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 Quarterly  Report of LILM,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2006,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, George
I. Norman, III, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/S/   GEORGE I. NORMAN, III
----------------------------------
George I. Norman, III
Principal Accounting Officer
March 29, 2007



     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 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  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
No. 19-6 For Immediate Release

August 2019

RRB Chairman Appoints Cameron as Assistant

Kimberley M. Cameron has been named as an Assistant to the Chairman of the U.S. Railroad 

Retirement Board (RRB), Erhard R. Chorlé. At the time of her appointment, Ms. Cameron served as 

the Executive Assistant to the agency’s Senior Executive Officer and Director of Field Service.

In her new position, Ms. Cameron will advise and assist the Chairman in reviewing fiscal and 

policy matters related to the functions and organization of the RRB, focusing on the efficient and 

effective administration of the agency’s various benefit programs.

Ms. Cameron joined the RRB in September 1992 as a claims representative in its Shreveport, 

Louisiana, field office, and also worked in the agency’s offices in Savannah, Georgia, and Charlotte, 

North Carolina. In August 2010, she was named manager of the Charlotte office, and in December 

2013 became manager of Network 6, which includes the agency’s offices in Charlotte and Atlanta, 

Georgia, as well as Jacksonville and Tampa in Florida.

In November 2016, Ms. Cameron was named as Executive Assistant to the Senior Executive 

Officer, Daniel J. Fadden, who also serves as the RRB’s Director of Field Service. In that role, she 

assisted Mr. Fadden in overseeing the agency’s day-to-day operations and working with the agency’s 

Executive Committee to research and develop policy recommendations for the three-member Board.

Ms. Cameron was born in Rantoul, Illinois, but grew up in several cities, including Frankfurt, 

Germany, and Washington, D.C., as her father served in the Air Force. She graduated in 1992 from 

Trevecca Nazarene University in Nashville, Tennessee, with a bachelor’s degree in English literature

and a journalism minor. She currently resides in Matthews, North Carolina, with her husband and 

eight-year-old son.

# # #

An independent federal agency headquartered in Chicago, the RRB pays almost $12.8 billion 

a year in benefits under the federal Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts

to the nation’s railroad workers and their families.

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

RRB News

844 North Rush Street Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275

www.rrb.gov

877-772-5772 general information

Public Affairs

312-751-4777 

opa@rrb.gov media inquiries
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20294

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELIDA JASSO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-163-3

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Elida Jasso has moved for leave to 

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Jasso has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20294 Document: 00513124958 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2015
No. 14-20294

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-20294 Document: 00513124958 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2015
@misc{105691,
  author = {Bettye Johnson and Howard Yoon and Sally Bruce and Ping-Shine Shaw and E Thompson and S Hooker and R Eplee and R Barnes and S Maritorena and J Mueller},
  title = {Volume 4, The 1997 Prelaunch Radiometric Calibration of Sea WiFS},
  year = {1999},
  number = {4},
  month = {1999-04-01},
  publisher = {SeaWiFs Postlaunch Technical Report Series},
  language = {en},
}
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 23.1





                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS'




The Board of Directors
FiberChem, Inc.


We consent to the use of our report dated January 10, 1997 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of FiberChem, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September
30, 1996 and 1995 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period
ended September 30, 1996 incorporated in the annual report filed on Form 10-KSB
of FiberChem, Inc.

Our report dated January 10, 1997, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations which raise
substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.  The
consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of these uncertainties.





Las Vegas, Nevada
January 22, 1997
#### Digital Broadcast Corp., Respondent, v Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc., Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 839]

The indemnification provision incorporated by reference to and made a part of the contract between plaintiff and defendant is ambiguous and cannot, as a matter of law, be interpreted as providing for reimbursement of defendant’s attorney’s fees in the instant action between the signatories to the contract *(see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers,*74 NY2d 487 [1989]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and *413find them unavailing. Concur-Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 32593(U).]
96-2823.

