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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual
Report of Microtune, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K/A to the Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rob-Roy J. Graham, 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 operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                                          
| |  | -----------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Rob-Roy J. Graham*                   
| |  | Rob-Roy J. Graham Chief Financial Officer



Date:  March 15, 2004

---

|* |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Microtune, Inc. and will be retained by Microtune, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**
**Exhibit 31.4**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Satyavrat Shukla, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form10-K/A of ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc.; and 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 report. 

Date: April 29, 2020 
/s/ Satyavrat Shukla
Satyavrat Shukla

Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
(*Principal Financial Officer*)**
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Alpha ProTech, Ltd on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, LloydHoffman Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
| DATE:  | **May 10 , 2007** |   | BY:    | /s/ LLOYD HOFFMAN                                 |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |              |   |   | Lloyd Hoffman                                     |
|   |              |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President |
|        |                   |        |        |                                                   |  |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Monique BRADDY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7426.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*311Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion, and denying it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Braddy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Braddy’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) 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 movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp.2012). Braddy’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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.*
CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NOEL VELASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PASSAIC,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 11-2075 (SRC)

ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge

This matter having come before the Court on the January 13, 2012 Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Shipp [docket entry 10]; and

no objections to the R&R having been filed; and the Court having reviewed the R&R; and for the

reasons expressed in the Opinion filed herewith, 

IT IS on this 31 day of January, 2012, st

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Shipp’s January 13, 2012 R&R [docket entry 10] is

adopted as the opinion of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint be and hereby is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

 s/Stanley R. Chesler 

STANLEY R. CHESLER

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cv-02075-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 66
#### Glo KAUFMAN, by and Through Her Daughter and Attorney-in-Fact, Debrah KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBINSON PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Doing Business as Horseshoe Casino & Hotel, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-60758

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2010.

Glo Kaufman, by & through her daughter & Attorney-in-Fact Debrah Kaufman, Tahlequah, OK, pro se.

Robert L. Moore, Heaton & Moore, Memphis, TN, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Glo Kaufman, proceeding *pro se,*appeals a summary judgment that is based on judicial estoppel. Finding no error, we affirm.

The facts and initial proceedings are described in the prior opinion of this court, *Kaufman v. Robinson Property Group Limited Partnership,*331 Fed.Appx. 276 (5th Cir.2008) (per curiam). After remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the basis of judicial estoppel.

The district court explicated its ruling in a thorough and reliable Memorandum Opinion filed May 15, 2009. It explained that Kaufman thought she had a valid personal injury claim when she filed her bankruptcy petition but failed to include the potential claim in her required bankruptcy statements. The court properly reasoned that “there is clear inconsistency between stating by omission on her March 16, 2006 bankruptcy petition ... that she had no claims arising from her alleged January 31, 2003 injury and pursuing those claims before this court beginning with the filing of her March 26, 2007 Complaint.” The court further noted that “ ‘[ajlleged confusion as to a limitations period does not evince a lack of knowledge as to the existence of the claim’ ” (citing *In re Superior Crewboats, Inc.,*374 F.3d 330, 334 (5th Cir.2004)).

Kaufman did not properly pursue her purported claim. Her inconsistent positions result in judicial estoppel. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.

*

 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.
INDEX TO EXHIBITS


         The following Exhibits indicated by an asterisk are filed herewith. The
remaining  Exhibits have  previously been filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and, pursuant to Rule 12(b)-32, are incorporated herein by reference.

Exhibit
Number     Description
-------    -----------

3.1        Certificate of Formation of JCP&L Transition Funding LLC (Form S-3/A,
           dated March 19, 2002, Exhibit 3.2.A).

3.2        Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of JCP&L
           Transition Funding LLC dated as of June 11, 2002 (Form 8-K, dated
           June 13, 2002, Exhibit 3.2.B).

4.1        Indenture dated as of June 11, 2002 between JCP&L Transition Funding
           LLC and The Bank of New York (Form 8-K, dated June 13, 2002, Exhibit
           4.1.A).

4.2        Series Supplement dated as of June 11, 2002 between JCP&L Transition
           Funding LLC and The Bank of New York (Form 8-K, dated June 13, 2002,
           Exhibit 4.1.B).

10.1       Bondable Transition Property Sale Agreement between JCP&L Transition
           Funding LLC and Jersey Central Power & Light Company dated as of June
           11, 2002 (Form 8-K, dated June 13, 2002, Exhibit 10.1.A).

10.2       Bondable Transition Property Servicing Agreement between JCP&L
           Transition Funding LLC and Jersey Central Power & Light Company dated
           as of June 11, 2002 (Form 8-K, dated June 13, 2002, Exhibit 10.1.B).

10.3       Administration Agreement between JCP&L Transition Funding LLC and GPU
           Energy, Inc. dated as of June 11, 2002 (Form 8-K, dated June 13,
           2002, Exhibit 10.1.C).

10.4       Financing  Order of the NJBPU  issued  February 6, 2002 (Form S-3/A,
           dated March 19, 2002,  Exhibit 10.1.D).

31.1*      Certification of chief executive officer, pursuant to Rule 13a-15(e)/
           15d-15(e).

31.2*      Certification of chief financial officer, pursuant to Rule 13a-15(e)/
           15d-15(e).

32.1*      Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer,
           pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350.
#### Pio Bonilla, Respondent, v Incorporated Village of Hempstead, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[853 NYS2d 910]

*789The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant Incorporated Village of Hempstead (hereinafter the defendant) failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issues of whether it received prior written notice of the defect and whether the defendant’s contractor created the defect through excavation at or near the location of the accident (see *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         10,232
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,226
<ALLOWANCES>                                   244
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,955
<PP&E>                                         11,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 73,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,510
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       56,311
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   73,650
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               43,862
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  32,607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,163
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,848
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,692
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,692
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.49
        


</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 688

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study of the effectiveness 

of silver-based biocides as an alternative treatment to preserve wood. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2003

Mr. GIBBONS (for himself and Mr. OTTER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the 

Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study 

of the effectiveness of silver-based biocides as an alternative treatment to preserve wood.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wood Preservation 

5 Safety Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 688 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STUDY ON EFFEC2 TIVENESS OF SILVER-BASED BIOCIDES AS 

3 WOOD PRESERVATION TREATMENT. 

4 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) The Environmental Protection Agency, the 

6 chemical industry, and the home improvement indus7 try have negotiated a voluntary agreement to phase 

8 out the use of arsenic-based preservatives in pres9 sure treated wood by December 31, 2003. 

10 (2) In order to maintain the wood treatment in11 dustry in the United States, a suitable, safe alter12 native to arsenic-based preservatives must be pro13 duced. 

14 (3) Silver has great potential as a viable, safe, 

15 and cost-effective alternative as a wood preservative. 

16 (4) Silver has been used since ancient times as 

17 a treatment to prevent the spread of bacteria, and 

18 silver-based biocides are used today in a wide range 

19 of applications. 

20 (5) As of 2001, silver was commercially pro21 duced in 12 States (Alaska, Arizona, California, Col22 orado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mex23 ico, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington), and sil24 ver remains a readily available mineral. 
3

•HR 688 IH 

1 (6) The properties of silver biocide need to be 

2 further studied to determine the effectiveness of its 

3 use as a wood preservative. 

4 (b) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Agri5 culture shall direct the Forest Products Laboratory in 

6 Madison, Wisconsin, to conduct a study during fiscal years 

7 2003 and 2004 regarding the effectiveness of silver-based 

8 biocides as a wood preservation treatment. 

9 (c) FUNDING SOURCE.—To provide funds for the 

10 study, the Secretary of the Interior shall return to the Sec11 retary of Agriculture $8,000,000 of the funds that were 

12 transferred by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Sec13 retary of the Interior pursuant to section 2507 of the 

14 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public 

15 Law 107–171; 116 Stat. 275; 43 U.S.C. 2211 note) and 

16 remain unobligated as of the date of the enactment of this 

17 Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Katharine S. Hayden

 Crim. No. 11-554

v. : 

 CONTINUANCE ORDER

GREGORY CICCONE : 

 

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (by Joseph Mack, Assistant U.S. Attorney),

and defendant Gregory Ciccone (by K. Anthony Thomas, Assistant

Federal Public Defender) for an order granting a continuance of

the proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and the defendant

being aware that he has a right to have the matter brought to

trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a

judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of the United

States Code, Section 3161(c)(1), and as the defendant has

consented to an additional continuance, and for good and

sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:

1. Discovery made available in this case involves a

large volume of paper files which may necessitate a lengthy

review by defense counsel;

2. Taking into account the exercise of diligence,

therefore, the facts of this case require that defense counsel be

Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 25 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 93
permitted a reasonable amount of additional time for effective

preparation in this matter; and

3. Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and

both the United States and the defendant desire additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render trial of this

matter unnecessary; and

4. Pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code,

Section 3161(h)(7), the ends of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.

WHEREFORE, on this 14 day of August 2012, th

ORDERED that motions shall be filed by October 9, 2012,

opposition briefs shall be filed by October 30, 2012, reply

briefs shall be filed by November 3, 2012, the motions hearing

date is scheduled for November 27, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.,; pretrial

conference is scheduled for December 17, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. and

the trial is set for January 23, 2013 commencing at 9:00 a.m.;

and it is further, 

ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued

until the date of trial, January 23, 2013, and the period between

and including today’s date through the date of trial, January 23,

2013, shall be excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974,

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7).

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden 

KATHARINE S. HAYDEN

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 25 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 94
___________________________

K. Anthony Thomas, AFPD

Counsel for Gregory Ciccone

Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 25 Filed 08/14/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 95
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 ThermoEnergy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis C. Cossey, Chief Executive Officer and the 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 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, 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.



/s/ Dennis C. CosseyDennis C. CosseyChief Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 16, 2005




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies
the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB 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 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.



- 3 -