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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**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 Atwood Oceanics, Inc. (the “Company”) on        Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James M. Holland,        Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 as of, and for the periods presented. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: November 29,        2007                                                                                  /s/ JAMES M. HOLLAND 

|   | James M. Holland |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Senior Vice President and |
|--------|---------------------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSARIO CARTWRIGHT AND 

ISHMAEL CARTWRIGHT,

Appellants,

V.

FAVIOLA ARACELI ARMENDARIZ,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00129-CV

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of Ward County, Texas

(TC# 14-09-23446-CVW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before us to determine whether we have jurisdiction. Finding that 

Appellants, Rosario Cartwright and Ishmael Cartwright, did not timely file their notice of appeal, 

we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A civil appeal is perfected when the notice of appeal is timely filed. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.1, 

26.1; see Restrepo v. First National Bank of Dona Ana County, N.M., 892 S.W.2d 237, 238 

(Tex.App.--El Paso 1995, no writ). If the notice of appeal is untimely, the appellate court lacks 

jurisdiction and must dismiss the case. See Charette v. Fitzgerald, 213 S.W.3d 505, 509 

(Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). In an ordinary civil case, the notice of appeal 

must be filed within 30 days after the judgment or appealable order is signed or within 90 days if 

any party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate 
- 2 -

under TEX.R.CIV.P. 165a, or makes a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1(a). The appellate court may extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, 

within fifteen days after the deadline passes, the appellant files (1) the notice of appeal in the trial 

court and (2) a motion for extension of time complying with Rule 10.5(b). TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3; 

see TEX.R.APP.P. 10.5(b); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

The trial court entered the final judgment on March 10, 2016. A motion for new trial 

must be filed no later than thirty days after the judgment or order complained of is signed. 

TEX.R.CIV.P. 329b(a). Thus, the motion for new trial was due to be filed on April 9, 2016, a

Saturday. Under Rule 4.1, the deadline for filing the motion for new trial was extended to 

Monday, April 11, 2016. See TEX.R.APP.P. 4.1(a). Appellants did not file their motion for new 

trial until April 12, 2016, one day late. Consequently, their notice of appeal was due to be filed 

April 11, 2016 (thirty days after the trial court signed the judgment), but Appellants did not file 

their notice of appeal until June 9, 2016. Because Appellants failed to timely file their notice of 

appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

September 14, 2016

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund II-OW for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F.
Wells, III, Principal Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Leo F. Wells, III      
|Leo F. Wells, III          
|Principal Executive Officer
|August 8, 2007             



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Douglas P. Williams    
|Douglas P. Williams        
|Principal Financial Officer
|August 8, 2007
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. ER06-615-000; ER07-1257-000; ER08-1113-000; ER08-1178-000; EL08-88-000; ER09-241-000]

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

Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconference is open to all market participants, and Commission staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconference may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.

                    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at                     *saeed.farrokhpay@ferc.gov;*                     (916) 294-0322 or Maury Kruth at                     *maury.kruth@ferc.gov*, (916) 294-0275.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-14196 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Elwood Shepard, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. (the ACompany@), certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c)

presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





Date: May 4, 2006

By: /s/ Elwood Shepard

Elwood Shepard

Chief Executive Officer



Chief Financial Officer
95-1301.

#### In re Keith.

IT IS ORDERED by this court, *sua sponte,*effective May 7,1997, that Jeffrey Keith, a.k.a. Jeffrey Carl Keith, Attorney Registration No. 0007885, last known address in Parma, Ohio, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of July 13, 1995, to wit: failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before August 14,1995.
MAY 2 3 I994 

W. Austin Sebastian, President 

Native American Indian Enterprises, Inc. 

15914-B Shady Grove Road 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877 

Dear Mr. Sebastian: 

Thank you for your letters dated April 25 and April 26, 1994, 

requesting a legal opinion on whether an instant scratch-off 

ticket game qualifies as a class I1 or a class I11 game under the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Based on the information 

you provided, I am of the opinion that an instant scratch-off 

ticket game qualifies as a class I1 game if sold in bingo halls 

on Indian lands. 

In order for an instant scratch-off ticket game to fall within 

class I1 gaming, it must have the physical and procedural 

9 characteristics of one of the enumerated class I1 games. 

Clearly, an instant scratch-off ticket game is not bingo, lotto, 

punch boards, or a game similar to bingo. At issue then is 

whether an instant scratch-off ticket game shares the 

characteristics of pull-tabs, tip jars, or instant bingo. The 

IGRA does nor define these games nor has the National Indian 

Gaming commission through rulemaking. A review of state gambling 

laws that do define these games reveals that they are essentially 

the same game. 

In the view of the Commission, the essential elements of pulltabs, tip jars, and instant bingo are as follows. They are 

played with paper or plastic tickets containing hidden winning or 

losing combinations of symbols that are revealed to the purchaser 

(player) when physically opened. Tickets are sold to players at 

a predetermined price. Tickets are purchased in sets by the 

gaming operation; each set contains a predetermined mix of 

winners and losers; and the total proceeds from sales and payouts 

to winners from each complete set is known to the gaming 

operation. 

Based on the description you submitted with your letter, an 

instant scratch-off ticket game meets all the essential elements 

described above and would therefore qualify as a class I1 game if 

played at the same location as bingo or lotto. If played at any 

other location on Indian lands the game would fall within class 

w 111 requiring a compact between the tribe and the state. 

