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 First Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, dated the
date of this Certification (the "Report"), I, Connie Ayres LaPlante, the
Treasurer 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 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: August 12, 2004                  By: /s/ Connie Ayres LaPlante
                                           --------------------------------
                                           Connie Ayres LaPlante
                                           Treasurer
                                           (Chief Financial Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to First Federal Bancorp, Inc., and will be retained by First
Federal Bancorp, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 6-4. Black mothers have the highest labor force 

participation rates

70

77

67

58

76 80 76

68 65

73

62

53

59

68

58

45

0

20

40

60

80

100

Under 18 years 6 to 17 3 to 5 Under 3 years

White Black or African American Asian Hispanic or Latino

Age of youngest child

Percent

March 2005

Chart 6-4. Black mothers have the highest labor force 

participation rates

• In 2005, as in the past, black mothers with children under 18 were more likely 

than white mothers to be in the labor force—76 percent compared with 70 

percent. 

• Asian and Hispanic mothers were less likely than either black or white 

mothers to be labor force participants.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6479

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFRED EMANUEL MEAIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00307-NCT; 1:04-cv-00267-NCT) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Emanuel Meais, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alfred Emanuel Meais seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 4, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on March 15, 2006. Because Meais failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
78

Table 25. Wives who earn more than their husbands, 1987–2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Married-couple 

families in which 

wife (but not 

necessarily 

husband) had 

earnings from 

work

Wives who earn

more than 

their 

husbands 

Percent of wives

who earn more 

than their 

husbands 

Married-couple 

families in which 

both wife and 

husband had 

earnings from 

work

Wives who earn

more than 

their

husbands 

Percent of wives

who earn more 

than their 

husbands 

1987..........................32,025 7,581 23.7 29,755 5,311 17.8

1988............................ 32,810 7,827 23.9 30,503 5,520 18.1

1989..........................33,119 8,068 24.4 30,848 5,796 18.8

1990...........................33,093 8,221 24.8 30,794 5,923 19.2

1991............................. 33,516 8,983 26.8 30,998 6,465 20.9

1992..............................33,987 9,715 28.6 31,221 6,948 22.3

1993............................ 34,286 10,000 29.2 31,264 6,978 22.3

1994...........................35,066 10,184 29.0 32,091 7,209 22.5

1995............................. 34,819 9,822 28.2 32,030 7,033 22.0

1996......................... 35,120 10,070 28.7 32,389 7,340 22.7

1997........................... 35,613 10,309 28.9 32,745 7,441 22.7

1998..............................35,806 10,467 29.2 32,782 7,443 22.7

1999................................ 36,454 10,548 28.9 33,340 7,434 22.3

2000...............................37,037 11,070 29.9 33,873 7,906 23.3

2001............................ 36,864 11,329 30.7 33,665 8,130 24.1

2002............................ 36,905 11,765 31.9 33,531 8,391 25.0

2003........................... 36,761 11,923 32.4 33,189 8,351 25.2

2004........................ 36,710 11,985 32.6 33,110 8,386 25.3

2005................... 37,055 12,215 33.0 33,364 8,524 25.5

2006................... 37,733 12,601 33.4 33,838 8,707 25.7

2007................... 37,536 12,570 33.5 33,678 8,712 25.9

2008................... 37,988 13,104 34.5 33,905 9,020 26.6

2009................... 36,858 13,903 37.7 32,280 9,326 28.9

Year

Families in which wives have earnings 

but husbands may not 1

Families in which both wives and husbands 

have earnings 2

 1 Includes families in which husband had no earnings from work.

 2 Excludes families in which husband had no earnings from work.

 NOTE: Data reflect the earnings and work experience of the entire year. 

 SOURCE: Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 1988–2010, Current Population Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics

78
**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C 1350)**

 

  I, **Nicholas Kaiser**, certify that:

This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended November 30, 2014 (the “Report”).

 I hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

  Date: January 29, 2015  /s/ *Nicholas Kaiser*  President 

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C 1350)**

  I, **Christopher Fankhauser**, certify that:

This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended November 30, 2014 (the “Report”).

I hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

Date: January 29, 2015

/s/ *Christopher Fankhauser*Treasurer
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 25 PageID: 1
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 2 of 25 PageID: 2
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 3 of 25 PageID: 3
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 4 of 25 PageID: 4
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 5 of 25 PageID: 5
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 6 of 25 PageID: 6
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 7 of 25 PageID: 7
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 8 of 25 PageID: 8
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 9 of 25 PageID: 9
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 10 of 25 PageID: 10
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 11 of 25 PageID: 11
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 12 of 25 PageID: 12
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 13 of 25 PageID: 13
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 14 of 25 PageID: 14
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 15 of 25 PageID: 15
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 16 of 25 PageID: 16
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 17 of 25 PageID: 17
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 18 of 25 PageID: 18
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 19 of 25 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 20 of 25 PageID: 20
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 21 of 25 PageID: 21
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 22 of 25 PageID: 22
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 23 of 25 PageID: 23
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 24 of 25 PageID: 24
Case 2:11-cv-04220-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 25 of 25 PageID: 25
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE :

MARK SOTELO,

Relator. §

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00168

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator ’ s letter to the court dated March 25,

2022

, which has been construed as a motion to dismiss the original proceeding

, and concludes that

Relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus should be d ismissed . We therefore d ismiss the petition

for writ of mandamus, in a ccordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL , 20 22

.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 658 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 658

To provide for the protection of investors, increase confidence in the 
 capital markets system, and fully implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 
    2002 by streamlining the hiring process for certain employment 
          positions in the Securities and Exchange Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2003

 Mr. Baker (for himself and Mr. Oxley) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in 
  addition to the Committee on Government Reform, 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 provide for the protection of investors, increase confidence in the 
 capital markets system, and fully implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 
    2002 by streamlining the hiring process for certain employment 
          positions in the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Accountant, Compliance, and 
Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTED SERVICE OF ACCOUNTANTS, ECONOMISTS, AND EXAMINERS.

    Section 4(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
78d(b)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(3) Accountants, economists, and compliance examiners 
        excepted from competitive service.--All accountant, economist, 
        and securities compliance examiner positions in the Securities 
        and Exchange Commission shall be excepted from the competitive 
        service, as defined in section 2102 of title 5, United States 
        Code. An employee who is in the competitive service at the time 
        his or her position becomes excepted from the competitive 
        service under this paragraph shall be considered as continuing 
        in the competitive service as long as he or she continues to 
        occupy such position.''.
                                 <all>
```
# CNIP projections
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**** **

|   | (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:                  November 10,                  2008 |   |   | /s/ Harold                Brand                                 |
|                                                           |   |   | Harold                    BrandChief                    Executive Officer |

----
# 19SNR12_00
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 Annual Report of Kronos Advanced Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the
       Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, 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 Kronos Advanced
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Kronos Advanced Technologies, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


    /s/ Daniel R. Dwight
--------------------------------------
Daniel R. Dwight
President and Chief Executive Officer


   /s/ Richard A. Papworth
--------------------------------------
Richard A. Papworth
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23(a)




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form 
S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491, 
33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077 and Form S-3, No. 33-36001) pertaining to various 
stock option and employee savings plans of Wellman, Inc. of our report dated 
February 12, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and 
financial statement schedules included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of 
Wellman, Inc.




                                             Ernst & Young LLP



Charlotte, North Carolina
March 21, 1997
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6752** 
DERRICK JAVON LINDSEY, a/k/a Derrick Javon Lindsey El Bey , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v.
FRANK PERRY , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 00020

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : July 2 1 , 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Derrick Javon Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, R aleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Lindsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and d ismissing as late his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the con stitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispos itive 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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lindsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th i s court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 622 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                     November 24, 2003.
      Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
622) entitled ``An Act to provide for the exchange of certain lands in 
the Coconino and Tonto National Forests in Arizona, and for other 
purposes.'', do pass with the following

                              AMENDMENTS:

(1)Page 3, line 23, after ``1976'' insert: (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)

(2)Page 4, line 17, after ``Non-Federal'' insert: Land

(3)Page 5, line 6, after ``16,'' insert: and

(4)Page 5, line 17, strike out [of the] and insert: of

(5)Page 5, line 22, after ``FLPMA'' insert: (43 U.S.C. 1716(b))

(6)Page 7, line 3, strike out [a map] and insert: the map

(7)Page 10, line 1, after ``to'' insert: National

(8)Page 10, line 3, strike out [3(d)(1)] and insert: 3(b)(1)

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 622

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENTS
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21

- 0032

_________________ EGAN SLOUGH COMMUNITY, YES! FOR FLATHEAD FARMS AND WATER, AND AMY WALLER, Plaint iffs and Appellants,

v. FLATHEAD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, A BODY POLITIC OF FLATHEAD COUNTY, FLATHEAD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, AND FLATHEAD CITY

- COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT,

Defendants and Appellees, and MONTANA ARTESIAN WATER COMPANY,

Defendant and Cross

- Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Defendant and Cross

- Appellant Montana Artesian Water Company mo ves for clarification of this Court’s December 1, 2021 Order setting oral argument in this matter for January 19, 2022. Montana Artesian points out that the three parties are not uniformly aligned on the appeal and cross

- appeal issues. For clarity and to facilitate the preparation and presentation of arguments, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs and Appellants (collectively “Egan Slough Community”) shall be allotted thirty (30) minutes of argument time, Montana Artesian shall be allotted thirty (30) minutes of argument time, and the Flathead County Appellees shall be allotted ten (10) minutes of argument time.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2021

12/22/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0032
l3_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


Principal: USD$____


DATED:  ___, 2013


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ____________(the Maker) does hereby unconditionally promise to pay to or to the order of ____________ (the Holder), ON DEMAND the sum of ___________DOLLARS ($_______) of lawful money of the United States of America (the Principal) on the following terms and conditions:


 


Payment of Principal: The Principal shall be payable on DEMAND.


Interest: Interest shall accrue on the unpaid portion of the Principal at the rate of 18% per annum, calculated and payable monthly, until repaid.


Prepayment: The Maker shall have the right at any time to pay all, or any portion of, the Principal outstanding as at the date of such payment without notice, bonus or penalty.


Assignment: This Promissory Note is assignable by the Holder with written notice of that assignment to the Maker.


Waiver: The Maker waives presentment for payment, protest, notice of protest, notice of dishonor, notice of non-payment and all other notices and demands in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of this Promissory Note.


Governing Law: This Promissory Note shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of ______________.


 


DATED at __________________, on the day and year first above written.


 



	
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED by __________on behalf of L3 Corp. the presence of the following witness:

	  	
 


	 	 	 
	
______________________________

	 	
______________________________


	Witness signature	 	L3 Corp. – (authorized signature)
	 	 	 
	
______________________________

	 	 
	Witness Name