#### State ex rel. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. v. Plunkett.

In Mandamus. On motion for leave to intervene by Carl Wilkenfeld, James R. Jump, and Mary V. Fellabaum. Motion granted as to Wilkenfeld only. ,

Resnick, J., not participating.

On motion for leave to supplement complaint. Motion granted.

Resnick, J., not participating.

On answer of respondent. Answer treated as motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

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

Resnick, J., not participating.
Exhibit 11. Statement Regarding Computation of  Earnings
Per Common Share



|                                        | Year Ended
June 30, 2001
____________ | Year Ended
June 30, 2000
____________
|--------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------
|EQUIVALENT SHARES:                      |                                       |                                      
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding     | 2,648,205                             | 2,739,966                            
|Total Diluted Shares                    | 2,671,933                             | 2,753,593                            
|Net Income                              | $  3,483,901                          | $  3,209,722                         
|Less Preferred Stock Dividend           | --                                    | --                                   
|Income Available to Common Stockholders | $  3,483,901                          | $  3,209,722                         
|Basic Earnings Per Share                | $        1.32                         | $        1.17                        
|Diluted Earnings Per Share              | $        1.30                         | $        1.17
S04A0958.

#### WALLACE v. THE STATE.

(605 SE2d 29)

Fletcher, Chief Justice.

This appeal is the second appearance of this case. In the earlier appeal, this Court reversed Jermeal Wallace’s conviction for malice murder because of unconstitutional burden-shifting jury charges on intent and malice.1 The Court remanded for re-trial or re-sentencing. On remand, the trial court sentenced Wallace to life in prison for felony murder. Wallace now appeals, contending that the unconstitutional jury charge on intent also affected the felony murder count. Because the jury charge on intent did not affect the felony murder count, we affirm.

The evidence and proceedings in this case are set out fully in the prior appeal. Wallace was convicted of malice murder and two counts of felony murder for the death of the single victim. After this Court’s reversal of the malice murder conviction, the trial court sentenced Wallace to concurrent sentences on both felony murder counts. However, sentencing on only one count was proper,2 and, therefore, one sentence must be vacated.

*585Decided November 8, 2004.

*Carl P. Greenberg,*for appellant.

*PaulL. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Bettieanne C. Hart, Christopher M. Quinn, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Julie A. Adams, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

The underlying felony on one count was possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. As detailed in *Wallace I,*the charge on intent was unconstitutional in that it told the jury that the law presumes the intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon. However, unlike malice murder, neither felony murder nor possession of a firearm by a convicted felon requires proof of an intent to kill.3 Because the erroneous charge on intent did not affect the felony murder count based on the underlying possession charge, no reversible error appears.4

*Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

*Wallace v. State,*275 Ga. 879 (572 SE2d 579) (2002).

2

*Malcolm v. State,*263 Ga. 369, 371-372 (434 SE2d 479) (1993).

3

*Smith v. State,*244 Ga. 814, 821-822 (262 SE2d 116) (1979).

4

 Because only one sentence on felony murder was proper, we need not decide whether the erroneous charge affected the remaining felony murder count, which was based in part upon aggravated assault with intent to murder, rape, or rob.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q REPORTOF SYNCORA HOLDINGS LTD.PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. §§1350(a) and (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. 1350(a) and (b)), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
  the period ended June 30, 2008 of Syncora Holdings Ltd. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
  information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  |                                                                           
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Dated: August 11, 2008                                                    
| |  | /s/ Paul S. Giordano                                                      
| |  | PAUL S. GIORDANOPresident and Chief Executive OfficerSyncora Holdings Ltd.

| |  |                                                                                        
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Dated: August 11, 2008                                                                 
| |  | /s/ Elizabeth A. Keys                                                                  
| |  | ELIZABETH A. KEYSSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerSyncora Holdings Ltd.

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 Syncora Holdings Ltd. and will be retained by Syncora Holdings Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and
  Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 18, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 18, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0323. FRANK WIDAR BREVIK v. JESSICA WHITE BRADLEY.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: SPDR1900655
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HOMER JAVIER AVALOS,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00005-CR

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20120D06030)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until July 31, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Charles Louis Roberts, the Appellant’s attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before July 31, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C
SECTION 1350)
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report
of China Tel Group., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Untied States Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Carlos A. Trujillo, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 By:
/s/ Carlos A. Trujillo
 Carlos A.
Trujillo
 Chief
Financial Officer
 August
15, 2008
 
 [A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Tel Group, Inc. and will be retained by China Tel Group, Inc. and
furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.]
#### Leron Farrington, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents, and Hector G. Frias, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 51]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered January 9, 2006, which granted the motion by defendants Transit Authority and Milliner for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record does not support the assertion by defendant Frias, the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger, that the Transit Authority vehicle in front of him had stopped suddenly, so as to rebut the presumption of Frias’s negligence in this rear-end collision *(Agramonte v City of New York,*288 AD2d 75 [2001]; *see also Mullen v Rigor,*8 AD3d 104 [2004]). There, is no testimony establishing why Frias was unable to avoid the accident. He first saw the Transit Authority vehicle three to four seconds before impact, as he was approaching a clearly visible, bottlenecked construction area *(see e.g. De La Cruz v Ock Wee Leong,*16 AD3d 199 [2005]). Under such circumstances, even if the Transit Authority vehicle’s brake lights were not functioning, as Frias claims, such failure would not adequately rebut the inference of his negligence *(see Macauley v ELRAC, Inc.,*6 AD3d 584 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
#### KLAGER v. INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO., and thirty-one other cases.

Nos. 8423, 8409-8422, 8425-8434, 8436-8442.

District Court, W. D. Washington, S. D.

April 7, 1939.

Wm. P. Lord and Gross & Anderson, all of Portland, Or., for plaintiffs.

Laing & Gray, of Portland, Or., for defendant.

CUSHMAN, District Judge.

Assuming the filing of similar Answers in cases not yet at issue upon the facts, determination of the following questions would, ordinarily, be necessary:

1. Was there an unprecedented flow of the waters of the Lewis River at the time in question?

2. Did the defendant by any act increase or accelerate the natural flow of the river ?

3. Was the defendant negligent in doing so?

4. Was such negligence the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury?

5. If not the sole proximate cause, was it the proximate cause of some part of plaintiff’s injury?

6. The amount which plaintiff is or plaintiffs are entitled to recover?

Insofar as questions 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, it does not appear feasible to try all of these causes to one jury, verdicts to be returned after hearing of all of the evidence in all of the cases.

While it may be that certain of the cases, because of the proximity or other similarity of the lands alleged to have been injured, might be satisfactorily tried to one jury, yet, to so try all of them, as jury cases are ordinarily tried, would overburden any jury.

*115Concerning questions 1, 2 and 3, the difficulties already pointed out as to the other questions upon a consolidation of the causes would not be as great. According to the recollection" of the undersigned, more than one half of the time occupied in the hearing of testimony upon the trial of the companion cause was devoted to questions 1, 2 and 3.

These causes may be noted by the attorneys for plaintiffs or for the defendant, the hearing being concerning the propriety of consolidating the causes for hearing upon all matters preliminary to trial of the issues of fact made by the answers and, after answers, for trial as to the issues involved in the above questions numbered 1, 2 and 3. 28 U.S.C.A. § 734; Fed.Rule of Civil Procedure, rule 42, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The foregoing memorandum decision and order will be filed by the Clerk in the above entitled cause, with a docket reference in the other cases to such ruling and order.

The Clerk is directed to notify the attorneys for the parties of the foregoing.
**Exhibit 32.0**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fox Chase Bancorp, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Ihereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                        The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                        The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial conditionand results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered bythe Report.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Thomas M. Petro                    |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Thomas M. Petro                        |
|   |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   | November 6, 2009                  |
|   |   |                                   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Roger S. Deacon                    |
|   |   | Roger S. Deacon                        |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer                |
|   |   | November 6, 2009                  |

 

----
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

William B. Glasscock, Appellant

No. 06-19-00225-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court of 

Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 241-

0709-19). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss 

and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, William B. Glasscock, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 11, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk