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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kim R. Payne, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ KIM R. PAYNE                                 
|Kim R. Payne,                                    
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

October 29, 2010

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original 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.
#### Rebecca A. WAYNE, widow of Danny W. Maynor, Petitioner, v. MAPLE MEADOW MINING COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 12-2030.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Rebecca A. Wayne, Petitioner Pro Se. Kathy Lynn Snyder, Jackson Kelly, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Jonathan Peter Rolfe, United States Depart*236ment of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rebecca A. Wayne seeks to petition this court for review of the decision and order of the Benefits Review Board (“Board”) affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and order denying survivor’s benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2006). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board’s decision becomes final sixty days after its issuance unless a claimant files a petition for review with this court or files a timely motion for reconsideration with the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 802.406 (2012). The sixty-day period for filing a petition for review from a Board order is jurisdictional. *Adkins v. Dir., Office of Workers Comp. Programs,*889 F.2d 1360, 1363 (4th Cir.1989).

Here, the Board’s order was entered on June 22, 2012, and Wayne was required to file her petition in this court no later than August 21, 2012. Wayne did not file her petition until August 22, 2012. Because Wayne failed to file a timely petition for review of the underlying Board decision and order, we dismiss the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DISMISSED.*
CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN
  2 Wall Street
  New York, New York  10005
  (212) 732-3200

  July 8, 2003

  Securities and Exchange Commission
  450 Fifth Street, N.W.
  Washington, D.C. 20549

  Re: UBS Pathfinders Trust,
      Treasury and Growth Stock Series 23
      File #333-49105
      Rule 497J Filing

  Dear Sir/Madam:
  On behalf of the Registrant, the undersigned
  certifies that the form of Prospectus that
  would have been filed under Section 497(b)
  would not have differed from that contained
  in the text of the Registrant's most recent
  registration statement that was filed
  electronically via EDGAR with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on July 8, 2003.

  Very truly yours,
  /s/ Kathleen H. Moriarty, Esq.
      Kathleen H. Moriarty, Esq.
  cc: Patricia Mengiste
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6397

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTON WENDELL DION SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, District

Judge. (CR-91-23)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anton Wendell Dion Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant,

II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

Appellant's motion for return of seized property pursuant to Fed.

R. Crim. P. 41(e). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Smith, No. CR-91-23 (E.D. Va. Mar. 1, 1996). 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
#### A.H. Harris & Sons, Inc., Appellant, v Burke, Cavalier, Lindy and Engel, P. C., as Successors in Interest to Herzog, Engstrom, Burke, Koplovitz & Cavalier, P. C., et *930al., Respondents.

[610 NYS2d 888]

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered May 4, 1993 in Albany County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint in this legal malpractice action for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs sole allegation of negligence is its assertion that defendants failed to call available witnesses to the stand at trial. However, given an attorney’s freedom to choose among several strategies or courses of action, the mere allegation that defendants failed to present admissible evidence, without pleading how or why such failure fell below the ordinary and reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed in the legal profession, does not properly state a cause of action for legal malpractice.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

 

Alpha Pro Tech,Ltd

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sheldon Hoffman ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. ss. 1350, asadopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934: and

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   |         |   |   |                                 |
|--------|--------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| DATE:  | May 12, 2005 |   | BY:    | /s/ Sheldon  Hoffman                 |   |
|   |         |   |   | Sheldon Hoffman                      |
|   |         |   |   | Chief Executive Officer and Director |

 

----
[No. 54038-6-I.

Division One.

October 31, 2005.]

#### Arlene A. Wright, *Appellant,*v. Jerry Fulks & Company, Inc., *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-2-14526-4, Jeffrey M. Ramsdell, J., entered March 30, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Schindler, J., concurred in by Appelwick, A.C.J., and Becker, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 703 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 703

 To provide for the use of COPS funds for State and local intelligence 
                   officers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2003

 Mr. Saxton (for himself and Mr. Coble) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the use of COPS funds for State and local intelligence 
                   officers, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Law Enforcement Partnership to 
Combat Terrorism Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF COPS FUNDS FOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS.

    Section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new subsection:
    ``(l) Grants for Intelligence Officers.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, not less than 25 percent of amounts made available to 
        carry out this part shall be used only for programs, projects, 
        and other activities to--
                    ``(A) increase the number of law enforcement 
                officers involved in activities that are focused on 
                intelligence for the purposes of combatting terrorism 
                by hiring new officers and redeploying existing 
                officers to such activities;
                    ``(B) provide specialized training to not more than 
                one intelligence officer, and not more than one analyst 
                officer, per recipient of grant amounts, to enhance 
                such officers' observation, intelligence gathering, 
                foreign language, and analytic skills needed to focus 
                on intelligence for the purposes of combatting 
                terrorism; and
                    ``(C) enhance coordination among Federal, State, 
                and local law enforcement officers involved in 
                activities specified in subparagraph (A), to ensure a 
                concentrated, connected nationwide effort to combat 
                terrorism.
            ``(2) Security clearances.--The Attorney General shall 
        ensure that an intelligence officer or analyst officer under 
        paragraph (1)(B) has a security clearance of not less than the 
        `top secret' level.''.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 55374-7-I.

