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



|CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
|---------------------------------------------

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report (the Report) on the Form 10-QSB of China Tel Group Inc. (the Company) for the nine months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William Timmins, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and a member of the Board of Directors, 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



|Date: May 14, 2008
|------------------

/s/ William Timmins William Timmins

Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, principal accounting officer, principal financial officer and Director



---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Hugo RIVERA-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41499.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Victor Hugo Rivera-Mendez appeals from his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rivera-Mendez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Rivera-Mendez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *AlmendarezTorres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Rivera-Mendez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In
connection with the Annual Report of ESCAgenetics Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michelle Kline, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, that:

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

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

|/s/MICHELLE KLINE                                              |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                               |  | 
|Michelle Kline
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|December 30, 2002                                              |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Wayne McAlister, 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:



| | (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 position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 12, 2010



/s/ G. Wayne McAlisterG. Wayne McAlisterChief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Daniel Z. Rapoport et al., Executors of the Estate of Boris Lurie, Deceased. American Friends of New Communities in Israel Inc. et al., Proposed Intervenors-Appellants; Richard Nadelman et al., Respondents, and Boris Lurie Art Foundation, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Submitted December 10, 2012;

decided February 12, 2013

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order affirming the order that denied the motion to intervene, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the remainder of the Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that absent an order of intervention, movants are not parties to the proceeding and thus lack capacity to challenge that part of the order.

Judge Rivera taking no part.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-16-00436-CV 

________________________

LEON REYES, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

GUADALUPE REYES, APPELLEE 

 

 

On Appeal from the 72nd District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2015-518,576; Honorable Ruben Gonzales Reyes, Presiding 

 

December 22, 2016 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Leon Reyes, proceeding by and through his counsel, Charles Blevins, 

timely gave notice of appeal from the Final Decree of Divorce dissolving his marriage 

with Appellee, Guadalupe Reyes.

1

 By letter dated November 30, 2016, the clerk of this 

court advised Appellant that a filing fee of $205 was overdue and notified him that 

 

1

This court previously dismissed an earlier appeal for failure to pay the requisite filing fee. Reyes 

v. Reyes, No. 07-16-00353-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11573 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 25, 2016) (mem. 

op., not designated for publication). 
2

failure to submit payment within ten days would subject the appeal to dismissal 

pursuant to Rule 42.3(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Appellant has not responded, paid the filing fee, made other arrangements, nor 

sought to proceed without payment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b), 20.1. Unless 

a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the clerk of this court is required to collect 

filing fees set by statute or the Texas Supreme Court when an item is presented for 

filing. See id. at 5, 12.1(b). Although the filing of a proper notice of appeal invokes an 

appellate court’s jurisdiction, if a party fails to follow the prescribed rules of appellate 

procedure, the appeal may be dismissed. Id. at 25.1(b).

Accordingly, having provided Appellant a reasonable opportunity to cure this 

defect, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate 

rules and failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring action within a specified 

time. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Per Curiam
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE 290TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on May 13, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

Daniel Martinez a/k/a Daniel Ramirez, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-15-00177-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2014CR2985

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, these appeals are

DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
No. 4836.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### EUGENE C. CAUSEY vs. A. B. FRENCH’S SON & CO.

Richardson & Soule for plaintiff and appellant.

J. K. Bailey for defendant and appellee.

Dinkelspiel, Hart & Davey, attorneys.

DUFOUR, J.

The plaintiff, a resident of Burnside, *96La., sues for the purchase price of a lot of staves alleged to have been sold and shipped to defendant, a local stave exporter.

Averring that he had reasoil to fear, and did fear, that the defendant will make use of their possession of the staves to conceal, part with or dispose of them during the pendency of this suit, he took out a writ of sequestration and caused a seizure of the staves.

The defendant moved to set aside the writ on the ground that the allegation upon which the application for the writ was based were untrue; that the sale was not án absolute one to him, but a mere consignment for export to Liverpool, with a guaranteed price, and that the shipment to Europe was made with the full knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.

The view that we take of the case makes it unnecessary to inquire what the character of the alleged sale was.

Although the plaintiff claims that, under his contract, he was to receive the purchase price before the staves were shipped, the defendant asserts that it was fully understood that he could forward the staves and the draft and that the plaintiff would wait for payment until the return of collection,

His statement was corroborated by the witness and was evidently accepted by the trial Judge.

> “We take it to be the undoubted sense of all the authorities that a sequestration must be dissolved, if the proof administered discloses that in point of fact, the oath of the plaintiff is untrue.”

52 An. 26.

We are unable to understand how the plaintiff could complain of an act which he had authorized, and make such an act a basis for sequestration.

*97December 13, 1909.

Rehearing refused, January 10, 1910.

The judgment appealed from dissolved the writ, hut had no reference to the merits.

