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

 

# **Co-Registrant (Commission File Number000-30761):**

 

**UbiquiTel Inc.**

**One West Elm Street**

**Suite 400**

**Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428**

 

**Co-Registrant (Commission File Number333-39950):**

 

**UbiquiTel Operating Company**

**One West Elm Street**

**Suite 400**

**Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428**

 

 

# **CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

## **PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James J. Volk, ChiefFinancial Officer of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company.

 
|     | UBIQUITEL  INC.              |
|----------|------------------------------|
|     |                         |
|     |                         |
| * * | */s/ James J. Volk*          | * * |
|     | James J.  Volk               |
|     | Chief  Financial Officer     |
|     |                         |
|     |                         |
|     | UBIQUITEL  OPERATING COMPANY |
|     |                         |
|     |                         |
| * * | */s/ James J. Volk*          | * * |
|     | James J.  Volk               |
|     | Chief  Financial Officer     |
|     |                         |
|     |                         |
|     | March 15, 2006               |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**WZI LETTERHEAD**

 

CONSENT OF WZI, INC.

 

 

We hereby consent to the use of the name WZI,Inc. and of references to WZI, Inc. and to inclusion of and reference to ourreport, or information contained therein, dated March 9, 2005, prepared forWhittier Energy Company for inclusion in the Whittier Energy Corporation AnnualReport on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 
|           | **WZI, INC.** |
|----------------|---------------|
|           | ** **    |
|           |          |
|           | by:           | /s/ |   |
|           |
| March 30, 2005 |
| Houston, Texas |

 

----
#### Dwayne E. GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONESTOGA TITLE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-3097.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 25, 2013.*

Decided Feb. 25, 2013.

*585Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc** Denied March 25, 2013.

Dwayne E. Gray, Indianapolis, IN, pro se.

Elizabeth J. Wysong Berg, Goodin Abernathy, Bryan H. Babb, Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP, Richard M. Malad, Cohen & Malad, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge and DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the *585briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

**

 Circuit Judge liana Diamond Rovner did not participate in the consideration of this petition for rehearing.

ORDER

Dwayne Gray, an Indiana citizen, appeals the dismissal of his complaint in which he accused six companies of violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), *see*15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f, and state law, in connection with a foreclosure action on his property. The district court dismissed the complaint because none of the defendants was a state actor; the complaint failed to state a claim under TILA; and the lone state-law claim warranting the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was barred by res judicata.

On appeal Gray does not develop any legal argument challenging the basis of the dismissal. A brief must contain “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Gray asserts that the district court was wrong to dismiss the complaint, but does not explain why. He instead rehashes the allegations — vague as they are — from his complaint and appears to add others about state-court litigation surrounding the foreclosure. We construe pro se filings liberally, but even a pro se brief must contain more than a general assertion of error. *See Correa v. White,*518 F.3d 516, 517-18 (7th Cir.2008); *Anderson v. Hardman,*241 F.3d 544, 545-46 (7th Cir.2001).

DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1764

DANIEL H. ROSS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TRIAD FINANCIAL CORPORATION; OURISMAN

CHEVROLET COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge.

(8:06-cv-02122-RWT)

Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel H. Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Kevin Hourigan, FERGUSON,

SCHETELICH & BALLEW, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Carolyn Chappell

Williamson, CECE WILLIAMSON, LLC, 

Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel H. Ross appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his complaint and denying his motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Ross v. Triad Financial Corp., No.

8:06-cv-02122-RWT (D. Md. July 10 & 24, 2007). 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
**Exhibit
      23.1**










**Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
  The
          Board
          of Directors
 Citibank
          (South Dakota), National Association:
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
        333-131355) on Form S-3 of the Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust of our
        attestation report dated March 22, 2007, with respect to Citibank (South
        Dakota), National Association’s assessment of compliance with the applicable
        servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
        Commission’s Regulation AB for all asset-backed securities transactions
        conducted by the Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust that were registered
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of
        1933
        where the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the year
        ending December 31, 2006, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 annual
        report on Form 10-K of the Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust.
 
 
 /s/
        KPMG
        LLP
 
 New
        York,
        New York
 March
        28,
        2007
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Focus Enhancements, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gary L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.
| /s/Gary L. Williams     |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|                    |   |   |
| Gary L. Williams        |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
| August 13, 2007         |   |   |

 

----
r U 

## IN THE JAN082°15 

## COURT OF CRIMINAL APPCTtr,C'e,k OF TEXAS 

### W/LUAM HAYWARDFREF-M^

vs THE STATE Of TEXAS



### _^ A ppe, 1L ee A esptwo/W' 

### APPElLAiMT^ PETITION FOfcWSCRtTJOAWWfiEYtfW

'• ' . ""• '" • •' "" -•••-•• - h ;. . ' •• )-.. . ; . •••Mail •• ' IN APPEAL PO-lSlklll COUfKTOf Cravat Appeals 

### of TfeY4s w WlUlAM. HAViX//\RD'FreewB^. PotuA/ska" LW.4 '*= J£i*8l3 ^FM/S^p Soo-H, ^ 77357

FILED IN COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS JAN 2 0 2015 Abel Acosta, ClerkTABLE OP'CONTENTS Pfs&E 

## INDEX OP AUTHORITIES —- V

STATEMENT R6GAR0IW6 ORAL ARGUMENT %%C STATEKAEWT OF THE QSE —- (? 

