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 Shearson Select Advisors Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 condition and results of operations of the Partnership. |

    

/s/ Jennifer Magro                Jennifer MagroCitigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief Financial Officer and Director

    

March 30, 2007                                Date

----
97- 486.

#### State v. Conley.

Summit App. No. 18175. Appellant has filed an untimely appeal of the court of appeals’ decision *1431dismissing his post-conviction action, and a motion for delayed appeal. This appeal involves a civil, post-conviction matter and not an appeal of a felony case to which the provisions for delayed appeal in S.Ct.Prac.R. 11(A)(4) apply. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that the motion for delayed appeal be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that, in that appellant failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to S.CtPrac.R. II(2)(A)(1), this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
#### WELTY v. CLUTE et al.

No. 44.

District Court, W. D. New York.

Dec. 19, 1939.

Ferris, Burgess, Hughes & Dorrance, of Utica, N. Y., for plaintiff.

*430Mandeville, Waxman, Buck, Teeter & Harpending, of Elmira, N. Y., for defendants.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves for the production of certain documents. It is not necessary to state the law applicable to this motion further than to say that the Federal Rules of Practice 26 to 37 inclusive, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, are to be construed broadly with the view to a showing of material facts. With this in mind the action of the court is as follows:

II. 1. Granted.

2. Granted.

3. Granted insofar as it relates to correspondence from November 23, 1929.

4. Granted insofar as the books of Warren W. Clute, deceased, show an account with the plaintiff.

• 5. Granted insofar as the bank books of Warren W. Clute, deceased, show any accounts with the plaintiff.

6. Granted insofar as any check books of Warren W. Clute, deceased, are shown as made to the plaintiff or to any one else on account of the notes in suit.

7. Denied.

8. Denied.

III. A. 1. Granted.

2. Granted.

3. Denied, unless the inquiry is more specifically limited.

4. Granted, if limited to period commencing with November 23, 1929.

5. Granted, if limited to period commencing with November 23, 1929.

6. Granted insofar as the journal of the Watkins Salt Company shows any accounts with Warren W. Clute, deceased.

7. Granted insofar as the cash book of the Watkins Salt Company shows any receipts or disbursements from 1929 to date received from or made to Warren W. Clute, deceased, or upon his account.

8. Granted.

9. Granted.

10. Granted.

11. Denied.

B. 1, 2 and 3. Granted insofar as they relate to the period of time commencing with November 23, 1929, and insofar as they relate to loans or transactions with Warren W. Clute, deceased.

The court has, in the respects above stated, limited discovery to a period of time commencing November 23, 1929, because there is nothing in the record to show that any loan made by Warren W. Clute, deceased, to the plaintiff was made prior to that date. It rather appears that the loan alleged to have been made in 1917 was made by the bank. The Claim II of the complaint alleges that in June, 1932, Clute acquired a promissory note of the plaintiff together with the collateral. It is plaintiff’s contention that this note originated in 1917, but as seen, Clute first acquired his interest in 1932. I have disallowed the motion to require the production of the income tax returns. The books and records required to be produced should sufficiently show the income of these parties insofar as it is relevant to the issues.

An order may be prepared in accordance with this memorandum.
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 Quarterly Report of Orient Paper, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Winston C. Yen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.





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





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.




Date: August 16, 2010
By:
/s/ Winston C. YenWinston C. YenChief Financial Officer(principal financial and accounting officer)
Exhibit 10.7
Amendment to Appendix 1 – Scope of Employment
​
This document serves as an amendment to the vacation paragraph within your most recent employment agreement appendix. The below paragraph replaces the paragraph related to vacation in its entirety. This amendment does not constitute a new employment agreement or alter any other terms of your employment with Enfusion.
​
In accordance with Enfusion’s Flexible Time Off policy effective July 1, 2022, which may be amended from time to time, Employee is entitled to flexible time off as needed each calendar year. Flexible Time Off will not accrue or vest and therefore will not be paid out at the time of separation of employment. Any unused and unexpired accrued vacation days that Employee earned under the previous policy will expire on December 31, 2022 if unused by the Employee. If the Employee’s Termination Date is on or before December 31, 2022, the Employee will receive a final payment for all vested paid vacation time through their Termination Date. If the Employee’s Termination Date is on or after January 1, 2023, in accordance with Enfusion’s vacation policy, Employee will not be paid out for any expired accrued vacation days. Any employee beginning employment after July 1, 2022 will not accrue vacation days.
​
​
/s/ Bronwen Bastone
​
Bronwen Bastone 
Chief People Officer 
July 01, 2022
​
​
/s/ Lorelei Skillman
​
Lorelei Skillman
ACCEPTED

14-15-00258-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/10/2015 11:36:29 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/10/2015 11:36:29 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
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 on Form 10-QSB of Good Times Restaurants Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Boyd E. Hoback, Chief Executive Officer and Susan M. Knutson, Controller of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Boyd E. Hoback

Boyd E. Hoback

Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2007

/s/ Susan M. Knutson

Susan M. Knutson

Controller (principal financial officer)

May 14, 2007
Date. 7/12/15

KEITH B. BURKINS 3S 5U9- OS;Xo,

T.0.C.J-10 #1013686 : OF
Robertson Unit

12071 F.M 3522

Abilene, T.x 79601

T.C.C.P 12308
P.O. BOX +4H* Capital Station
Austin Tex. 78711

RE: WOO- 48256- P(B); WOO- 48257- P(B) and WOO- 48258- P(B)

DeanCLerk

I am waiting you in reference to the above Listed cause No.s Inquin-
ing about the disposition of these pending application’s. it has been
well over a year that these appLication’s number’s has been active, but
the nemedies by this court does not comport with the fast and speedy re-
medy of the Habeas Corpus. I am very concerned about the process, beca-
use of the ongoing (1.5) plus yearns of incarceration. I would Like to tha-
nk you in advance for your response, time and effort.

S&neenely...
RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Fuk 8B. Burky,

JUL 15 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
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 No. IN09-9-000] 

                    With respect to an order issued by the Commission today in the above-captioned docket, with the exceptions noted below, the staff of the Office of Enforcement's Division of Investigations (DOI) and Jerome Pederson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement, are designated as non-decisional in deliberations by the Commission in this docket. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2202 (2008), they will not serve                           ( print page 4426)                        as advisors to the Commission or take part in the Commission's review of any offer of settlement. Likewise, as non-decisional staff, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2201 (2008), they are prohibited from communicating with advisory staff concerning any deliberations in this docket. Exceptions in DOI to this designation are: Robert E. Pease, Todd Mullins, Suzanne McNamara, Tegan Flynn, Lauren Rosenblatt, John Hutchings, Renee Thorne.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-1472 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIR GIORGIO SANFORD CLARDY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

UNNAMED O.D.O.C. PRISONERS, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TODD BYERLY; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-35419 

D.C. No. 6:18-cv-01200-CL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Sir Giorgio Sanford Clardy appeals pro se from the 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-35419 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay 

the filing fee after denying Clardy’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district 

court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. 

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Clardy’s action because Clardy had 

filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed for being 

frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and failed to allege plausibly 

that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he 

lodged the operative amended complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d 

at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists only where “the complaint 

makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious 

physical injury’ at the time of filing”).

We reject as meritless Clardy’s contention that the “three strikes” provision 

of the Prison Litigation Reform Act is an unconstitutional violation of a prisoner’s 

right of access to the courts. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 

1999) (the “three strikes” provision does not violate a prisoner’s right of access to 

the courts). 

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PABLO A. DAMIANI,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellant,

v.

GEORGE GILL,

Defendant Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 105, 2015

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ C.A. No. N14C-05-186-ALR

§

§

Submitted: May 8, 2015

Decided: July 14, 2015

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 14th day of July 2015, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs 

and the record on appeal, we find it manifest that the Superior Court’s granting of 

summary judgment in favor of the appellee, George Gill, should be affirmed on the 

basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned opinion dated January 28, 2015. As to 

the argument of the appellant, Pablo A. Damiani, that he was unable to name or 

serve the guards identified as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 in his complaint 

because the Department of Correction did not respond to his inquiries, there is no 

indication that Damiani ever served any discovery upon Gill or any non-parties to 

obtain this information. Although pro se litigants are afforded some leniency in 

presenting their cases, “[t]here is no different set of rules for pro se plaintiffs, and 
2

the trial court should not sacrifice the orderly and efficient administration of justice 

to accommodate the unrepresented plaintiff.”1 The Superior Court did not err in 

dismissing the claims against the John Doe defendants.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

1 Draper v. Med. Ctr., 767 A.2d 796, 799 (Del. 2001).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           205,214
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,526
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 213,374
<CASH>                                          28,742
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               3,927
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           5,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 429,473
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                201,255
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             12,913
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                     30
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          101,277
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,301
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   429,473
<PREMIUMS>                                     140,920
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             12,674
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  44
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      90,447
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     19,977
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            17,718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,562
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,099
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,535)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.98)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 195,131
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             95,826
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              (5,379)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              37,945
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                95,533
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                152,100
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        (5,379) 
<FN>
RESERVES FOR UNPAID CLAIMS, PROVISION FOR INSURED EVENTS AND PAYMENTS OF CLAIMS
ARE STATED NET OF REINSURANCE. RESERVES FOR UNPAID CLAIMS BEGINNING OF YEAR
INCLUDE PAC RIM RESERVES AT ACQUISITION.
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
*Thursday, March 20, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

96-876.

#### Gallia Cty. Veterans Serv. Comm. v. Gallia Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

Gallia App. No. 95CA13. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Gallia County. Upon consideration of the motion of *amicus curiae,*Ohio State Association of Veterans Service Commissions, to participate in oral argument,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to participate in oral argument be, and hereby is, granted, and Ohio State Association of Veterans Service Commissions is to share the time allotted to appellant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

MARK B. PEDUTO, 

 Respondent 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 2190 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 

No. 75 DB 2015 

Attorney Registration No. 62923 

(Allegheny County) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM: 

AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2015, upon consideration of the 

Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board dated July 2, 2015, it is hereby 

 ORDERED that Mark B. Peduto is placed on temporary suspension pursuant to 

Pa.R.D.E. 208(f)(5), until further definitive action by this Court. It is further ORDERED 

that Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. 

 This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline within the meaning of 

Pa.R.D.E. 402, pertaining to confidentiality.
33, ULWOS

eo |

oe July7-2o.c
Lester Douis * bSos31 _
iSttles_ Unit RECEIVEDIN

; 3060 EM_3e1y COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

aE eauOnontlevas 227060 JUL 10205
Aabel Acosta, Cleck AbetAcosta;Glerk

_ of Cerf fnaina {_Ap peale a

Bo. ‘Bex 12306, Cap. aa S. talian A

—Aus: ting Té vas 2821
-@ Rew Le C+ No, &778-Wy

Wlk=33,.Hab-05-
_ LT tang, eli to let You: pou

A$—-_CMD AML Lol+—--

. that PV; yess

_ spot e bean Dsovec)_t roms the

-_ Te nell. Une +2, Dol _ Ss Frail ip Dr
___.. Beewsl { ey LEXCL. .7B1OD..f.-. "ee

. ‘Det seaiol Fete the._Covrto€

ne Of ard ,’a% ina | .Appeal le, SS Pay. DELO.

——pddite s+ Lo at the pitts

“se 2220.6. a

do _appreciat ve_ottenton——
pPre: jane? i LOD,


_ Ho this psa Hen. oe
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1963

ROBERT E. FENER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES HUNT, District Ranger, Pedlar District; MIKE DOMBECK, Chief U. S. Forest Service U. S. Department of Agriculture, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-24-L) Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: June 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E. Fener, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Hoe Donahue, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert E. Fener appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Defendants in Fener’s action challenginga decision of the United States Forest Service to implement a timber sale in the George Washington National Forest. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Fener v. Hunt , No. CA-97-24-L (W.D. Va. June 24, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED