alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.2**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification setforth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of satisfying therequirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may notbe relied upon or used for any other purposes.

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen B. Thompson,Chief Financial Officer certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge (1) theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

Signed at the Cityof  Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 15thday of June, 2006.
| /s/ Stephen B. Thompson |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|

Stephen B. ThompsonChief Financial Officer

----
#### Donald Mack LIECHTY et ux., Plaintiffs, v. TERRILL TRUCKING COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 1069.

United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division.

Nov. 22, 1971.

Joe S. Bean, Winchester, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Ben Kingree, III., Shelbyville, Tenn., for defendant.

*591MEMORANDUM OPINION

NEESE, District Judge.

The defendant has moved the Court *ex parte*to order the plaintiff Mrs. Lietchy to submit to a mental examination by a psychiatrist and the plaintiff Mr. Lietchy to submit to a physical examination by a dermatologist. Rule 35(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such rule requires that such an order “ * * * may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties * * *”. *Idem.*

The only notice the defendant appears to have given is by service of a copy of the motion upon “ * * * adversary counsel of record by mailing to his usual business address. * * * ” It would be error for this Court to grant an *ex parte*motion for such examinations. Lindsey v. Escude, La.App. (1965), 179 So.2d 505, 506.

The usual procedure for such examinations is by agreement of the party to be examined. Hardy v. Riser, D.C.Miss. (1970), 309 F.Supp. 1234, 1236 [1], n. 3. This is customarily accomplished by the stipulation of counsel for the parties, with Rule 35(a), *supra,*standing as a compulsory sanction that aids such stipulations.

It appears from the pleadings that the respective plaintiffs have claimed the mental and physical injuries under consideration, which “ * * * places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause for an examination to determine the existence and extent of such asserted injury. * * * ” Schlagenhauf v. Holder (1964), 379 U.S. 104, 119, 85 S.Ct. 234, 243, 13 L.Ed.2d 152, 164 [18], (noted (1965), 32 Tenn.L.Rev. 317). Unless the plaintiff involved has a valid objection to the selection, the respective examinations should be conducted by physicians of the defendant’s choosing. Timpte v. District Court (1966), 161 Colo. 309, 421 P.2d 728, 729. However, the defendant has no absolute right to the choice of its own physicians. Martin v. Superior Court (1969), 104 Ariz. 268, 451 P.2d 597, 600. Of course, if the parties cannot agree on physicians to be selected, the Court will select them. Pierce v. Broviq, D.C.N.Y. (1954), 16 F.R.D. 569.

Defense counsel will contact plaintiffs’ counsel and undertake to resolve this matter by stipulation, without prejudice to the defendant’s right to reapply thereafter. If the Court is to make the selections, counsel will furnish the Court with names and addresses of psychiatrists and dermatologists in the area.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph G. Szymaszek, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted March 23, 2009;

decided April 2, 2009

Motion for relief ancillary to the motion for leave to appeal and appeal filed as of right herein dismissed on the ground that it does not lie.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified
(the “Report”), I, Anthony L. Havens, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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:  December
20, 2010





/s/
      Anthony L. HavensAnthony
      L. HavensChief
      Executive Officer
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-Q of Public Storage, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ronald L.
Havner, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Harvey Lenkin, as
President of the Company, and John Reyes, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Ronald L. Havner, Jr.
--------------------------------
Name:    Ronald L. Havner, Jr.
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:    August 13, 2003

/s/ Harvey Lenkin
--------------------------------
Name:    Harvey Lenkin
Title:   President
Date:    August 13, 2003

/s/ John Reyes
--------------------------------
Name:    John Reyes
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:    August 13, 2003


                                   Exhibit 32
From: The District Court of the 10th Judicial District. County of Fergus.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. TOMMY ‘SETH” DELL’AR, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-2007-63 DECISION

On June 13,2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term often (10) years, with five (5) years suspended. The Court strongly recommends that the Department not place the defendant in prison. Instead, the Court strongly recommends that the defendant be placed in a pre-release center, for as long a term as is possible. After pre-release, the Court recommends that the Department place the defendant on Intensive Supervision for as long a term as is possible.

On February 12,2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 12th day of February, 2009.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
665 A.2d 1105

#### WILLIAM SMITH, ET AL. v. MELROE COMPANY, ETC., ET AL.

September 21, 1995.

ORDER

Leave to appeal is granted.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2008,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified
      (the "Report"), the undersigned, Anthony W. Adler, as Principal Financial
      Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      that:





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





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








/s/
      Anthony W. Adler





Anthony
      W. Adler


Principal
      Financial Officer





Date:
      March 24, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30886]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 
1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, 
Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3b2b0b28396819e9a8780b39d8095dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8dccceccfde8ffe0e4f9fecde3feeba3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 19, 2014 the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit 
application received. The permit was issued on December 30, 2014 to: 
Dr. Joseph A. Covi, Permit No. 2015-015.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-30886 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

                                                                    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 Golf Rounds.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates 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:

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 operation of the Company.

