alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  ONLINE  ORIGINALS,  INC.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  February 29, 2008, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Gregory Adams, 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:

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:    April 11, 2008


By:       /s/ Gregory Adams
         ------------------
         Gregory Adams
         Chief Financial Officer, principal financial officer and principal
         accounting officer
1 The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. MELLOY, United States District Judge for

the Northern District of Iowa.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2653

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Northern District of Iowa. * David Steil, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 13, 2001 Filed: March 23, 2001

___________ Before LOKEN, HEANEY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. DavidSteil pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit bank burglary in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 371. At sentencing, the district court 1 granted the government’s substantial assistance motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and imposed concurrent sentences of 132 months on the drug conspiracy count and 60 months on the burglary conspiracy count.-2-

On appeal, Steil first argues the district court erred in applying the 1997 Sentencing Guidelines to his drug conspiracy offense, instead of the 1995 Guidelines, because his criminalconduct occurred primarily during August, September, and October of 1997, before the effective date of the 1997 Guidelines. Steil further argues the district court abused its discretion in departing downward only to 132 months, rather than 120 months, his mandatory minimum sentence. These contentions are not reviewable on appeal because Steil’s sentence of 132 months is below the bottom of his guidelines range, whether determined under the 1995 or the 1997 Guidelines, and because we lack authority to review the extent of the district court’s downward departure. See United States v. Puckett , 147 F.3d 765, 772 (8th Cir. 1998); UnitedStates v. Baker , 64 F.3d 439, 441 (8th Cir. 1995).
Steil has also filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief to address issues he believes are raised by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We are satisfied there was no plain error under Apprendi

. Steil agreed to and did plead guilty to an information charging him with conspiring to distribute more than 1000 grams of methamphetamine. In addition, Steil’s sentence of 132 months is less than the statutory maximum penalty for distributing any quantity of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado , 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the motion is denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
@article{1206181,
  author = {FNU Nur Fajar Rizqi Annafianto and Jabir Marakkarakath Vadakkepurayil and Ivan Burenkov and Abdella Battou and Sergey Polyakov},
  title = {Versatile quantum-enabled telecom receiver},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-03-02 05:03:00},
  publisher = {AVS Quantum Science},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935326},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1116/5.0123880},
  language = {en},
}
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl D. Wells, Appellant.

Submitted November 5, 2012;

decided November 19, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
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 accompanying Annual Report of Dreams, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the twelve months ended December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dorothy Sillano, Principal Financial Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|    |  |                            
|--- |  | ---------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Dorothy Sillano        
|    |  | Dorothy Sillano            
|    |  | Principal Financial Officer
|    |  | April 15, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30621-30622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15164]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period 
for Colorado

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility 
under the EB program for Colorado.
    The following change has occurred since the publication of the last 
notice regarding Colorado's EB status:
    <bullet> Colorado has modified its law by adding a total 
unemployment rate (TUR) trigger retroactive to March 22, 2009. As a 
result, Colorado has retroactively triggered ``on'' to an extended 
benefit period for weeks of unemployment beginning April 12, 2009, and 
eligible unemployed workers will be able to collect up to an additional 
13 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State 
Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement 
to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and 
is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)). Persons who 
believe they may be entitled to EB or who wish to inquire about their 
rights under the program should contact their State Workforce Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce 
Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Frances Perkins Building, Room 
S-4231, Washington, DC 20210,

[[Page 30622]]

telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is not a toll-free number) or by 
e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4d3ddd6d6dbdac79ac7d7dbc0c0f4d0dbd89ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87e0eee5e5e8e9f4a9f4e4e8f3f3c7e3e8eba9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of June 2009.
Douglas F. Small,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-15164 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Orlando R., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Orlando R., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 30]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V Richardson, J.), entered on or about January 2, 2013, which, upon a fact-finding determination of neglect, placed the subject child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until completion of the next permanency hearing (June 14, 2013), unanimously affirmed, without costs, as to the fact-finding determination, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed as moot. Order of fact-finding, same court and Judge, entered on or about November 27, 2012, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly held that petitioner, the Administration for Children’s Services, satisfied its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the father neglected the child, in that he “knew or should have known of the mother’s drug use and failed to exercise a minimum degree of care to ensure that the mother did not abuse drags during her pregnancy” *(Matter of Kierra C. [Kevin C.],*101 AD3d 993, 994 [2d Dept 2012]; *see*Family Ct Act §§ 1012 *[f]*[i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]; *Nicholson v Scoppetta,*3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]).