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

1850 MLTRECT NkVSlL 250 AiJl L 20 Jb ILL 202 b j2 7002 FAX 202 632 7066 
Your letters did not provide enough information for me to offer 

4 an opinion on the use of devices to dispense instant tickets. w However, if the dispenser meets the definition of a vlgambling 

devicevv within the meaning of the Johnson Act, 15 U.S.C. 

S 1171(a), then the instant ticket game would constitute class 

111 gaming. 

I hope this responds to your request. 

Sincerely, 

Michael D. Cox 

General Counsel
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLORV00000-L10200000.DD0000; HAG 9-0205]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council (JDSRAC) will meet as indicated below:

# DATES:

The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) on June 30, 2009.

# ADDRESSES:

The JDSRAC will meet by teleconference. For a copy of material to be discussed or the conference call number, please contact the BLM Vale District; information below.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Wilkening, Public Affairs Officer, BLM Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918, (541) 473-6218.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The JDSRAC will conduct a public meeting by teleconference to discuss and come to consensus on contents of a letter to be sent to the Oregon/Washington BLM State Director on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon. The conference call meeting is open for the public to access by telephone. Public comment is scheduled from 7:45 to 8 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) June 30, 2009. For a copy of the information distributed to the JDSRAC members please contact Mark Wilkening.

Dated: June 2, 2009.

Michael L. Morcom, 

Acting District Manager, Vale District Office.

[FR Doc. E9-13847 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ronald I. Cohen, Respondent. Town of Brookhaven, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted February 27, 2012;

decided May 1, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-80,458-01

EX P ARTE WALTE R AARON HAM ILTO N, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2006CR3927-W1 IN THE 226TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM BEXAR COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of four counts of ag g rava ted sexual assault, one count of ag g ravate d r o b b e r y , a n d o n e count of ag g ravated kidnapping
. Acc ording to the j udg ments in the record, he was sent en ced to six ty y ear s’ i mprisonment on eac h count. The Four

th Court of Appea ls a ffirme d his convictions. Hamilton v. State , 300 S.W .3d 14 1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009). This appea

rs to be a c lerica l mist ake. A ccor ding to the punishment ve rdicts, Applicant 1 was sente nced to sixt y

y ear s in the first and six th counts only
.2

Applicant contends, among other things, that he rec eived multipl e punishments in violation of the Double J eopar dy Clause. The trial co u rt m ad e fi ndings of fac t and conclusions of law and deter mined that althoug h there was a single instance of penile penetr ation, Applicant was convicted of bot h inten t i o n ally and knowingly causing the penetration of t he complainant’s sexual org an by his sexual org an, and intentionally and knowing ly causing the complainant’s sexual org an to contac t his sex ual org an. We f ind tha t A pplicant rec eived multipl e punishments in violation of the Double J eopar dy Clause. Aek

ins v. State , 447 S.W .3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Relief is g rante d. Count two in
cause number 2006CR3927 in the 226th District Court of Be x ar County is set aside. All other relief is denied. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment o f Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Marc h 18, 2015 Do not publish
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 294

_____________________________
J AMES R OGERS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Martin A. Fitzpatrick , Judge

. October 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W OLF , R OBERTS , and R OWE , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Victor Holder, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### George Bundy Smith, Sr., Individually and on Behalf of Twenty Plus Members of Grace Congregational Church of Harlem, Inc./United Church of Christ, Appellant, v United Church of Christ et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 4, 2012;

decided June 27, 2012

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the May 2012 Appellate Division order that affirmed so much of the February 2011 Supreme Court order as dismissed all causes of action against defendants United Church of Christ, Revs. Geoffrey Black, Rita Root, Freeman Palmer, Dr. Michael Ward Caine, Noel Vanek, Dr. Donald Wells, and Gladys A. Philibert as personal representative of the estate of Reverend David Tucker, denied; motion for leave to appeal etc. otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain it *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3; CPLR 5602).
Exhibit 99.2



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 of Apogent Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis B. Brown, 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 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/ Dennis B.
Brown                                      
|Dennis B. Brown Chief Financial Officer February 13, 2002



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
97-922.

#### Korecky v. Wilkinson.

In Prohibition. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### Jawan Chambliss, Appellant, v Isaac Stephen Davis, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[978 NYS2d 707]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered March 18, 2013. The order granted the motion of defendant Isaac Stephen Davis for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JACLYN TUPEK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2413

[March 17, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; James L. Martz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2021-MH001970-XXXX-SB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jacqueline I. 

Kurland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## NO. 12-09-00273-CR IN THE COURT OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

TERRY GARNER, JR ., § APPEAL F ROM THE 145TH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § NA CO GD OC HES CO UN

TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM Appellant has f

iled a motion to dism iss this appeal. The motion is si gned by Appellant and his counsel. No dec ision having be en delivered by this court, the motion is gra nted, and the a

ppeal is dism issed in acc ordanc e with Texas Rule of AppellateProcedur e 42.2. Opinion delivere d September 23, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBLI SH)
#### Richard George, Appellant, v Yoma Development Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Jennifer E. Lozana Luna et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 1, 2012;

decided November 27, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.