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 Annual Report of Applied Minerals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K /A (AMENDMENT NO. 2) for the period ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Christopher T. Carney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 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.








Date:   April 30 , 2012
By:
/s/  CHRISTOPHER T. CARNEYChristopher T. CarneyChief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raynold Voltaire, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 891]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), dated May 24, 2012, as, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the defendant and three codefendants took turns brutally raping and sodomizing the then-19-year-old victim, the Supreme Court properly determined that there were aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the SORA guidelines *(see People v Henry,*91 AD3d 927 [2012]; *People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 121, 123 [2011]; *People v Ray,*86 AD3d 435 [2011]; *People v Rios,*57 AD3d 501, 502 [2008]; *People v Miller,*48 AD3d 774, 774-775 [2008]; *People v Joslyn,*27 AD3d 1033, 1034-1035 [2006]). Upon making such a determination, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application for an upward departure *(see People v Henry,*91 AD3d at 927; *People*
      *602
      *v Wyatt,*89 AD3d at 121, 123). Rivera, J.E, Hall, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

                           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 Annual Report of Anaren, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph E. Porcello, Vice
President of Finance and Treasurer 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 to the best of 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.

/s/ Joseph E. Porcello
--------------------------------------
Joseph E. Porcello
Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
September 1, 2004

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


                                       80
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                                   4,873
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           18,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                             4,415
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             0
<PP&E>                                                  22,893
<DEPRECIATION>                                          21,248
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          22,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        0
<BONDS>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                              16,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            22,520
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         3,536
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            1,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       (1,819)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          2,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      2,475
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                             2,475
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             4.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0
        

</TABLE>
NO.02-17-00235-CV

MARTA CARREJO MARTINEZ

Appellant,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

IN THE SECOND DISTRICT

v. COURT OF APPEALS

JANET MANGRUM

Appellee. AT FORT WORTH, TEXAS

APPELLEE'S FIRST UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO THE HONORABLE CLERK AND JUSTICES:

COMES NOW Appellee Janet D. Mangrum and files this motion seeking an extension

of time to file the Appellee's Brief and for good cause would show the following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 96th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.

2. The case in the trial court was styled Janet Mangrum v. Marta Carrejo Martinez,

Cause No. 096-263989-13.

3. Appellant filed her Brief on November 29,2017 after one thirty (30) day

extension and one sixty (60) day extension.

4. Appellee's Brief is currently due December 29,2017.

5. No previous request for extension of time has been made by or granted to the

Appellee.

6. Appellee requests a thirty (30) day extension of time to file the Appellee's Brief.

7. In support of this Motion and as good cause, Appellee's counsel shows that he will

be unable to complete the Brief in this case before the due date because of parental responsibilities

during the holidays. Appellee's counsel will be out of the office taking care of his special needs

son during the holidays, and will be unable to work on the Brief.

Appellee's First Unopposed Motion For Extension Of Time Page 1

ACCEPTED

02-17-00235-CV

SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

12/20/2017 9:23 AM

DEBRA SPISAK

CLERK

 FILED IN 2nd COURT OF APPEALS FORT WORTH, TEXAS 12/20/2017 9:23:49 AM DEBRA SPISAK Clerk
WHEREFORE. Appellee respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion and extend

the due date for Appellee's Brief by thirty (30) days until January 29,2018.

~~:ed'

-~

Texas Bar Card No. 03657020

LAW OFFICES OF NEAL S. CALLAWAY

1200 Summit Ave., Suite 720

Fort Worth TX 76102

817/332-2076; FAX 817/877-5661

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

callawaylaw@sbcglobal.net

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

This is to certify that on the 15th day of December, 2017, Leigh W. Davis, attorney for Appellant,

stated that he did not oppose this Motion and its requested relief.

~ ..•.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on the 20th day of December, 2017, a copy of the foregoing was served by

electronic service to the following:

(Mr.) Leigh W. Davis

1901 Central Drive, Suite 708 LB 57

Bedford, TX 76021

leighwdavis@gmail.com

Ne~~

Appellee's First Unopposed Motion For Extension Of Time Page 2
G IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0065 L. CRAIG SEMENZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HOLLISTER

A. LARSON,

et at, and HOLLY JEAN LARSON, both individually and collectively d/b/a FIRST
& MAIN BUILDING, Defendants and Appellees.

SEP

1 32on Sovven Green
wood (Ole ric ofSuprerne Court State ofMontana Plaintiff and Appellant
L. Craig Semenza prosehas filed
a motion and prays

.2. .1 the exte:N ion of time of two (2) weeks within which to file his opening brief. Upon consideration

of Plaintiff's and Appellant's motion and prayed for the extensiot

f IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's and Appellant's motion and praye: 3xtenLicin tirae of two (2) weeks
is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Appellant has until September 26, 2.1: to file his opening brief DATED this

1 3 day of September, 2022. Forthe Court, Chief Justice09/13/2022Case Number: DA 22-0065
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, NIAMS Competitive Revision Applications.                    

