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

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

November 13, 2006

U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission450 Fifth Street, N. W.Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The certification set forth below is being submittedto the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complyingwith Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.This certification is not to be deemed to be filed pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q(the “Report”) accompanying this letter and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

I, J. WilliamHolden, III, the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of Mirant North America, LLC (the “Company”), certify that, to thebest of my knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of Mirant North America, LLC.
| Name:  | /s/ J. WILLIAM  HOLDEN, III                                |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | J. William Holden, III                                     |
|   | *Senior Vice President, Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Mirant North America, LLC and will beretained by Mirant North America, LLC and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
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 Market Data Consultants, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended May 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Wilson Cheung



Wilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer

December 6, 2006
S06A0549.

#### MAYO et al. v. HEAD.

(631 SE2d 108)

SEARS, Chief Justice.

William Mayo and Gerald Rose appeal from the trial court’s denial of their petition for mandamus, by which they sought to compel the Cobb County District Attorney, Patrick Head, to prosecute an instance of perjury that they claim was committed during Mayo’s 1992 criminal trial for armed robbery. Appellants claim that Mayo’s conviction was based on perjured testimony, and that if the perjury were prosecuted, he would be entitled to a new trial.

Prosecuting officials, however, are vested with broad discretion in determining whether to prosecute a particular case.1 Mandamus will not lie to compel an official to perform a discretionary act unless such discretion has been grossly abused.2 Appellants have shown no gross abuse of discretion, and the trial court was correct to deny the petition for mandamus in this case.

Furthermore, it is well-settled in this State that

> [a] citizen does not have a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another and, hence, lacks standing to contest the prosecuting authority’s policies when the citizen is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.3

*794Decided May 18, 2006

Reconsideration denied July 14, 2006.

*Belli, Weil, Grozbean & Davis, Douglas J. Davis, Wayne S. Tart-line,*for appellants.

*Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Kay Baker, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

Finally, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available if no other adequate legal remedy exists.4 Appellants’ claims of alleged perjury, and the effect it may have had upon Mayo’s criminal trial, are claims that should be raised either in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding or, in the case of newly discovered evidence, through an extraordinary motion for a new trial.5

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 See *Dubose*v. *Hodges,*280 Ga. 152, 152 (625 SE2d 745) (2006) (mandamus will not lie to compel special prosecutor to re-present a criminal case to a grand jury); *State v. Wooten,*273 Ga. 529, 531 (543 SE2d 721) (2001) (“[i]n the district attorney’s role as administrator of justice, he or she has broad discretion in making decisions prior to trial about who to prosecute”); *State v. Hanson,*249 Ga. 739, 742-743 (295 SE2d 297) (1982) (“[f|rom the beginning of our criminal justice system prosecutors have exercised the power of prosecutorial discretion in deciding which defendants to prosecute”); *Bartlett v. Caldwell,*265 Ga. 52, 52 (452 SE2d 744) (1995) (decision whether to issue arrest warrant lies in sound discretion of magistrate, and mandamus will not issue to compel performance of discretionary act absent gross abuse of discretion).

2

*Stubbs v. Carpenter,*271 Ga. 327 (519 SE2d 451) (1999).

3

*Bartlett,*265 Ga. at 52 (quoting *Scanlon v. State Bar of Ga.,*264 Ga. 251, 253 (443 SE2d 830) (1994)).

4

 OCGA § 9-6-20.

5

*Bush v. Chappell,*225 Ga. 659, 661 (171 SE2d 128) (1969).
Case 2:11-mj-07026-ES Document 13 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 22
Case 2:11-mj-07026-ES Document 13 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 23
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, July 9, 2009 at 1 p.m.

                    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.                          ( print page 32200)    

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 9, 2009 will be:

institution and settlement of injunctive actions;  institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;  adjudicatory matters;   regulatory matter regarding financial institutions; and other matters related to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

*For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:*                     The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.                

Dated: July 2, 2009.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-16035 Filed 7-2-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dollarama Group Holdings L.P. and Dollarama Group L.P. (together, the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 4, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Larry Rossy and Robert Coallier, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the
general partner of the Company, Dollarama Group GP Inc., certify that to our knowledge:

1. the Report complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange 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.

Dated: June 16, 2008



/s/ Larry RossyLarry RossyChief Executive Officer/s/ Robert CoallierRobert CoallierChief Financial Officer
1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-2452

___________ Charles Bausley, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Bender, Deputy; Ritter, Deputy, * Western District of Arkansas. * Appellees. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: October 1, 2004 Filed: October 13, 2004

___________ Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Charles Bausley appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming defendant jail personnel violated his constitutional rights by moving him to a different cell after a fight, without letting him present his version of the incident, and by seizing property from his cell. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal was proper for the reasons the district court stated. See Sandin-2- v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995); Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 525-36 (1984). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 14 Filed 05/26/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 52
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 14 Filed 05/26/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 53
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1941
In Re: JOHN PAUL TURNER, Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:06-mc-00026-SGW) Submitted: December 13, 2006 Decided: January 10, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s order dismissing Turner’s mandamus petition for failure to comply with a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. In Re: Turner , No. 7:06-mc-00026-SGW (W.D. Va. May 17, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Alger *against*Weston.

NEW-YORK,

May, 1817.

