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





Certification of Chief Financial Officer





In connection with the Annual Report of Team Nation Holdings Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel J. Duffy, Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.





April 15, 2010





/s/ Daniel J. Duffy


Daniel J. Duffy


Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY BANKS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 13-17371

D.C. No. 1:11-cv-02067-LJO-MJS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 10, 2016

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Larry Banks appeals the district court’s order denying his habeas petition. 

Banks was convicted of the May 10, 1977 first degree murder of Susan Vallin. 

Banks contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could

consider evidence of an uncharged sexual assault to show propensity to commit the

FILED

FEB 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
charged murder. His theory is that murder is not a crime similar to the uncharged

sexual offense.

The challenged instruction directed the jury to regard the sexual assault

evidence as relevant to the felony murder charge. That charged offense was not

dissimilar to sexual offenses. The state court fully instructed the jury regarding the

elements of the offense and the appropriate burdens of proof. See Mendez v.

Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 768–70 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court therefore

correctly held that under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) there was no unreasonable

application of Supreme Court law when the state court determined that the

propensity instruction did not violate due process or render his trial fundamentally

unfair. 

AFFIRMED.

2
#### Guy T. Parisi et al., Appellants, v Town of Southampton, New York, Respondent.

Submitted October 19, 2009;

decided December 15, 2009

Reported below, 54 AD3d 320.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*13 NY3d 704 (2009)].
**EXHIBIT
      14**





**CODE
      OF ETHICS**





Southern
      Bella, Inc.





Southern
      Bella Inc.’s (the “Company”) mission includes significant efforts to promote
      ethical conduct in the practice of financial management throughout the company.
      Senior officers hold an important and elevated role in corporate governance.
      While members of the management team, they are uniquely capable and empowered
      to
      ensure that all shareholders’ interests are appropriately balanced, protected
      and preserved. This Code provides principles to which senior officers are
      expected to adhere and advocate. They embody rules regarding individual and
      peer
      responsibilities, as well as responsibilities to employers, the public and
      other
      stakeholders. Violations of the Company’s Code of Ethics may subject the officer
      to censure, suspension or expulsion under procedural rules adopted by the
      Company’s Board of Directors.





All
      senior officers of the Company will:





· Act
        with
        honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest
        in
        personal and professional relationships.





· Provide
      constituents with information that is accurate, complete, objective, relevant,
      timely and understandable.





· Comply
      with rules and regulations of federal, state, provincial and local governments,
      and other appropriate private and public regulatory agencies.





· Act
      in
      good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence, without
      misrepresenting material facts or allowing one’s independent judgment to be
      subordinated.





· Respect
      the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of one’s work except
      when authorized or otherwise legally obligated to disclose. Confidential
      information acquired in the course of one’s work will not be used for personal
      advantage.





· Share
      knowledge and maintain skills important and relevant to constituents’ needs.





· Proactively
      promote ethical behavior as a responsible partner among peers, in the work
      environment and the community.





· Achieve
      responsible use of and control over all assets and resources employed or
      entrusted.





In
      my
      role as a senior executive officer of the Company, I certify to you that I
      adhere to and advocate the aforementioned principles and responsibilities
      governing my professional and ethical conduct.




Date:
            
            _______________________________[Signature]_______________________________
              [Title]
Exhibit
10.1


 


September 29, 2004


 


SENT VIA
FACSIMILE


 


 


Mr. Binkley Shorts


Wellington Management Company, llp


on behalf of certain client accounts


75 State Street


Boston, MA 02109


 


Dear Mr. Shorts:


 


In connection with our discussion regarding Scheid
Vineyards Inc. (“Scheid Vineyards”) Class A Common Stock, I am prepared to
offer Wellington Management Company, llp (“Wellington Management”) as
investment adviser on behalf of certain client accounts (“Client Accounts”)
$5.50 per share for the Class A Common Stock (“Class A Shares”) currently held
by the Client Accounts.  Based upon our
conversation, the number of Class A Shares currently held by Wellington
Management Client Accounts is 370,300, for an aggregate total purchase price of
$2,036,650.00.


 


For your information, I am unaware of any event since
the date of Scheid Vineyards’ press release describing its June 30, 2004
results, which would have a material impact on the Scheid Vineyards’ financial
condition or operations, or require further information in addition to that
which is already included in the press release.  I will notify Wellington Management of any material events that
may develop between the date of this letter and the closing of this
transaction.


 


	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ Scott Scheid

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  Scheid Vineyards Inc.

  
	
  Scott Scheid

  
	
  President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-615-000; ER07-1257-000; ER08-1113-000; ER08-1178-000; 
ER09-241-000]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of 
FERC Staff Attendance

May 11, 2009.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives 
notice that on the following dates members of its staff will 
participate in teleconferences and meetings to be conducted by the 
California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The agenda and other 
documents for the teleconferences and meetings are available on the 
CAISO's Web site, http://www.caiso.com.

May 13, 2009: Exceptional Dispatch
May 18, 2009: Board of Governors Meeting
May 19, 2009: Systems Interface User Group
May 20, 2009: Settlements and Market Clearing User Group Congestion 
Revenue Rights
May 21, 2009: Payment Acceleration
May 22, 2009: Participating Intermittent Resource Program
May 26, 2009: Systems Interface User Group BPM Change Management 
Meeting
May 27, 2009: Settlements and Market Clearing User Group Congestion 
Revenue Rights
May 28, 2009: Payment Default Allocation Meeting

    Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconferences and meetings are open 
to all market participants, and staff's attendance is part of the 
Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconferences and meetings 
may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.
    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f88b999d9d9cd69e998a8a979390889981b89e9d8a9bd69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c2f3d393938723a3d2e2e3337342c3d251c3a392e3f723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>; (916) 294-0322 or Maury Kruth at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97faf6e2e5eeb9fce5e2e3ffd7f1f2e5f4b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="610c001413184f0a1314150921070413024f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>, (916) 294-0275.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11463 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):
    
    February 2, 2006
 IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED
 
  Canada
    
    0-12014
    
    98-0017682(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 237 Fourth Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    T2P 0H6
(Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code:
    
    1-800-567-3776
 
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



(c)
    
    Exhibits.The following exhibit is furnished as part of this report on Form 8-K:
 99.1
    
    Press release of Imperial Oil Limited
announcing that the board of directors had approved a
proposal to subdivide the common shares of the company on
a three-for-one basis. The stock split is subject to
shareholder approval at the companys annual meeting on
May 2, 2006 as well as regulatory approvals.
 SIGNATURES
  IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED  By:

/s/  Brian LivingstonName:
    Brian LivingstonTitle:
    Vice-President, General Counsel and
Corporate SecretaryBy:

/s/  Cathryn WalkerName:
    Cathryn WalkerTitle:
    Assistant Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arturo Loredo-Torres, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 884]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), imposed September 26, 2012, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; *People v Melvin,*106 AD3d 1112 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1044 [2013]). Eng, P.J., Skelos, Roman, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00267-CR

Evaristo Antonio SANTOS

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CR-1104

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 5, 2013

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure provides that an appeal “must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant 

has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(d). The clerk’s record, which was filed electronically, contains a written plea bargain, and 

the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and 

agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification 
04-13-00267-CR

- 2 -

that defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). In addition, appellant’s 

counsel has filed a letter in which he states that he has reviewed the electronic clerk’s record and 

can find no right of appeal for Appellant; counsel concedes that the trial court’s certification 

stating the defendant has no right of appeal is correct. In light of the record presented, we agree 

with appellant’s counsel that the defendant has no right of appeal; therefore, Rule 25.2(d) 

requires this court to dismiss this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
# IT Remote Access: Accessing NGA SBU Remote Desktop Session

          -  Home 
          -  Resources 
          -               IT Remote Access: Instructions for...            

# Instructions for Accessing NGA SBU Remote Desktop Session

This guide instructs NGA users on how to login to an SBU network session while remote. This desktop provides the same view/use as logging into a thin client workstation on-site.  

**Step 1.** You must have a Common Access Card (CAC), CAC reader, and the DoD root certificates installed on the device being used. If you need assistance with CAC setup, please visit the CAC 123: NGA Employee CAC Resources site for instructions on setting up your CAC and installing PKI/PKE certificates.

**Step 2.** Go to one of the following sites in your browser:

**NGA Washington Users:**MyDesktopEast.nga.mil  ****NGA St. Louis & Arnold Users:**MyDesktopWest.nga.mil ****All Users:**MyDesktopWest.nga.mil **

 

**Step 3.** A certificate pop-up will appear. Select your certificate and click “OK.”

 

**Step 4.** A Smart Card pop-up will appear. Enter your CAC PIN and click “OK.”  

 

**Step 5.** Review the US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE WARNING STATEMENT. If you agree, select “Accept.” 

 

**Step 6.** You will then see your Citrix StoreFront with your desktop option(s). Select the desktop you want to use.  

 

**Step 7.**Once selected, a file will download. Open the downloaded file. This opened file is your remote desktop session. Please proceed with  entering your CAC PIN and signing into your SBU session as you normally would while on-site.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10593

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Diana Lopez-Figueroa, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-10-1

Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Diana Lopez-Figueroa has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Lopez-Figueroa has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 7, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10593 Document: 00515854175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2021
No. 20-10593

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 20-10593 Document: 00515854175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2021
##### 



Imperial Oil Limited
237  4th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 0H6
    
    News Release
 Exhibit 99.1
 Calgary,
February 2, 2006
    Investor relations
    
    Media relationsSusan Swan
    
    Richard OFarrell(403) 237-4537
    
    (403) 237-2710
*    *Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350 Certification

 

**STATEMENTFURNISHED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned is the CFO ofPetrocorp Inc.  This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Petrocorp Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

The undersigned certifies that such10-K Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such10-K Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Petrocorp Inc. as of December 31, 2009.

 

This Certification is executed as ofApril 21, 2010.

* *

/s/ StephenM. Siedow 

     StephenM. Siedow

     CFO
S. 4050

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 103 East

Thompson Street in Thomaston, Georgia, as the ‘‘Sergeant First Class Robert

Lee ‘Bobby’ Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ROBERT LEE ‘‘BOBBY’’ HOLLAR,

JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston,

Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant First

Class Robert Lee ‘Bobby’ Hollar, Jr. 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 ‘‘Sergeant First Class Robert Lee ‘Bobby’ Hollar, Jr. Post

Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,158
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,870
<INVENTORY>                                      2,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,566
<PP&E>                                          20,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,407
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 172,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,561
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           176
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   172,121
<SALES>                                        154,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,728
<CGS>                                           99,410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,410
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,846)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,346)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.42)



</TABLE>
#### James Gatewood BLAKELY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee. James Gatewood Blakely, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.

Nos. 08-7665, 09-6294.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2009.

Decided: May 14, 2009.

*217James Gatewood Blakely, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Gatewood Blakely seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cock-rell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blakely has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*