excessive force claims 

arising out of the incident occurring on November 12, 2011 and involving Defendants Kimbrel, 

Tyus, Andrews, Broadhead, Stanton and Gipson.

DONE and ORDERED this the 11th day of September 2014.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00520-KD-B Document 80 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         2263000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5626000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    8396000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              17055000
<PP&E>                                        76006000
<DEPRECIATION>                                16762000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                78352000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         10598000
<BONDS>                                       28174000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      39185000
<OTHER-SE>                                      395000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  78352000
<SALES>                                       23669000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              23669000
<CGS>                                         21734000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 21734000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                980000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              896000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              59000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     59000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7235

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MATHEW ARCHIE, a/k/a Matthew Archie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-1184) Submitted: March 23, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mathew Archie, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mathew Archie appeals the district court’s orders denying hismotions for release of documents related to his criminal conviction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Archie , No. CR98-1184 (D.S.C. Aug. 2, 2000; filed July 17, 2000; entered July 18, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT32**

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

Each of theundersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form10-Q for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2006 of Allstate Life InsuranceCompany of New York filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York.
| November 7, 2006 |                                              |
|------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|             | /s/ Casey J. Sylla                                |
|             | Casey J. Sylla                                    |
|             | Chairman of the Board and President               |
|             |                                              |
|             | /s/ John C. Pintozzi                              |
|             | John C. Pintozzi                                  |
|             | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

E-5

----
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 4 , 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00129

- CV

VALAIDA TARRY , Appellant

V.

MEMORIAL HERMANN HOS PITAL , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1029117

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 1, 2013 . The clerk’s

record was filed May 28, 2014

. No reporter’s record was taken . No brief was

filed.

On July 22, 201 4 , this court issued an order st ating that unless appellant submitted a brief, together with a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was2

late, on or before, August 21, 2014 , the court would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Busby

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         175,738
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  746,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,264,717
<PP&E>                                       5,055,336
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,236,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,557,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,510,207
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       245,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,518,694
<OTHER-SE>                                  (4,896,976)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,557,494
<SALES>                                      1,233,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,233,189
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  534,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               412,440
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                214,804
<INCOME-TAX>                                    76,939
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            137,865
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   137,865
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.5

 

Conexus Cattle Corp.

242 West Main Street

Hendersonville, TN 37075

 

May __, 2015

 

Adirondack Partners, LLC

82 Mountain Road

Wilbraham, MA 01095

 

	Re:	
Termination of Consulting Agreement




 

Dear Mr. Gothner,

 

This letter shall serve as notice to Adirondack Partners, LLC (“Adirondack”) that Conexus Cattle Corp. (the “Company” and together with Adirondack, the “Parties”) wish to terminate that certain Consulting Agreement, dated April 7, 2014 between the Parties (the “Agreement”), effective immediately.

 

As compensation in full satisfaction for such services to date, the Company shall issue to Adirondack 140 shares of newly issued Series E Preferred Stock of the Company, with a stated value of $140,000.

 

Please acknowledge acceptance of this offer in full satisfaction of all obligations of the Company to Adirondack pursuant to the Agreement.

 

 

	
 

	
Best regards,

 

____________________________

Conrad Huss, President


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 




 

ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED

AS OF THE DATE OF THIS LETTER:

 

Adirondack Partners, LLC

 

By: _________________________________

       Manager
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1615 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1615 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gas Stove Protection 

3 and Freedom Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ 

7 means the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

8 (2) GAS STOVE.—The term ‘‘gas stove’’ means 

9 any gas range, gas stove, or household cooking gas 

10 appliance that meets the standard set forth in Amer11 ican National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z21.1/ 

12 CSA Z21.1 or any successor standard. 

13 (3) SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE AVERAGE

14 PRICE OF GAS STOVES.—The term ‘‘substantially in15 crease the average price of gas stoves’’ means that 

16 the average price of a gas stove, annualized over its 

17 expected life, would likely be substantially higher 

18 than the average spending by United States home19 owners on cooking stoves and ovens based on the 

20 most recent data for consumer expenditures reported 

21 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

22 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CPSC BANNING GAS STOVES. 

23 No Federal funds may be used by the Commission 

24 to regulate a gas stove as a banned hazardous product 

25 under section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 

26 U.S.C. 2057) or to impose or enforce any consumer prod-
3 

•HR 1615 EH

1 uct safety standard or rule on gas stoves under section 

2 7 or 9 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 or 2058) that would 

3 otherwise result in a prohibition on the use or sale of gas 

4 stoves in the United States, would otherwise result in the 

5 unavailability in the United States of a type (or class) of 

6 product based on the type of fuel the product consumes, 

7 or would otherwise substantially increase the average price 

8 of gas stoves in the United States. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 13, 2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1615 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas 

stoves.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENTOF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-37700) pertaining to the Gaiam, Inc.1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Gaiam, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock PurchasePlan, of our report dated February 19, 2004, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Gaiam, Inc. included in the Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 
|             | /s/ Ernst & Young  LLP |   |
|------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|             |
| Denver, Colorado |
| March  2, 2005   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6874
TOMMY LEE NULL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-376-6) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy Lee Null, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his Bivens* complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321(1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the on the reasoning of the district court. Null v. United States , No. CA-96- 376-6 (S.D.W. Va. May 15, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED