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 Driver Passport Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randy Brown,
      Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the
      best of my knowledge, 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 condition and result of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
      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.





**DRIVER
                PASSPORT, INC.**Date: September
                6, 2006
              By:
              /s/ Randy
                BrownRandy
                BrownChief
                Financial Officer
LAW OFFICES OF PETER W. TILL

105 Morris Avenue, Suite 201

Springfield, New Jersey 07081

Telephone: (973)258-0064

Fax: (973)258-0478

tilllaw@aol.com

Attorneys for Defendant, SALVATORE LAGRASSO

(By Order of the Court pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

-vs- : lOCr.851

STEPHEN DEPIRO, : 18 U.S.C. § 2, 371, 894(a),

a/k/a “Beach,” 1084(a). 1951(a),

ALBERT CERNADAS, : 1955(a). 1962(d) and 1963

a/k/a “The Bull,”

NUNZIO LAGRASSO,

RICHARD DEHMER,

a/k/a “Dickie,” ORDER

EDWARD AULISI,

a/k/a “Eddie,”

VINCENT AULISI,

a/k/a “The Vet,”

THOMAS LEONARDIS,

a/k/a “Tommy,”

ROBERT RUIZ.

a/k/a “Bobby,”

MICHAEL TRUEBA,

a/k/a “Mikey,”

RAMIRO QUINTANS,

a/k/a “Romo,”

SALVATORE LAGRASSO,

ANTHONY ALFANO,

a/k/a “Brooklyn,”

TONINO COLANTONIO,

a/k/a “Tony,”

JOHN HARTMANN,

a/k/a “Lumpy,” “Fatty”

and “Fats,” and

GJUSEPPE PUGLIESE,

a/k/a “Pepe”,

Defendants,

Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 174 Filed 02/22/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1038
THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court by Peter W. Till, Esq., Law

Offices of Peter W. Till, attorneys for Defendant, Salvatore LaGrasso, and the Court having

considered the papers submitted by counsel and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this /day of , 2012;

ORDERED that The Law Offices of Peter W, Till, attorneys for Defendant, Salvatore

LaGrasso, (By Order ofthe Court pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act), is granted leave to allow

the associates of his firm and law clerks to assist with preparation of the defense in this matter;

and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be served upon all parties within

3 days from the date hereof.

Honorable Dennis M.

Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 174 Filed 02/22/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1039
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00059-CV

In the Matter of D.M. §

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Denton County (JV-2015-00028)

April 5, 2018

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. §1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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







In
      connection with the amended Quarterly Report of URON Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A
      for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, Donald Miller, Chief Executive
      Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





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





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


/s/ Donald
              MillerChief
              Executive and Chief Financial OfficerJanuary
                12, 2007







Exhibit
            32 - Page 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GEORGE LAWRENCE ROBINSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 209 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GEORGE LAWRENCE ROBINSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 210 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of January, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
y

MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00752-CV

ANGELA CORNEJO AND CARLOS PORTILLO, Appellant

V.

STEPHEN J. HILGERS, M.D., Appellee

Appeal from the 190th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012-69538).

TO THE 190TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 14th day of August 2014, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on August 8, 2013. After submitting the case on 

the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the 

parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Accordingly, the Court reverses the 

trial court’s judgment and remands the case to the trial court 

for further proceedings.

The Court orders that the appellee, Stephen J. Hilgers, 

M.D., pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered August 14, 2014.
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Jennings.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

July 24, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification ofChief Financial Officer**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Douglas Emmett, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)            the accompanyingquarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period endedSeptember 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)        the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: December 5, 2006 |   | By:    |   | /s/ WILLIAM  KAMER                                   |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |   |   | William Kamer                                        |
|                        |   |   |   | *Chief Financial Officer*  Douglas Emmett, Inc. |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelyto accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not beingfiled 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 theCompany, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing.

39

----
# covid_table9_q3_size_class
.®. 
' 1 

Case: 60-80002 Document: 09513115988 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2015 .. 

United States Court of Appeals 

LYLE W. CAYCE 

CLERK 

Ms. Karen 

FIFfH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

Northern District of Texas, 

United_States District Court 

205 E. ~th Street 

Room F-13240 

Amarillo, TX 79101 

Dear Ms. Mitchell 

TEL. 504-310-7700 

600 S. MAESTRI PLACE 

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 

I am forwarding a notice of appeal erroneously sent to us. We 

have noted the date received here. When you file the notice of 

appeal, please use that date, see FED R. APP. P. 4 (d). 

Also, enclosed please find pro se' s application for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis which was sent to this court. Please 

notify us when you have acted on the application. 

;7~;2f-tdol6 

!fl~ 

Sincerely, 

LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk 

~~}{_.JaM.~ 

By: 

Claud1a N. Farr1ngton, Deputy Clerk 

504-310-7706
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 10967 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**La B**  **randon Marquise Gill,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 4:19

- CR

- 93

- 1

Before **King, Smith,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

LaBrandon Gill was convicted by a jury of two counts of bank robbery by intimidation per 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) . T he district court sentenced him to 210 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release on each

count , to run concurrently , and $3,879 in restitution

.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opin

ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 8, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10967 Document: 00515665306 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2020No. 19

- 10967

2 On appeal, Gill argues that the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the intimidation element of § 2113(a) for each robbery

. Although Gill concedes
that his motion for judgment of acquittal was untimely, he contends that he preserved the issue because he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in
his motion for a mistrial

. That motion concerned a witness’s credibility and alleged perjury as distinguished from the sufficiency of the evidence . Thus, plain

- error review applies , and Gill must establish “(1) an error (2) that is clear or obvious and that (3) affected [his] substantial rights.” U nited States
v. Reed , 974 F.3d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. “ If the first three prongs are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to correct the error only if it (4) seriously affects the fairness, integ

rity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quota tion marks and citation omitted).
When robbing the first bank, Gill gave a note to a teller that said “$10,000 in bundles ” and orally told her to “just make this easy.” When
rob bing the second bank, he gave a note to a teller instructing her to “ g o to the vault and get $10,000 ” and not t o “ make this harder than it has to be.”
Gill cannot show that it was a clear or obvious error to consider his demands for money and instructions to the tellers as implicit threats and thus sufficient
evidence of intimidation

. See U nited States v. McCar ty , 36 F.3d 1349, 1357

− 58 (5th Cir. 1994)

. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 19-10967 Document: 00515665306 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
Exhibit 99.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Sole
Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, that to his knowledge:

         1) the Company's Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended September 30,
         2003 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 Company's Form 10-KSB for the
         annual period ended September 30, 2003 fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
         Company.



                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
#### Steven Munro Elkman, Respondent, v Barry Cord, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 382]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered October 18, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*490As the record shows that plaintiff timely filed a summons and complaint commencing the action, and paid the applicable filing fee, Supreme Court properly determined that the purported error in the method of the initial filing could be corrected or disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001 *(see Goldenberg v Westchester County Health Care*Corp., 16 NY3d 323 [2011]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 10.4
 IN UNITED STATES COPYRIGHTS
 Grantors Schedule A
 Grantee
  Security Agreement Schedule A Copyrights




---



##### 



[Signature Page Follows]
 2




---



##### 



WELLMAN, INC.,
as GrantorBy:
    
    /s/ Keith R. PhillipsName:Title:MRF, INC.,
as GrantorBy:
    
    /s/ Keith R. PhillipsName:Title:FIBER INDUSTRIES, INC.,
as GrantorBy:
    
    /s/ Keith R. PhillipsName:Title:DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS, as GranteeBy:
    
    /s/ Marguerite SuttonName:
    
    Marguerite SuttonTitle:
    
    DirectorBy:
    
    /s/ David J. BellName:
    
    David J. BellTitle:
    
    Managing Director




---



##### 



STATE OF
New York
    
    ))  ss.:COUNTY OF
New York
    
    )
 22 Marguerite Sutton
 /s/ Maureen E. Thomas




---



##### 



STATE OF
New York
    
    ))  ss.:COUNTY OF
New York
    
    )
 22 David J. Bell Managing Director
 /s/ Maureen E. Thomas
Order entered July 9 , 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 01289

- CR

TOMMY AGUILAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Caus e No. 380

- 81651

- 2012



### O RDER

Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DIRECT the Clerk to issue the mandate in

this appeal INSTANTER

.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
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 Dekania Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Vernhes, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 operation of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  |                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 23, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ PAUL VERNHES
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  | Paul Vernhes Chief Financial
Officer
# table157_q16.2_naics
NO. 07-05-0022-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JANUARY 31, 2005

	______________________________

	IN RE MICHAEL SCOTT, RELATOR

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Relator Michael Scott, acting pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent, the Honorable Pat Pirtle, Judge of the 251st District Court of Potter County, to rule on a discovery sanctions motion.  We deny relief.		

	Relator has filed with the clerk of this court a pleading entitled Petition for Writ of Mandamus.  He alleges that he has filed a motion for sanctions in cause number 90,231-C in the 251st District Court; he has filed a request that the district clerk present the motion to the court for ruling; and that respondent has failed to rule on the motion.  We are requested to direct respondent to rule.  

	In support of the petition for writ of mandamus, relator attached hand-written documents which he declares, under penalty of perjury, are true and correct copies of the original documents.  The documents, however, do not demonstrate file-marks or copies of file marks and are not certified by the Potter County clerk as copies of documents which have been filed.  

	When petition for writ of mandamus is made, it is the relator’s burden to show entitlement to the relief being requested.  See generally Johnson v. Fourth District Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding).  Relator must file with the petition a certified sworn copy of every document that is material to relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding, and a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained of.  Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a).

	Moreover, relators seeking issuance of writ of mandamus must satisfy three requirements to show entitlement to the writ: (1) a legal duty to perform; (2) a demand for performance; and (3) a refusal to act.  See Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979).  A court is not required to consider a motion not called to its attention.  Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied).  Showing that a motion was filed with the court clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention or presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling.  See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2001) (orig. proceeding). 

	Relator has not attached certified, sworn copies of motions and correspondence referenced in the petition.  Relator has not shown that demand has been made upon respondent or that respondent has been made aware of relator’s alleged motion or request for action on the alleged motion, or that respondent has refused to act.  Relator has not presented a record which shows entitlement to the relief sought, or upon which we are authorized to act.

	The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								Phil Johnson

								Chief Justice
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Stephen G. Hoffmann and Jonathan J. Wick certify as
follows:

1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Canyon Bancorp.

2. The Form 10-Q of Canyon Bancorp for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2007 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 the information contained in the report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Canyon Bancorp.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 10, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen G. Hoffmann
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Stephen G. Hoffmann    
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 10, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Jonathan J. Wick   
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Jonathan J. Wick       
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                                         | 31.2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|---------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|                                        
|I, Lisa Norman, certify that:           
|1.                                       | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Home Alliance Corporation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|2.                                       | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report.
|3.                                       | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results from operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.                





|By:  /s/Lisa NormanLisa Norman
Chief Financial Officer | Date:  November 7, 2012
|------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------