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



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Global  Environmental  Energy Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Salim Ghafari , Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


/s/Salim Ghafari
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer and Director. (or equivalent thereof)

Date:  April 21, 2005








This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
[1]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 10-0152-WS 

 )

TERRELL MICKELS, )

 )

 Defendant. )

ORDER

The defendant has filed the following documents: (1) “Rule 35.B Motion for 

Downward Departure,” (Doc. 165); (2) “18 USC 3582 (5050) Sentence Modification,” 

(Doc. 165-1); (3) “18 USC § 3626(a)3(a)3A(a)1(A),” (Doc. 167); and (4) a letter 

addressed to the United States Marshal. (Doc. 169).

The first document asks the Court to “give him Rule 35.B motion for downward 

departure for substantial information that was used in several opperations [sic].” (Doc. 

165 at 1). Despite this use of the past tense, the motion elsewhere uses the future tense, 

making a “proffer” that “he’ll give substantial information to help” the Assistant United 

States Attorney. Whether the defendant believes he has rendered substantial assistance in 

the past or is only prepared to do so in the future is immaterial; a reduction of sentence 

under Rule 35(b) can occur only “[u]pon the government’s motion.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 

35(b)(1), (2). Because the government has filed no such motion, the defendant’s motion 

is denied. 

The second document suggests that the defendant’s “sentence is to be modified 

because of (RID) modification pursuant to departure for inmates that take [sic] medical 

assertions.” (Doc. 165-1 at 1). The defendant cites Section 3582, which allows for a 

modification of sentence “upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons” based on 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). One such reason may 

be the “need [for] extraordinary medical care.” See United States v. Smith, 128 Fed. 

Case 1:10-cr-00152-WS-N Document 173 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 2
[2]

Appx. 89, 90 (11th Cir. 2005) (expressing, but not adopting, the government’s position). 

Because the Director has filed no motion to reduce the defendant’s sentence, his deemed 

motion for such relief is denied.

The third document relies on Section 3626(a)(3). (Doc. 167). As the Court has 

already advised the defendant, (Doc. 162), that provision addresses relief that may or may 

not be granted “[i]n any civil action.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3). Because the defendant 

cannot bring a civil lawsuit by filing a document in his criminal case, his deemed motion 

for such relief is denied.

The fourth document is not a motion and is directed to the Marshal, not the Court. 

(Doc. 169). It therefore presents nothing for judicial review or resolution. 

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2016.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cr-00152-WS-N Document 173 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

AllstateLife Insurance Company of New York

100Motor Parkway, Suite 132

Hauppauge,New York 11788

 

Wehave reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financialinformation of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York for the three-monthand six-month periods ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, and have issued ourreport dated August 7, 2008.  Asindicated in our report, because we did not perform an audit, we expressed noopinion on that information.

 

Weare aware that our report referred to above, which is included in yourQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, isincorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements:

 
| **Form S-3 Registration Statement Nos.** | ** ** | **Form N-4 Registration Statement Nos.** | ** ** |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------|------------|
| 333-58512                                     |       | 033-65381                                     |       |
| 333-100029                                    |       | 333-94785                                     |       |

 

Wealso are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

/s/Deloitte &Touche LLP

 

Chicago,Illinois

August 7, 2008

 

E-2

----
OCCUPANT
EVACUATION

OCCUPANT
EVACUATION
SHAFT

MINIMUM AREA:
3 SF / OCCUPANT.
FOR 25% OF FLOOR
OCCUPANCY

OCCUPANT
EVACUATION
ELEVATOR

STANDARD
PASSANGER
ELEVATOR

@ EGRESS STAIR

STAIR SEPARATION:
7 DIAGONAL FLOOR
PLAN DIMENSION OR

7 ACTUAL MAX TRAVEL
DISTANCE WHEN
SEPARATED BY SMOKE
STOP DOORS


FIREFIGHTING
SHAFT

FIRE PROTECTED
PRESSURIZED
LOBBY
FIREFIGHTER'S
ELEVATOR
ELEVATORS
INTERMEDIATE FIRE
RATED WALL

<o)
@
 @
6) ELEVATOR LOBBY

STANDARD
=» PRESSURIZATION



EXTENT OF FIREFIGHTING SHAFT

EXITSTAIR

TELECOM

CLOSET

FIREFIGHTING SHAFT

@ FIRE PROTECTED, PRESSURIZED LOBBY
@ FIREFIGHTER'S ELEVATOR

STANDARD ELEVATORS

INTERMEDIATE FIRE RATED WALL
ELEVATOR LOBBY

EXIT STAIR

©®e ® ©

PRESSUIZATION
#### William Parrot’s Devisees *v.*Thomas J. Parrot’s Ex’x.

Contracts — Mental Capacity of Party to Contract.

Even in a case of absolute imbecility when there was entire good faith and the contract was just and proper and for the benefit of the imbecile a court of equity will not interfere to annul it.

APPEAL PROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

April 21, 1876.

*W. H. Hays, for appellants. Brown & Lewis, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

It is not pretended that Thomas J. Parrot procured the execution of the contract of February i, 1868, by fraud or undue influence. The witnesses relied on by appellants show that the sums agreed to be paid him were not unreasonable, much less uncertainties. They show also that Thomas J. P'arrot honestly and faithfully complied with his undertakings and that the services rendered were not only beneficial to his father and mother, but were absolutely necessaiy for their'comfort and security.

The proof shows that the mental faculties of William Parrot were much impaired by age, but he was not an imbecile at the- time of the execution of this contract; and appellant’s witnesses prove that he understood its- terms and was anxious that it should be entered1 into. Under all these circumstances, the chancellor ought to enforce the agreement according to its terms.

Even in a case of absolute imbecility, when there was entire good faith, and the contract was just and proper, and was for the benefit of the unfortunaate party, a court of equity will not interfere to annul it; and in a case like this, where the party was not entirely destitute of mind, but understood and assented to the terms of a fair and proper contract, after advising with- his neighbors and relations, and after it had been acted upon by the other party, and has resulted in manifest benefit to the persons supposed to be incapable of contracting, equity will enforce rather than annul the agreement. *Jones, Adm’r., v. Perkins,*5 B. Mon. 222.

The judgment in this case is *affirmed.*
<PAGE>
        EXHIBIT 99.1 - SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, SS.906 CERTIFICATION

I, Richard L. Wambold, certify that:
     (1)  the Form 10-K of Pactiv Corporation for the year ended
          December 31, 2002, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
          of ss.13(a) or ss.15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
          amended, and
     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended.


     /s/  RICHARD L. WAMBOLD
------------------------------------
Richard L. Wambold
Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer

  March 25, 2003
------------------------------------
Date
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION***

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

|                                                                    |   |   |                                                                                              |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ *Norman                A. Morales*                             |   |   | /s/ *Gordon                Fong*                                                             |
|                                                                         |   |   |                                                                                                   |
| Norman                  A. MoralesPresident and Chief Executive Officer |   |   | Gordon                  FongExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial                  Officer |

***      **
***A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to      the      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request.***
|Exhibit 32 (a)
        Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        In connection with the Annual Report of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc.) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Alan Gold, President and Howard Grunfeld, Chief Financial Officer of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc., 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of U.S. Neurosurgical.

|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Alan Gold          
|                 
|Alan Gold              
|President              
|April 7, 2005          
|                       
|                       
|/s/ Howard Grunfeld    
|              
|Howard Grunfeld        
|Chief Financial Officer

|April 7, 2005
|-------------
|29
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

IT IS ORDERED..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0."is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



IT IS SO ORDERED



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

CLIFTON FIDELE HEARD 12-00068-010

12622-003

01-23-2013

Pro Se

✔

✔

121 120 months

01-23-2013

05-21-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District 

Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.05.18 13:55:08 -06'00'

Case 1:12-cr-00068-CG-B Document 487 Filed 05/21/15 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                         978,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,595,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   235,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,675,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,262,000
<PP&E>                                       5,473,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,377,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,045,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,285,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,665,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,053,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,045,000
<SALES>                                      9,319,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,319,000
<CGS>                                        6,492,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,817,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (643,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (643,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (643,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

	
	


	




#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

		..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0." ! "# 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

		$


-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



		



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

TASHANNA LASHAY OLIVER-WEEKS 13-00044-001

13009-003

02-20-2014

Pro Se

✔

✔

48 39 months

02-20-2014

07-27-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.07.24 14:00:06 -06'00'

Case 1:13-cr-00044-CG-C Document 98 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 1
| 1.   | The Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March 3, 2011 | /s/ Joseph D. Reid                                                                               Joseph D. ReidChief Executive Officer |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75184-75185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29509]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-82,920]


Cooper Interconnect, LLC, A Subsidiary of Eaton Corporation, 
Including On-Site Leased Workers From Aerotek, Adecco, J&J Staffing, 
Superior Talent and Randstad, Salem, New Jersey; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on July 30, 2013, applicable to workers of GDF SUEZ Mt. Tom Power 
Plant, a subsidiary of Cooper Interconnect, LLC, a subsidiary of Eaton 
Corporation, including on-site leased workers from Aerotek, Addeco, J&J 
Staffing and Superior Talent Resources, Salem, New Jersey. The 
Department's notice of determination was published in the Federal 
Register on August 27, 2013 (78 FR 52978).
    In response to a request by the state workforce office in Trenton, 
New Jersey, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of 
the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of 
electrical connectors.
    The investigation confirmed that leased workers from Randstad 
worked on-site at the subject firm.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include on-site leased workers from Randstad, Salem, 
New Jersey.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-82,920 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Cooper Interconnect, LLC, a subsidiary of Eaton 
Corporation, including on-site leased workers from Aerotek, Adecco, 
J&J Staffing, Superior Talent Resources and Randstad, Salem, New, 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after July 18, 2013, through July 30, 2015, and all workers in the 
group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on 
the date of certification through two years from the date of 
certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under

[[Page 75185]]

Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.''


    Signed in Washington, DC this 2nd day of December, 2014.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014-29509 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1491 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1491

  To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the 
                 maximum loan amount for certain loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2023

  Mr. Crow (for himself and Mr. Bacon) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the 
                 maximum loan amount for certain loans.

    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 ``Small Business Energy Loan 
Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CERTAIN MAXIMUM LOAN AMOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 502(2)(A) of the Small Business Investment 
Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(2)(A)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (iv), by striking ``$5,500,000'' and 
        inserting ``$10,000,000''; and
            (2) in clause (v), by striking ``$5,500,000'' and inserting 
        ``$10,000,000''.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, and annually thereafter, the Administrator of the Small 
Business Administration shall submit to Congress a report that details, 
for the year covered by the report, the industries and geographic areas 
with respect to which the Administrator has made loans under clauses 
(iv) and (v) of section 502(2)(A) of the Small Business Investment Act 
of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(2)(A)), as amended by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```