The evidence established that the father did not use drugs but was aware of the mother’s history of drug use. Notwithstanding his efforts to address her drug problem, shortly before she gave birth, he placed her in the home of a friend who he knew was a drug user and who was visited by others who used alcohol and drugs. While this residence was a last resort, as the couple had been homeless and unemployed, the environment apparently contributed to her relapse during her pregnancy.

The Family Court correctly reasoned that the father’s *526intermittent incarceration and resulting separation from the mother contributed to his failure, or inability, to exercise the minimum degree of care necessary to ensure that the mother did not abuse drugs during her pregnancy. Moreover, as the father admitted to incurring convictions for at least three theft related offenses, the Family Court did not violate the presumption of innocence in referring to such crimes *(see e.g.*US Const 5th, 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6). In any case, the Family Court ultimately reasoned that the resulting incarceration, rather than the crimes themselves, contributed to the neglect of the child. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 636 

Expressing support for the designation of October 17, 2019, as ‘‘National 

Vitiligo Awareness Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 17, 2019 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. 

PAYNE, Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. RUSH, Ms. 

NORTON, Mr. CLAY, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Ms. MOORE, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Ms. BASS, Mr. 

MEEKS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. 

KRISHNAMOORTHI, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan, Ms. JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

COX of California, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. 

BISHOP of Georgia, Mrs. MCBATH, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. 

COHEN, Mr. HASTINGS, and Mr. RASKIN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of October 17, 2019, 

as ‘‘National Vitiligo Awareness Day’’. 

Whereas vitiligo is a long-term, chronic disorder that results 

in the loss of pigment in patches on the skin, hair, eyes, 

and inside of the mouth; 

Whereas the condition can result in discomfort, itching, and 

pain, but there is still no known cure; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 636 IH 

Whereas the American Academy of Dermatology refers to vitiligo as a life-altering disorder that can cause low self-esteem, anger, and depression; 

Whereas according to the American Academy of Dermatology, about half of the individuals diagnosed with vitiligo are diagnosed before the age of 21; 

Whereas a study by Pediatric Dermatology found that about 

half of all children and adolescents diagnosed with vitiligo 

experienced a decreased quality of life, and some individuals even experienced problems with schoolwork, increased bullying and teasing, trouble with developing 

friendships, and self-confidence issues; 

Whereas a Yale study found that bullied children are two to 

nine times more likely to consider suicide, and the CDC 

reports suicide is the third leading cause of death among 

young people; and 

Whereas Judith Porter, Ph.D., and Ann Beuf, Ph.D., found 

that social support for children and adolescents with vitiligo provided by families, peers, charities, support 

groups, and teachers can greatly improve their quality of 

life and decrease stress related to bullying: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Vit3 iligo Awareness Day’’; and 

4 (2) recognizes the importance of providing sup5 port for individuals diagnosed with vitiligo to im6 prove their quality of life. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------



                         SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landauer, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Brent A. Latta, Chief Executive Officer 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:

i.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

ii.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
      of the Company.




                                    /s/  Brent A. Latta
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    President & Chief Executive Officer

August 8, 2005




[Signed originals of these written statements required by Section 906 have
been provided to Landauer, Inc. and will be retained by Landauer, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0523

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL VOYLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 16, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 11 2023

07/11/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0523
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0703 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KEITH POPE,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 24 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2024

04/18/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0703
#### DIRK TER HAAR v. SEABOARD OIL CO OF DELAWARE et al.

No. 70 Civil.

District Court, S. D. California, N. D.

Dec. 31, 1940.

Chandler & Wright and Oliver S. North-cote, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.

George W. Nilsson, of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Kettleman North Dome Ass’n.

BEAUMONT, District Judge.

Viewing the complaint as a whole, the court is of the opinion that a cause of action for injunctive relief has been-pleaded. Bourdieu v. Seaboard Oil Corporation, 38 Cal.App.2d 11, 100 P.2d 528; United Railroads v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. 80, 155 P. 463; Kellogg v. King, 114 Cal. 378, 46 P. 166, 55 Am.St.Rep. 74.

The defenses of laches, stale demands and the statute of limitations may not be asserted by motion to dismiss, but should be set forth affirmatively in defendant’s answer (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c), 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Patsavouras v. Garfield, D.C., 34 F. Supp. 406; Munzer v. Swedish American Line, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 789; Holmberg v. Hannaford, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 216; Raker v. United States, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 432; Baker v. Sisk, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 232; Nordman v. Johnson City, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 51), and that same rule prevails as to the defense of pendency of another action. F.R.C.P. 12 *599(b); Sproul v. Gambone, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 441.

The motion of defendant Kettleman North Dome Association- to dismiss is denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6171

JAY TIMOTHY LURZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON P. GALLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 1994-AMD) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 6, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay Timothy Lurz, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jay Timothy Lurz appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Lurz v. Galley , No. CA-01- 1994-AMD (D. Md. Dec. 26, 2001). 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
* Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

August 26, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41288 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JASPER RIVERA, also known as Diablo,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-175-TH-ESH-1

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jasper Rivera app e als the sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction on one count of carjacking and one count of

using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 2119, 924(c). Rivera contends that certain sentencing

enhancements violate the Sixth Amendment rule announced in United

State s v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and t he district court2

erred by adjusting his offense level for abducting his victims.

Neither River a nor the Government addresses the effect of the

appeal-waiver in Rivera’s written plea agreement. We examine that

waiver s ua sponte

. S ee United States v. Martinez

, 263 F.3d 436,

438 (5th Cir. 2001); cf. United States v. Rhodes

, 253 F.3d 800, 804

(5th Cir. 2001) (disregarding waiver provision wher e Government

expressly chose not to rely on it).

Our review of the guilty-plea hearing transcript demonstrates

the waiver was both informed and voluntary. See United States v.

Portillo

, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 513 U.S.

893 (1994); United States v. Melancon

, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir.

1992). Rivera’s c hallenges do not fall within any of the four

exceptions to the waiver (punishment exceeding the statutory

maximum; upward departure; arithmetic errors in guideline

calculations; and ineffective assistance of counsel that affects

the waiver’s validity). S ee , e.g. , United States v. Bond

, 414

F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2005) (“statutory maximum” in waiver refers to

maximum allowed by statute, not the guideline maximum authorized by

guilty plea or jury verdict); United States v. McKinney , 406 F.3d

744, 746-47 (5th Cir. 2005) (sentence imposed in violation of

Booker rule did not constitu te upward departure). Accordingly,

Rivera’s appeal is DISMISSED because it is barred by his waiver.3

Counsel are cautioned that failure in the future to brief the

effect of an appeal-waiver may result in the impo sition of

sanctions.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 14, 2015

No. 04-15-00320-CV

Jonathan SHURBERG as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rebecca Lord, Individually 

and Derivatively on Behalf of La Salle Industries, a Limited Partnership,

Appellants

v.

LA SALLE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, Roy G. Martin Jr. Property Management, Inc., Roy Martin, 

Elizabeth Martin, Jennifer Lord, Brenda Lord, Kent Lord, Janie Martin, Mark Martin, Thomas L. 

Martin, and Jill Martin,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-08-00154-CVL

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record in this appeal was due on May 29, 2015, but was not filed. On June 

8, 2015, this court notified court reporter Richey Gentry by letter that he is the court reporter 

responsible for timely filing the reporter’s record, and the record had not been filed. Our notice 

required Mr. Gentry to file the record no later than July 8, 2015, unless appellant had failed to 

pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the record and is not entitled to the record 

without paying the fee, in which case Mr. Gentry was required to file a notice so advising the 

court no later than June 18, 2015. We received no response to our letter.

We therefore ORDER Mr. Richey Gentry to file the record in this court on or before 

August 13, 2015. Mr. Gentry is advised that if the record is not received by this date, we may 

order him to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt. 

We further order the clerk of this court to serve this order on Mr. Richey Gentry and all 

counsel. Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the 

appellate record is timely filed,” TEX .R. APP. P. 35.3(c), we also order the clerk of this court to 

serve a copy of this order on the trial court. 
_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court