*Date:*                         June 24, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         5 p.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michael L. Bloom, PhD, MBA, Scientific Review Administrator, EP Review Branch, NIH/NIAMS, One Democracy Plaza, Room 820, MSC 4872, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-4872, 301-594-4953,                         *Michael_Bloom@nih.gov.*

Dated: June 4, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-13681 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 1, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                           1,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                       161
<INVENTORY>                                     11,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,456
<PP&E>                                         108,378
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,158
<BONDS>                                         18,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,602
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,530
<SALES>                                         34,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,306
<CGS>                                           28,384
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 122
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,724
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,410
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,314
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,314
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
***NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION***

***MICS AUDIT CHECKLIST***

***TIER C-INTERNAL AUDIT (CIA)***

Page 4 of 6
#### In the Matter of Cedric Reid, Petitioner, v New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 905]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H. Dadd, A.J.], entered May 8, 2012) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
Exhibit32.1





18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection
      with the Annual Report of Atlas Mining Company on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and


Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, William T. Jacobson, Chief Executive Officer
      and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 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/
      William T.
      Jacobson                                 April
      23,
      2007


William
      T. Jacobson


Chief
      Executive Officer and Principal
      Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeremy David PEERY, Appellant.

No. 05-4176.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 3, 2006.

Filed: Nov. 9, 2006.

John E. Cowles, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.

Travis Poindexter, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Kansas City, MO, Jeremy David Peery, Cleveland, MO, for Appellant.

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy Peery appeals the 21-month concurrent prison sentences that the district court1 imposed upon his guilty plea to identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7), and access device fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5). For reversal, Peery argues that the court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it was at the top of the Guidelines range and the court considered only the nature and circumstances of the offense to the exclusion of other relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that warranted a lesser sentence. We reject this argument and affirm Peery’s sentence.

Specifically, we conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable, *see United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because we see no basis for Peery to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a sentence that falls within the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, *see United States v. Tobacco,*428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir.2005); *United States v. Lincoln,*413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 840, 163 L.Ed.2d 715 (2005). As to the section 3553(a) factors, the court was not required to explicitly discuss in open court each and every section 3553(a) sentencing factor, and notably, the court did discuss various *579relevant factors such as the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law and to provide just punishment, and the need to provide adequate deterrence and to protect the public from further crimes. *See United States v. Lamoreaux,*422 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir.2005) (nothing in § 3553(a) requires “robotic incantations” that each factor was considered); *United States v. White Face,*383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir.2004) (if sentencing judge references some § 3553(a) considerations, appellate court is ordinarily satisfied district court was aware of entire contents of statute).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13917]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,878]

BCF Industries, Altavista, VA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 4, 2009, in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers of BCF Industries, Altavista, Virginia.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of May, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13917 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
National Indian Gaming Commission 

Regulatory Review 

Tribal Consultation Agenda – October 6, 2011 

Las Vegas, NV 

* The timeframes set forth in the agenda are estimates. Consultations may run longer or shorter depending on the needs of a 

particular consultation. Tribal leaders may provide comments on all regulatory groups identified for the consultation regardless of 

the order set forth in the agenda. 

Thursday, October 6, 2011* 

8:30 am – 9:00 am Registration 

9:00 am – 9:30 am Opening & Introduction of Tribal Representative – Commissioner 

Tribal Representative Welcome and Introductions of Tribal Leaders 

Introduction of Commission and Staff – Commissioner

Meeting Agenda Overview 

Tribal Opening Statements 

9:30 am - 10:15 am Group 1 Regulation Summary & Tribal Comments: 

Part 514 – Fees; 

Part 523 – Review and Approval of Existing Ordinances or Resolutions; 

Part 559 – Facility License Notifications, Renewals, and Submissions; and 

Buy Indian regulation. 

1 0 : 1 5 a m – 1 0 : 3 0 a m Morning Break 

10:30am-12:00pm Group 2 Regulation Summary & Tribal Comments: 

Part 573 – Enforcement;

Subchapter H – Proceedings before the Commission

12:00 pm – 1:30 pm Lunch Break – On your own 

1:30 pm – 3:00 pm Group 4 Regulation Summary & Tribal Comments:

Part 556 – Background Investigations for Primary Management Officials and 

Key Employees – Pilot Program; 

Part 558 – Gaming Licenses for Key Employees and Primary Management 

Officials – Pilot Program; 

Part 571 – Monitoring and Investigations; and 

Part 537 – Background Investigations for Persons or Entities With a Financial 

Interest in, or Having Management Responsibility for, a Management Contract

Please note that for Group 3 regulations (Minimum Internal Control Standards and Technical 

Standards) the Commission will utilize a Tribal Advisory Committee to facilitate its review and 

intends to consult with Tribes on any potential changes after the TAC process is completed. 
 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

Regulatory Review 

Tribal Consultation Agenda – October 6, 2011 

Las Vegas, NV 

* The timeframes set forth in the agenda are estimates. Consultations may run longer or shorter depending on the needs of a 

particular consultation. Tribal leaders may provide comments on all regulatory groups identified for the consultation regardless of 

the order set forth in the agenda. 

Thursday, October 6, 2011 cont’d * 

3:00 pm – 3:15 pm Afternoon Break 

3:15 pm - 5:00 pm Group 5 Regulation Summary & Tribal Comments:

Part 518 – Self Regulation of Class II Gaming; and 

Sole Proprietary Interest.

5 : 0 0 p m Closing – Commissioner 

Please note: Group 3 regulations (Class II Minimum Internal Control Standards and Technical 

Standards) and Class III Minimum Internal Control Standards will be reviewed by the Tribal Advisory 

Committee during a series of separate meetings.