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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the Company) for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin McIntosh, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of
the Company.



By:

/s/ KEVIN MCINTOSHKevin McIntosh Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer




Dated:
May 14, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael A. Cole, Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 55]

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered June 9, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree (three counts).

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

Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Sconiers, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Annual Report of Javo Beverage Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Richard A.
Gartrell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the
Company.





/s/
      Richard A. GartrellRichard
      A. Gartrell
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              March
      19, 2008





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Javo Beverage Company, Inc. and will be retained by Javo Beverage Company, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Benton
      H Wilcoxon, certify, 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
      Composite Technology Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended December
      31,
      2006 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 Form
      10-Q
      fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
      of
      operations of Composite Technology Corporation.




*Date:
              February
              14, 2007**By*:
            /s/ *Benton
              H Wilcoxon**Benton
                H Wilcoxon**Chief
              Executive Officer*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PAUL LACOMBE

,

Defendant Below

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee. §

§ No. 4, 2021

§

§

§

§ Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 1112018546 (N)

§

§

Submitted: January 26, 2021

Decided: February 22 , 2021

ORDER

On January 4, 2021

, the appellant, Paul Lacombe , filed a notice of appeal from

the Superior Court’s November 25, 2020 order denying his third motion for

postco nviction relief . Under Supreme Court Rule 6 (a)(iv) , a timely notice of appeal

should have been filed on or before December 28, 2020

. 1 On January 6, 2021 , t he

Senior Court Clerk issued , by certified mail, a notice directing Lacombe to show

cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed

. Lacombe received

the notice to show cause as evidenced by the undated return receipt that was filed

with the Court on January 13, 2021. A timely response was due on or before January

1 Because the thirtieth day fell on a legal holiday

— December 25, 2020

— the notice of appeal was

due on or before the next business day, or December 28, 2020. Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a).2

25, 2021

. 2 To date, Lacombe has not responded to the notice to show cause.

Therefore, dismissal of the appeal is deemed unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court

Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

2 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Arroyo, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 349]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cohen, J.), entered August 13, 2010, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A court has the discretion to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level in a proceeding pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA) only after a defendant makes a twofold showing. First, a defendant must identify, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which “tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] Guidelines” *(People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 124 [2011]). Second, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to support the applicability of that mitigating factor *(see id.*at 114, 124). In the absence of that twofold showing, the court lacks discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level *(see People v Shephard,*101 AD3d 978, 979 [2012]; *People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d at 124). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he failed to make the requisite showings and, therefore, the Supreme Court did not have the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level *(see People v Shephard,*101 AD3d at 978).

Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.
NO. 12-22-00239-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

NORMAN YOES, 

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Norman Yoes, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding in which he seeks a writ 

compelling Respondent, Gregg County District Clerk Trey Hattaway, to provide him with filemarked copies of various documents.1

A district clerk is not a judge over which this Court has mandamus jurisdiction; nor does 

the record demonstrate that issuance of a writ of mandamus against Respondent is necessary to 

protect this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West Supp. 2020) 

(writ power); see also In re Dotson, No. 12-20-00205-CV, 2020 WL 5552626 (Tex. App.—

Tyler Sept. 16, 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing mandamus 

proceeding against district clerk for want of jurisdiction); In re Vargas, No. 01-12-00351-CV, 

2012 WL 1454550, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 26, 2012, orig. proceeding) (per 

curiam) (mem. op) (same). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief under 

the circumstances of this case, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of 

jurisdiction. All pending motions are overruled as moot.

Opinion delivered September 22, 2022.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

1 Janelle Marie Avritt is the Real Party in Interest. The Gregg County website reflects that a judgment was 

entered in the parties’ divorce proceeding in December 2021. 
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 22, 2022

NO. 12-22-00239-CV

NORMAN YOES,

Relator

V.

