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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of BTU International, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that to his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2009 (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 for the periods covered by the
Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Peter J. TallianPeter J. TallianChief Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)


Dated: May 8, 2009
|   | · | The                Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | · | The                information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |

| Date:  May                3, 2007 | /s/  James                H.                Miller                                         |
|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                        | James                H. MillerChairman,                President and Chief Executive OfficerPPL                Corporation                                                                                                                                                                                   |
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 FieldPoint Petroleum Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ray Reaves, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (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/ Ray Reaves Ray Reaves Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer May 15, 2007
Exhibit 32.1





|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|Certification of CEO and CFO                 
|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 Consolidated Capital Properties III (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each 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(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 Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: August 13, 2008  
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: August 13, 2008  



This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joe Green, Jr., Also Known as Joseph Green, Jr, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 891]

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Ronald A. Cicoria, J.), rendered March 22, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree and forcible touching (three counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of one count of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and three counts of forcible touching (§ 130.52). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the sentence imposed by County Court improperly penalized him for declining the plea offer and exercising his right to a jury trial *(see People v Hurley,*75 NY2d 887 [1990]). In any event, we conclude that the sentence imposed “was not the product of vindictiveness” *(People v Thompson,*299 AD2d 889, 890 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 585*1212[2003]). By failing to object to the court’s jury instructions, defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by erroneous and confusing jury instructions (see CPL 470.05 [2]; *see also People v Whalen,*59 NY2d 273, 279-280 [1983]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We reject defendant’s further contention that the jury should not have credited the testimony of the victim and the other witnesses and that the verdict thus is against the weight of the evidence. The jury’s credibility determination is entitled to great deference, and we conclude that the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see *generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Smith and Pine, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime GARCIA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40125.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Sarah Beth *640Landau, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jaime Garcia-Sanchez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. Garcia-Sanchez challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Garcia-Sanchez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Garcia-Sanchez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Garcia-Sanchez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here solely to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 489-490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30933]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD690


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) 
Observer Policy Committee will meet to review scientific information 
affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 22, 2015 beginning 
at 9:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree Hotel Boston 
North Shore, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923; telephone: (978) 
777-2500; fax: (978) 750-7991.
    Council Address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda items:

[[Page 490]]

    The Observer Policy Committee will meet to: Review draft 
Environmental Assessment for NMFS-led omnibus amendment to establish 
provisions for industry-funded monitoring (IFM) across all Council-
managed fisheries; discuss details of the omnibus IFM amendment 
alternatives, review available information and analyses, and discuss 
Herring Committee recommendations regarding the options in the IFM 
amendment that address observer coverage on Atlantic herring vessels; 
develop Observer Committee recommendations regarding the selection of 
Preferred Alternatives for the omnibus IFM amendment and address other 
business as necessary.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days 
prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 31, 2014.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2014-30933 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Exhibit
32(c)


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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


FOR PPL
ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2008





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Energy Supply, LLC (the
"Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the
principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certify that:





·
            The
      Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and·
            The
      information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.











Date:  May
      2, 2008
            /s/  James
      H. MillerJames
      H. Miller
              President
              PPL
      Energy Supply, LLC








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.
Order entered September 12 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01666
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01667
- CR ERASMO GARCIA, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F11
- 58343
- Y , F10
- 61584
- Y



### O RDER
We REINSTATE these appeals. By order dated September 5 , 2013, the Court removed Nanette Hendrickson and the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office as counsel for appellant and abated these ap peals to allow the trial court to appoint new counsel. On September 9, 2013, Hendrickson tendered a brief to the Court and a motion to accept the tendered brief and rescind the order removing her as counsel. The Court has not yet received a supplemental clerk’s record appointing new counsel. In the interest of expediting submission of these appeals, we VACATE the September 5 order . WeREINSTATE Nanette Hendrickson and the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office as counsel

for appellant. The brief tend ered to the Clerk of the Court on September 9, 2013 is DEEMED timely filed on the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Michael Snipes, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No . 7; Katherine Drew, Appellate

- Chief, Dallas County Public Defender’s Office; Nanette Hendrickson, Dallas County Public Defender’s Office; and to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of Paul Musteric, Appellant, v Loryne Lynch, Respondent.

[869 NYS2d 916]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Budd, J.), dated January 15, 2008, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Buse, S.M.), dated November 21, 2007, as, after a hearing, and upon the denial of his oral application to change the medical insurance provider for the parties’ youngest child from the mother’s provider to his provider, directed the mother to continue to provide medical insurance for the youngest child in accordance with her current medical plan and directed him to make payments based on those medical insurance premiums.

Ordered that the order dated January 15, 2008 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The father filed a petition requesting downward modification of his child support obligation due to the emancipation of the parties’ eldest child. The Support Magistrate granted the relief sought in the petition, but during the hearing on the petition, denied the father’s oral application to change the medical insurance provider for the parties’ youngest child from the mother’s provider to his provider. Since the father failed to include the requested relief in his petition, the Support Magistrate properly denied his oral application *(see*Family Ct Act § 423; *Matter of Hayes v Hayes,*294 AD2d 681, 683 [2002]; *Matter of Sheehan v Sheehan,*221 AD2d 897, 898 [1995]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to so much of the Support Magistrate’s order as directed the mother to continue to provide medical insurance for the youngest child in accordance with her current medical plan and directed the father to make payments based on those medical insurance premiums. Spolzino, J.E, Covello, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.
11743.

#### Norris *v.*Lynch.

Decided March 8, 1921.

Bloodworth, J.

1. If tlie court erred in tlie admission of certain irrelevant and immaterial evidence as complained of in tlie first and second grounds of tlie amendment to tlie motion for new trial, this evidence-was not of such materiality as to require the grant of a new trial. See *Arnold*v. *Stevens,*139 *Ga.*495 (77 S. E. 579) ; *Ga., Fla.*& *Ala. Ry. Co.*v. *Parsons,*12 *Ga. App.*180(6) (76 S. E. 1063).

2. “Where evidence is offered and objected to, and a portion thereof is-admissible and a part objectionable, unless the illegal portion is specified and properly objected to, the whole will be admitted.” *City of Atlanta*v. *Sciple,*19 *Ga. App.*694(3), 698 (92 S. E. 28), and cases cited. See also: *Thacher*v. *Carolina Cement Co.,*21 *Ga. App.*569(1) (94 S. E. 838), and cases cited; *Eckman*v. *State,*23 *Ga. App.*392 (98 S. E. 187) ; *Sykes*v. *State,*23 *Ga. App.*547, 548 (99 S. E. 55), and eases cited. This ruling disposes of ground 3 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

3. Grounds 4 and 5 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, not being argued in the brief of plaintiff in error, will be treated as having been abandoned.

4. There was some evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court will not interfere.

*Judgment affU-med.*

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

*399Distraint'; from city court of Carrollton — Judge Beall. Jury 1,- 1920.

*Boykin*cG *Boykin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Emmett Smith,*contra.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0411. RAISSA KENGNE v. THE STATE.

Raissa Kengne is facing criminal prosecution, and she has filed numerous pro

se motions in the trial court.On June 17, 2024, the trial court determined that Kengne,

who is represented by counsel below, is not authorized to file pro se motions, and it

dismissed her filings. Kengne then filed this pro se application in which she seeks to

appeal the June 17 order under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Based upon the material submitted by Kengne, it appears that the charges

against her remain pending in the trial court. Because the order she seeks to appeal is

not final, she was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures set

forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) in order to appeal. See Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human

Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991) (“[A] party seeking appellate

review from an interlocutory order must follow the interlocutory-application

subsection, OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), seek a certificate of immediate review from the trial

court, and comply with the time limitations therein.”). Given Kengne’s failure to

obtain a certificate of immediate review, we lack jurisdiction over this application for

interlocutory appeal. See Scruggs, 261 Ga. at 589 (1).

Furthermore, we find that Kengne is not authorized to represent herself before

this Court. In Johnson v. State, the Supreme Court recognized that a litigant does not

have a right to represent herself while simultaneously being represented by counsel.

Johnson v. State, 315 Ga. 876, 880 (2) (a) (885 SE2d 725) (2023). The Supreme Court

concluded, however, that a trial court has discretion to allow hybrid representation.

See id. at 890-891 (4). The Supreme Court suggested that it would be up to an

July 22, 2024
appellate court to determine whether it would recognize pro se filings by a counseled

defendant directed to the appellate court. Id. at 891 n. 15 (“Although many such

decisions will be made by trial courts, the decision whether to recognize a pro se

notice of appeal remains one for appellate courts to make.”). Having reviewed the

material submitted by Kengne, we find that this is not one of the rare cases in which

hybrid representation is warranted. See id. at 890 (4) (“We expect that courts will

exercise discretion to recognize pro se filings by counseled defendants sparingly.”).

For these reasons, this application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/22/2024
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,230-04

IN RE TIMOTHY DES HUN WATERS, Relator

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 1477950-B IN THE 230 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ o f m an damus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the 230 District Court o f Ha rr i s County , that more than 35 day s have elapse d, and that the

t h application has not y et bee n forwa rded to this Court. I n these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the District Clerk of Har ris County , is order ed to f

ile a response , which may be made by submitt ing the rec ord on such habea s corpus application, submitt ing a copy of a timely filed order which desig nates issues to be investiga ted ( see McCree v. Hampton , 824 S.W .2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in Har ri s County

. Should the response include an order desig nating issues, proof of the date the district attorne y ’s o ff i ce was
serve d with the habea s applicatio n an d that the 180-day time fra me set out in T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 5) has not e x pired shall also be submitt ed with the re sponse. This application for leave to file a writ of m andamus shall be held in abey ance until R espondent has submitt ed the appropr iate response . Such response shall be submitted within 30 day s of the date of this order.

Filed: J une 19, 2019 Do not publish