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

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

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gold Holdings Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Demitro Marianovich, Principle 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:



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

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



|Registrant            | Gold Holdings Corporation                                                                             
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2010 | By: /s/ Demitro Marianovich                                                                           
|                      |                                                                                                       
|                      | Demitro Marianovich
Chief Executive Officer (Principle Executive Officer, Principle Financial Officer)





| | 27 | 
| | -- | 
|
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Maria L. Bouvette, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |                      |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                       |  | PORTER BANCORP, INC.
|                       |  |                     
|Dated: August 16, 2010 |  | By:                  |  | /s/ Maria L. Bouvette  
|                       |  |                      |  | Maria L. Bouvette      
|                       |  |                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
@article{1214916,
  author = {Sarah Fisher and Danixa Rodriguez-Melendez and Ethan Iverson and Thomas Kolibaba and Jaime Grunlan},
  title = {Fire Protection of Wood with an Environmentally Benign UV-Cured Polyelectrolyte Complex},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-07 00:07:00},
  publisher = {Polymer Degradation and Stability},
  language = {en},
}
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00550

- CV
Certified Value, Inc. d/b/a Kidst eam and John Hampton v. Infinite Play Co.
On Appeal from the 105th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2016DCV

- 2340

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s

. We further order this dec ision certified below for observance. February 4, 2021
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Larry Torres, * From the 244th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. C-33,146.

Vs. No. 11-13-00172-CR * July 16, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXA

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

7/15/2015

PRIDGEN, ROBERT LYNN Tr. Ct. No.

•

29956

*

. 

Pursuant to Rule 69.4(a) T.R.A.P., record is returned to the cou

A

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ June 8, 2012

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2011-3031 AHMED M. YOUNIES, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Decided: December 5, 2011 Precedential Opinion

______________________ Please make the following change: Change the decided date to December 5, 2011.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995             OCT-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         559,272                   2,087
<SECURITIES>                                     9,294                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,611                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,303                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     56,990                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               686,705                   2,087
<PP&E>                                         180,335                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,163                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 890,070                   2,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,140                  10,060
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         7,320                   5,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,305,653                 223,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   890,070                   2,087
<SALES>                                        625,485                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               625,485                       0
<CGS>                                          409,680                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  409,680                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               495,529                   2,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,303                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,654                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (275,043)                 (2,145)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (275,043)                 (2,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (275,043)                 (2,145)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.046)                  (.000)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.3**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
      “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      James G. Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the general
      partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
      to
      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
      Partnership.





/s/
                JAMES G. JACKSONJames
                G. Jackson*Chief
                Financial Officer of BreitBurn GP,
                LLC*





Dated:
      August 11, 2008
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

I, Peter I. Ferguson certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of WorldWater Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December
31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operation of WorldWater Corp.

By:    /s/ Peter I. Ferguson
       -----------------------
Name: Peter I. Ferguson

Title: Principal Financial
       Officer

Dated: June 15, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7561

JOSEPH NOBREGA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:08-cv-00381-LO-JFA)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Nobrega, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Nobrega seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and dismissing it on that 

basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th 

Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard 

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Nobrega has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Nobrega’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 

successive § 2254 petition. United States v. Winestock, 340 

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization 

to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert 

claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, 

previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to 

cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, 

not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, 

but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would 

have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2) (2012). Nobrega’s claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2254 petition.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - 21 CFR Parts 129 and 165
          - [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0446]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of Friday, May 29, 2009 (74 FR 25651). The final rule was published with an inadvertent error in the “Analysis of Impacts” section. This document corrects that error.                    

# DATES:

This correction is effective: June 25, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lauren Posnick Robin, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-436-1639.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                     In FR Doc. E9-12494, appearing on page 25651 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Friday, May 29, 2009, the following correction is made:                

                    On page 25656, in the third column, in the first complete paragraph,                           ( print page 30212)                        beginning in the fifth line, the sentence “Because the costs per entity of this rule are small, the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” is corrected to read “Because the costs per entity of this rule are small, the agency believes that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”                

Dated: June 19, 2009.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.

[FR Doc. E9-14981 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TAHARA NICOLE GAINEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00088-JAB-1)

Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, 

Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tahara Nicole Gainey pled guilty pursuant to a written 

plea agreement to distributing 53.2 grams of cocaine base 

“crack” and was sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment. On 

appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds 

for appeal, but raising the following issue: whether Gainey’s 

sentence was unreasonable because the district court imposed a 

sentence greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006).

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we 

review a sentence for reasonableness, whether inside or outside 

the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, applying a deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 49 (2007). We first review a sentence for significant 

procedural error and then evaluate the sentence for substantive 

error. Id. at 51; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 

(4th Cir. 2009). We find no abuse of discretion in Gainey’s 

sentence, which was imposed within a properly calculated 

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. United States v. Allen, 

491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (“A sentence within the proper 

Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”) 

(citation omitted); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 

(2007). 
3

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Gainey’s conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Gainey, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Gainey requests that a petition be filed, 

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Gainey.

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
**Certifications
      of CEO and CFO 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-Q of Houston Wire & Cable
      Company (the “Corporation”) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Charles A. Sorrentino, as Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,
      and Nicol G. Graham, as Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, each hereby
      certifies, 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 his 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 fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Corporation.





/s/
      Charles A. Sorrentino


Charles
      A. Sorrentino


Chief
      Executive Officer





November
      2, 2007





/s/
      Nicol G. Graham


Nicol
      G.
      Graham


Chief
      Financial Officer





November
      2, 2007





This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by Houston Wire &
Cable Company for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934,
      as amended.
PD-0879-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/15/2015 8:38:41 AM

Accepted 7/17/2015 12:50:00 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
RICARDO RAMIREZ , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 22

- 0173 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2008

- 155341

- 001 The Honorable Adam D. Driggs , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent

Ricardo Ramirez , Florence Petitioner FILED 2-28-2023STATE v. RAMIREZ Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey , Judge Jennifer B. Campbell , and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Ricardo Ramirez seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is petition er’s sixth successive petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.