TREY HATTAWAY,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by 

Norman Yoes; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-22-00239-CV and a party in trial 

court cause number 2021-1097-DR, formerly pending on the docket of the 307th Judicial District 

Court of Gregg County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on 

September 1, 2022, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this 

Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that 

the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Exhibit
32.1




Certifications
Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18
U.S.C. Section 1350)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report (the “report”) of Mikros Systems
Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Thomas J.
Meaney, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do
hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. § 1350), 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;
and




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






August
      13, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Thomas
      J. MeaneyThomas
      J. Meaney
                President
      and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<CIK> 0000318819
<NAME> R. D. SIEVERS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,993,041
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    164,772
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         266,123
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       335,290
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 271,512
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,030,738
<COMMON>                                       117,927
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      434,013
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,005,216
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,657,413
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           73,609
<PREFERRED>                                     19,791
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         2,421,236
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             235,630
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   50,737
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,572,322
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,030,738
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      307,759
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            18,419
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     217,311
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     235,730
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         72,029
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,800
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  73,829
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        46,746
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,083
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        996
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   26,087
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        21,900
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       43,529
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          58,150
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This Amendment to the Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), effective as of August 1, 2010, by and between Ampio
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and David Bar-Or, M.D. (the “Executive”) is made as of August 3, 2015 (“Amendment Date”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive (together, the “Parties”) entered into the Employment Agreement; 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to extend the term of the Employment Agreement through July 31, 2016; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to modify the Employment Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: 

1. The first sentence of Section 1 of the Employment Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety with the following sentence: 

“The Company hereby agrees to employ Employee and Employee hereby accepts such employment with the Company for the period of 72 months
beginning on the Effective Date.” 
 2. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

3. In connection with the Amendment, the Company hereby agrees to grant to the Executive an option to purchase 300,000 shares of the
Company’s Common Stock with an exercise price equal to the Fair Market Value of the Company’s Common Stock as determined in accordance with the Company’s 2010 Amended and Restated Stock and Incentive Plan, shall have a term of
10-years, shall contain the Company’s standard provisions, and shall vest on the date that the Company meets all endpoints in connection with the Ampion clinical trial as determined in the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee. 

[Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have executed this Amendment as of the Amendment
Date written above. 
  

			
	AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael Macaluso

	Its:	 	CEO
	
	DAVID BAR-OR, M.D.
	
	 /s/ David Bar-Or

	David Bar-Or, M.D.
Exhibit
32(b)


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


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


FOR PPL
CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Corporation (the
"Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I,
the principal financial 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:
      November 3, 2005
    /s/
      John R.
      Biggar
      John
      R. Biggar
      Executive
      Vice President and
      Chief
      Financial Officer
      PPL
      Corporation





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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Claudius Hannah, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 333]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J), rendered April 12, 2012, as amended April 16, 2012, and said appeal having been withdrawn before argument by counsel for the respective parties; and upon the stipulation of the parties hereto dated October 8, 2013, it is unanimously ordered that said appeal be and the same is hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

h1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145595

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145595

COA: 300896

Clare CC: 09

- 003660

- FC

JUSTIN TODD GASKILL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Smith, Appellant.

[829 NYS2d 120]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered December 22, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to kill the victim *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]). A jury can infer a defendant’s intent to cause death from the defendant’s conduct as well as the surrounding circumstances *(see People v Angarita,*247 AD2d 397 [1998]; *People v Dixon,*174 AD2d 689 [1991]; *People v Williams,*160 AD2d 753, 754 [1990]).

Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, his remaining contention that the trial court failed to specifically admonish the jury not to discuss the case prior to two recesses was subject to the preservation requirement *(see People v Agramonte,*87 NY2d 765, 770-771 [1996]; *People v Taylor,*29 AD3d 713). He failed to preserve that contention for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                RULE 13a-14(b) OF
                       THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


         In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K, (the "Report"), of
Triton PCS Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date
hereof, I, Michael E. Kalogris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as appropriate, 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.



                                      /s/ Michael E. Kalogris
                                      -----------------------------------
                                      Name: Michael E. Kalogris
                                      Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                      Date: March 12, 2004

         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 Triton PCS
Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Triton PCS Holdings, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

         This certification "accompanies" the annual report on Form 10-K to
which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Triton
PCS Holdings, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the annual report on Form 10-K, irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing).
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Consolidated CapitalProperties III (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executiveofficer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of thechief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.