Division One.

November 28, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gordon David Bergstrom, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-1-05779-3, John P. Erlick, J., entered November 17, 2004. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Cox, C.J., and Schindler, J.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 5, 2020

ORDER

This appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of this appeal are taxed against appellants.

It is so ORDERED on August 5, 2020

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of August, 2020

.

_____________________________ Mi chael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
ACCEPTED 01-14-00999-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/4/2015 3:38:31 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Donald Norman III v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00359

- CR

Trial court case number: 15CR2248

Trial court: 405th District Court

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the above

referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion requesting access to a

copy of the appellate record for use in preparing a response to appointed counsel’s brief. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We grant the motion and order the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days from

the date of this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the appellant. The trial court clerk shall further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the date upon which delivery of the record to the appellant is made. Finally, appellant’s response to his appointed counsel’s brief shall be filed within 45 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _

/s/ Harvey Brown
 Acting individually

Date: December 29, 2016
**SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the annual report of World Am, Inc. (“Company”) on Form 10-KSB
      for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date
      indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) 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 operations of the Company.


Dated: April 2, 2007
              
              /s/
                Robert A. HoveeRobert
                A. Hovee,Chief Executive Officer
 Dated: April 2, 2007
                
                /s/ David J. BarnesDavid
                  J. Barnes,Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 140 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17443]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission


F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 4-09

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR Part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters 
specified, as follows:
    Date and Time: Tuesday, July 28, 2009, at 11 a.m.
    Subject Matter: Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against 
Albania and Libya.
    Status: Open.
    All meetings are held at the Foreign claims Settlement Commission, 
600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance 
notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: 
Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 
Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-
6975.

    Dated at Washington, DC.
Mauricio J. Tamargo,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. E9-17443 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-P
|     |                                                                                                                       |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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/ Madhukar Dayal                                                 |
| Name: Madhukar Dayal                                               |
| Title: Chief Financial Officer and Senior Executive Vice President |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Susan D. Wigenton
ve : Crim. No, 11-225 (SDW)
MI-YOUNG MUN : CONTINUANCE ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the joint
application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the
District of New Jersey (Jane H. Yoon, Assistant U.S. Attorney,
appearing), and defendant Mi-Young Mun (Luis Diaz, Esq.,
appearing) for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings
in the above-captioned matter for a period of 30 days, and the
defendant being aware that he has the 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 such a 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. Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and
both the United States and the defendant desire additional time

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

matter unnecessary;


2. Wefendant has consented to the aforementioned
continvance;

3. Pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code,
Section 3161 (h) (1) (a), the ends of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial. By

WHEREFORE, on this ia day of éx 2011,

IT IS ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is,
continued for a period of 30 days; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from and including November 2,
2011, through and including December 1, 2011, shall be excludable
in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, pursuant to
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7) (a); and it is
further

ORDERED that the calendar for this matter shall be

revised as follows: gh

Pre-trial motions:

opposition: /f

Motions hearing:

Trial:

DA WYGENTON
es Distkict Judge


Form and entry
i consented to:
Filed 8/17/23 P. v. Reyes CA4/3

Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDRES QUINONEZ REYES,

Defendant and Appellant. G059251

(Super. Ct. No. 04CF2780)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a post

judgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,

Richard M. King, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant

Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and

Jennifer B. Truong, Depu ty Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 BACKGROUND

Defendant Andres Quinonez Reyes was convicted of the second degree

murder of Pedro Javier Rosario. Reyes was not the actual shooter. Following the

passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 201 8, ch. 1015, §§ 2

- 4) (Senate Bill No. 1437) in

2018, Reyes filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former Penal Code section

1170.95. 1

The trial court appointed counsel for Reyes and conducted an evidentiary

hearing. Following that hearing, the c ourt concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a

jury would have found defendant guilty of murder even after the passage of Senate Bill

No. 1437. The trial court therefore denied Reyes ’ s section 1172.6 petition. In an

unpublished opinion, t his court aff irmed the trial court ’ s order denying the petition.

The California Supreme Court granted Reyes’s petition for review, and

reversed the judgment of this court with directions to remand the matter to the trial court.

( People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 992.) Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the

trial court and remand this matter with directions to conduct further proceedings on

Reyes ’ s section 1172.6 petition, consistent with the California Supreme Court ’ s opinion.

DISPOSITION

The tri al court ’ s postjudgment order denying the petition for resentencing is

1 Effective June 30, 2022, Penal Code section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6,

with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will refer to the statute as

section 1172.6. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the

California Supreme Court ’ s opinion in People v. Reyes, supra , 1 4 Cal.5th 981.

MOTOIKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

BEDSWORTH, J.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin J. Neary,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ KEVIN J. NEARY                                  |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Kevin J. Neary                                      |
| *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |
| November 9, 2006                               |

 

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.

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.

----
# 2010

&P