Judgment affirmed,
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 15, 2010

0908 

# Order

September 15, 2010

140879

IN RE ESTATE OF UPJOHN

_____________ _______________ _____________ NATIONAL CITY BANK OF THE MIDWEST, TRUSTEE, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 140879 COA: 278668 Kalamazoo PC: 1956-020742-TT PHARMACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY, L.L.C., Respondent-Appellee, and

KALAMAZOO COMMUNI TY FOUNDATION, Respondent-Appellant,
and

ATTORNEY GENERAL/CONSUMER
PROTECTION AND CHAR ITABLE TRUSTS DIVISION, Intervening-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 23, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk January 20, 2012

t0117 

# Order

January 20, 2012

142438

- 9

ESTATE OF SHERRILL TURNER v NICHOLS

_________________________________________

DELAINA PATTERSON, as Personal

Representative for the Estate of Sherrill Turner,

Deceased, and Robert Turner, a Minor, Individually,

by his Next Friend, DELAINA PATTERSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 142438

- 9

COA: 288375, 291287

Wayne CC: 08

- 111034

- NO

SHERRY NICHOLS,

Defendant,

and

TERRI SUTTON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of this appeal is considered, and the appeal is DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs.
#### WELLER v. SOCONY VACUUM OIL CO. OF NEW YORK.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Nov. 17, 1941.

Manuel L. Katz, of New York City (Seymour L. Colin, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Louis Mead Treadwell, of New York City (John J. Manning, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

GODDARD, District Judge.

This is a motion by the plaintiff to vacate an order entered on June 13, 1941 dismissing the complaint for lack of prosecution. The suit instituted February 7, 1940, is brought by a seaman to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him on defendant’s vessel S-. S. Paulsboro on February 27, 1938.

On April 19, 1940, an order granting the defendant a bill of particulars was *159entered upon consent. This was followed on May 10th by formal service of such order. However, no bill of particulars was ever served, and on June 13, 1941, upon a general call of the calendar the cause was dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 30 of the General Rules of this Court.

According to the affidavit submitted by the attorney for the plaintiff the failure to serve a bill of particulars was due to the oversight or inadvertence of a clerk then in the employ of the attorney for the plaintiff, who had charge of this matter and who subsequently was inducted into the United States Army.

The defendant contends that as Rule 30 of the General Rules of this Court provides that for the purpose of a motion to vacate such a dismissal, the term of court at which the cause was dismissed was extended thirty days from the date of mailing notice of the dismissal and that as more than thirty days has expired, plaintiff’s motion must be denied. The fact that the term of court has expired does not deprive the court of the power to grant relief. Preveden v. Hahn, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 952.

Rule 6(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides that “The expiration of a term of court in no way affects the power of a court to do any act or take any proceeding in any civil action which has been pending before it.”

Rule 60(b) of the Rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is applicable; that Rule provides that the court upon motion “ * * * may relieve a party or his legal representative from a judgment, order, or proceeding taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” if the motion is made within a reasonable time; but in no case exceeding six months after such judgment, order or proceeding was taken.

Therefore as six months or an unreasonable time has not elapsed since the order dismissing the cause was entered, this court has the power to grant relief and as the judgment or order taken against plaintiff may be fairly described as being due to mistake or inadvertence, he should have relief.

Motion to vacate the order dismissing the case is granted. Settle order on notice.
RE: Case No. 15-0141 DATE

COA #: 12-13-00005-CV TC#: 2012-876

STYLE: THE GOOD SHEPHERD HOSPITAL, INC.

v. RONALD HASTEN AND CHARLENE HASTEN

Petitioner's motion for rehearing was t

filed in the above styled and numbered case.

HS. CATHY S. LUSK

CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF 

1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 3

TYLER, TX 75702
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the 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, Ross Tannenbaum, Principal 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, 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/ Ross Tannenbaum        
|    |  | Ross Tannenbaum            
|    |  | Principal Executive Officer
|    |  | April 15, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          93,853
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,798
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                36,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    348,515
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         634,889
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           625,786
<LOANS>                                      2,825,713
<ALLOWANCE>                                     38,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,142,858
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,305,288
<SHORT-TERM>                                   125,411
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             63,242
<LONG-TERM>                                    266,066
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              201
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     382,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,142,858
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 52,858
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,418
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                14,981
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                71,257
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              34,687
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,577
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           29,680
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 855
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 23,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,817
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,754
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,754
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.00
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,552
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,655
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 28,876
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                38,619
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,128
<RECOVERIES>                                       258
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               38,249
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            38,249
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
97-319.

#### State ex rel. ALLTEL Ohio, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

In Mandamus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Resnick, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                  22,508
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      95
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             61,774
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                  36,804
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                    37,038
<LOANS>                                272,182
<ALLOWANCE>                              3,525
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         400,819
<DEPOSITS>                             344,354
<SHORT-TERM>                             9,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                      6,292
<LONG-TERM>                              8,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                 8,730
<OTHER-SE>                              23,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         400,819
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         24,536
<INTEREST-INVEST>                        5,647
<INTEREST-OTHER>                           416
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        30,599
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      13,068
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      14,066
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   16,533
<LOAN-LOSSES>                            1,686
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         13,861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          6,836
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               6,836
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             4,577
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             2.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                             2.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            4.63
<LOANS-NON>                              2,131
<LOANS-PAST>                               172
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                           408
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                          2,062
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         3,200
<CHARGE-OFFS>                            1,568
<RECOVERIES>                               207
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                        3,525
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     2,439
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                  1,086
        

</TABLE>