Dated: April 11, 2005                  /s/ John F. McCarthy, III
                                       --------------------------
                                       John F. McCarthy, III
                                       Chairman and Secretary
                                       (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: April 11, 2005                  /s/ Robert H. Donehew
                                       ----------------------
                                       Robert H. Donehew
                                       President and Treasurer
                                       (Principal Financial Officer)
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2613 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to require that a voluntary agreement 

with respect to commercial air tour operations over a national park 

considers the well-being of communities overflown by aircraft involved 

in such operations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2023 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to require that 

a voluntary agreement with respect to commercial air 

tour operations over a national park considers the wellbeing of communities overflown by aircraft involved in 

such operations, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Communities Before 

5 Air Tourism Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2613 IH

1 SEC. 2. PARK PROTECTION. 

2 Section 40128(b)(7) of title 49, United States Code, 

3 is amended— 

4 (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘or the air 

5 traffic control system’’ and inserting ‘‘, the air traf6 fic control system, or the well-being of communities 

7 overflown by aircraft involved in such commercial air 

8 tour operations’’; and 

9 (2) in subparagraph (C) by inserting ‘‘any com10 munity whose lands are, or may be, and’’ before 

11 ‘‘any Indian tribe’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3725

___________

Alonzo Echols, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United

States

* District Court for the 

The Jones Store Co.; Monty Martin; *

Western District of Missouri.

Russell England; Charles Sartain, *

 [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June

5, 1997

 Filed: June 10,

1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alonzo Echols appeals from the district court's dismissal of his personal injury 1

action for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders, and the denial of his

motion to reconsider. After reviewing the record and the parties' submissions, we
-2-

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Sterling v. United 
-3-

States, 985 F.2d 411, 412 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (standard of review).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: May 13, 2011 |  /s/ George R. Quist                               |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                |  George R. Quist                                   |
|                |  Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
|                | (Principal Executive Officer)                           |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3613 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.3613

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the ``Major 
                  George Quamo Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MAJOR GEORGE QUAMO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Major George Quamo Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Major 
George Quamo Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 13.2



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



The certification
set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018
(the “Report”) for the purposes of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



I, Andre
Luis Ackermann, Chief Financial Officer of Gafisa S.A., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



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



| | · | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 11, 2019



|GAFISA S.A. |                         
|----------- | ------------------------
|            |                         
|            |                         
|By:         | /s/ Andre Luis Ackermann
|            | Name:                   
|            | Title:
#### Jojo Day et al., Appellants, v Syosset Central School District et al., Defendants, and Town of Oyster Bay, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 320]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered December 14, 2011, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Town of Oyster Bay which was pursuant to CPLR 8106, 8303-a and 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for an award of costs and an attorney’s fee, and to impose sanctions against the plaintiffs’ attorney, to the extent of directing that a hearing be held to determine the amount of costs, the attorney’s fee, and sanctions to be paid by the plaintiffs’ attorney.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The notice of appeal was filed only in the name of the plaintiffs, and recites that the plaintiffs are appealing from an order which, in part, awarded relief against them. The appeal, *889however, is limited, by the plaintiffs’ brief, to the issue of whether the Supreme Court erred in awarding relief against the plaintiffs’ attorney. The plaintiffs are thus not aggrieved by the portion of the order that is the subject of this limited appeal. Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, we cannot appropriately deem the notice of appeal filed in the name of the plaintiffs to be a notice of appeal by their attorney *(see Scopelliti v Town of New Castle,*92 NY2d 944 [1998]; *cf. Matter of Tagliaferri v Weiler,*1 NY3d 605 [2004]). Although CPLR 2001 authorizes a court, in the absence of prejudice, to disregard a “mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity,” we cannot conclude that there was no prejudice here. The notice of appeal recites that the appeal is from “each and every part” of the Supreme Court’s order, and that order awarded relief against the plaintiffs, as well as relief against their attorney. Therefore, it would not be readily apparent to the respondent from the notice of appeal that the plaintiffs’ attorney was the actual intended appellant. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed *(see*CPLR 5511; *Scopelliti v Town of New Castle,*92 NY2d 944 [1998]; *Vigo v 501 Second St. Holding Corp.,*100 AD3d 872 [2012]; *Yaroslav v Maltman,*10 AD3d 653 [2004]; *Joseph v Iannace,*6 AD3d 502 [2004]; *cf. Matter of Tagliaferri v Weiler,*1 NY3d 605 [2004]).

Mastro, J.P, Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathan J. Reome, Appellant.

Submitted September 14, 2009;

decided September 17, 2009

Reported below, 64 AD3d 1201.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Frank H. His-cock Legal Aid Society, 351 S. Warren Street, Syracuse, New York 13202 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.