A license to keeP a taVem iS a personal trust, which cannot be assigned wanpetni°1”ygl¡yent5y ííth^actTM1?!* fendañt ‘cannot license granted son.n°‘her !'cr'

IN ERROR, on *certiorari*to a iustice’s court. The plaintiff . , , . -1TF, -1 in error brought an action against the defendant in the court ° ° below, to recover the penalty given by the 7th section of the act regulating inns and taverns (1 *R. L.*178.) for selling strong and spirituous liquors, without a license. The fact of selling was proved, and the defendant offered as a justification, a license which had been granted to one *Charles Caswell;*This was objected to, but admitted by the justice; and it was proved, that *Caswell*had taken out a license, and afterwards moved out of his house, and leased the same to the defendant, with permission to him to sell under his license. *Caswell’s*sign was taken down, and the defendant’s pul up. On this evidence the jury in the court below found a verdict for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The verdict and judgment in this case are clearly against law, and must be reversed. The defendant could not acquire any right to retail spirituous liquors under the license to *Caswell.*.This license is a personal trust; the commissioners of excise, in granting it, are not only to take into consideration the place where the tavern is to be kept, but more especially the character and ability of the person who is to keep it. The commissioners are expressly prohibited, by the act, from granting the license to any person who is not of good character, and must be satisfied that the person applying is of good moral character, and of sufficient ability to keep an inn or tavern, and has accommodations to entertain travellers; and the person so licensed is required to enter into a recognisanee, in the penalty of one hundred and twenty-five dollars, *232with a condition, that he will not keep a disorderly house, or Perm*t gaming therein; and there are a variety of other restrictions, calculated to preserve the reputation of the inn, or tavern, and promote the comfort and accommodation of travellers. All these salutary provisions of the statute may be evaded, if one man be permitted to keep a tavern under a license to another. The judgment must therefore be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

*** Mr. Justice Platt *was absent during this term, on account of sickness él his family.*

Mr. Justice Spencer *was absent from Friday, the 9th of May, to the end df the term, on account of sickness in his family.*
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Renaissance Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Barry W. Florescue, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 Company.
| |    |                                                                                                                                                     

|Date:  May 14, 2008 | 
|------------------- | 
|                    | 
|                    | 
|                    | 
|                    | 
|                    | 
|                    | 
|                    |
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute 1

Results of a Pilot Test: SmartphoneEnabled, Full-Probability Panel

Craig A. Hill, PhD

BLS Data Capture Technology Forum

March 2010
2
3

Full-probability panel with Smartphones

 2007: The problem

 A potential solution

 How will we know if it works?
4

A potential solution
5
6

A potential solution

 Feasibility test

 Internal (R&D) funding

 Full area-prob sample

 Blackjack devices 

 6 interviewers recruited/trained

 92 panellists enrolled

 Data collection: Jun – Nov 07 
7

Data Collection

 19 weekly waves

 Jul – Nov

 Email w/ hotlink, plus text reminder

 3 SMS surveys

 National/local issues; health; leisure 

activities; device usability
8

Evaluation

• Viability of the platform for different 

question types, formats, and lengths

• Develop and test interviewer training program for recruitment and 

support

• Develop and test panel recruitment strategies, and incentive 

packages/related materials

• contact (screening) rate

• acceptance (recruitment) rate

• response rate (over time)

• attrition (retention) rate
9

Experiments

Screen “real estate”

 SMS (“texting”)

 Pix
10

Evaluation: Real Estate
11

Evaluation: Real Estate
12

Evaluation: Real Estate
13

Evaluation: Real Estate
14

Evaluation: Real Estate
15

Evaluation: Real Estate
16

Evaluation: Real Estate
17

Published Results

Experiments in Mobile Web Survey Design: 

Similarities to Other Modes and Unique 

Considerations

Andy Peytchev and Craig A. Hill

Social Science Computer Review 000(00) 1-17-2009

http://sscr.sagepub.com

Social Science Computer Review OnlineFirst, published on 

December 8, 2009 as doi:10.1177/0894439309353037
18

Experiments

 Screen “real estate”

SMS (“texting”)

 Pix
19

Evaluation: SMS/Texting
20

Experiments

 Screen “real estate”

 SMS (“texting”)

Pix
21

Evaluation: Pictures
22

Evaluation: Pictures
23

Evaluation: Pictures
24

Evaluation

• Viability of the platform for different question types, formats, and 

lengths

• Develop and test interviewer training 

program for recruitment and support

• Develop and test panel recruitment strategies, and incentive 

packages/related materials

• contact (screening) rate

• acceptance (recruitment) rate

• response rate (over time)

• attrition (retention) rate
25

Interviewer Training

 Sales, not interviewing

 In-home training: 2-3x as long

 Email set-up difficulty

 Provide device to FRs in advance
26

Evaluation

• Viability of the platform for different question types, 

formats, and lengths

• Develop and test interviewer training program for 

recruitment and support

• Develop and test panel recruitment strategies, and incentive 

packages/related materials

• contact (screening) rate

• acceptance (recruitment) rate

• response rate (over time)

• attrition (retention) rate
27
28

Thank you!

For more information:

 Craig A. Hill, RTI International

 chill@rti.org

 Or, via smartphone
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 Market Data Consultants, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Wilson Cheung



Wilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer

January 12, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,700
<INVENTORY>                                     67,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               240,100
<PP&E>                                       1,119,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 560,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,018,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,400
<BONDS>                                        924,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       178,200
<OTHER-SE>                                   (269,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,018,000
<SALES>                                        870,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               870,600
<CGS>                                          757,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  855,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              85,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (75,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (28,800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (46,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (46,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.87)


</TABLE>
#### In re Fred Waters ALLNUTT, Debtor. Fred Waters Allnutt, Debtor-Appellant, v. Michael G. Rinn, Trustee-Appellee.

No. 10-2216.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 4, 2011.

Fred Waters Allnutt, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fred Waters Allnutt appeals the district court’s order dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his bankruptcy case for failing to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 521(e)(2)(A) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Allnutt v. Rinn,*No. 1:10-cv-01739-RDB (D.Md. Oct. 5, 2010). 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.*