### STATEMENT OF PROCEDU>RflL FUSTORY <* GRGU NDS FOR REVIEW 1 

### ARGUM FlMT
- •--• 1 % io 

## PRAYER Fnpan iff .: .,:../...-,,—:M CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .,/ 

### APPEMOIX ' i^/fA

\

\» II

### : IHDEX QF AUTHOftlTiES 

### .page 

### %Wu.-\/,hAdH|'l^e( C^W»f4*t Law ?:.0£><fe> 3,5: *

.«-, ID


### OTHIRSQUCES 

### 31:07232; (%),(m_. »ii'ii«<i»iif»iiiiiiiiw>«>» iiittMwwwi*mmpiMmW"i> '•'" iwViwjii'iAiiififi

>i'3*^'WlffWi^M^Ki>i»l*ii<!tf,W^yw"*^,lg^ **•. 3#.(?7i,Sec a.(0,fi). '^«ww^wi»w#i»W wmuwu-w •*-Kfi. f OiJr4 sr^sfrfe ikii'fer'^'M^al''Cti&pte-t £& *

• J** /' * * '• -':'i;|.i*'!"'^"!!J>i-1!'WWi'1?'*"'"'^1'"1" 

### trap \i',$________ w**'.'^.» iV.i'ij'iniilijiitfi 

### tRAltix^ 3 °l 

### XR,IVR\a.a^

### PD-ir4fc-H". INTHE 

### COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

## WILLIAM RAYWARD FRE£foAW,£R. VS THE STATE Of TEXAS APPELLANTS pETlpW fQA 0)SCR€TiQa/ARY Re.¥i£W 

### Ttf THE COURT OF CRPWRL APPEAL Of TEXAS: ^

(A ppeI b/vrf/P^4i+i'o M«r re^pec^^uI \u Swbm*>^s*fe$ HoAWaUe Couf4^rs^.T€\jVeuj::^+K^s Cause a^ 
£$e/ 

### -l-Ue •-•voVvowiisOfj i.M Supporj -H\e>e c£*) STATEMENT•R£QARDW(a Q&ALbKGtfMMT; \w 4*v,$ case because sad.ar^W ^^u assVs4 -Hv£. Coimt4* iKi appk|iWcj ^eTe>ek>~4o 4V^e issues raised. I-f vs 

### SUc^esW 4-va^* Otel Q^/yye^ moy Kelp Siivvn !;.-£« ~^£

1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk June 25, 2012

s0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144638

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144638

COA: 301327

Wayne CC: 10

- 006616

- FC

BOBBY RAY WILDER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Private dairy farms, 2003-06

Fatal occupational injuries in the private dairy farms industry, 2003-06 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries in the private dairy farms industry, 2003-06		

Fatal occupational injuries in the private dairy farms industry, 2003-06 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries in the private dairy farms industry, 2003-06		

Page &P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000

<CASH>                                         31,690
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  272,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                   33,862
<INVENTORY>                                    34,247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               490,422
<PP&E>                                         324,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                 172,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,652,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          512,796
<BONDS>                                        1,820,712
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          560,097
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       976,085
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,247,474)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,652,473
<SALES>                                        404,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               404,450
<CGS>                                          95,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  95,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               308,247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             38,356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (39,431)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (39,431)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39,431)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.35)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                      [Letterhead of Meaden & Moore, Ltd.]

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-92076 on Form S-8 of our report on the consolidated financial statements and
report as to schedules included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Waxman
Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the years ended June 30, 2002 and June 30,
2001.

/s/ Meaden & Moore, Ltd.
------------------------------
MEADEN & MOORE, LTD.
Certified Public Accountants

April 22, 2003
Cleveland, Ohio
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 annual report on Form 10-K of OPNET Technologies, Inc. (the Company), I, Marc A. Cohen,
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:



| | (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: June 9, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    MARC A. COHEN
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Marc A. Cohen                       
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 15.1
   July 27, 2001

   Stratus Properties Inc.
   98 San Jacinto Blvd.
   Austin, TX  78701

   Gentlemen:

   We are aware that Stratus Properties Inc. has incorporated by reference
   in its Registration Statements (File Nos. 33-78798, 333-31059 and 333-
   52995) its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2001, which
   includes our report dated July 27, 2001 covering the unaudited
   interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation
   C of  the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), this report is not
   considered a part of the registration statements prepared or certified
   by our firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the
   meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


   Very truly yours,

   /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**Form of Section 906 Certification**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICEROR**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

In connectionwith the accompanying Form 10-Q of Conductus, Inc. for the quarter ended June30, 2002, I, Charles E. Shalvoy, Chief Executive Officer, of Conductus, Inc.,hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  suchForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Conductus, Inc.

 

 
| August 14, 2002 |   |                                                                | /s/ Charles E. Shalvoy |   |
|-----------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Date            |   | Charles E. Shalvoy                                                  |
|            |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer  and Duly Authorized Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 31.1
**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**
I, William C. Sonntag, President and Chief Executive Officer of Slippery RockFinancial Corporation (the “Company”), certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Slippery RockFinancial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Companyand have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s boardof directors:
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theCompany’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 16, 2004 /s/ William C. Sonntag     President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Woodward *v.*Gould.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

March 24, 1886.)

1. Assumpsit—Pleading—Presumption as to whether Contract Sued on is Oral or Written.

Where, in a suit for breach of contract, the petition fails to state whether the contract was oral or written, and no contract is filed, it will be presumed to have been oral.

2. Same—What Petition should State.

In a suit for breach of contract the petition should state clearly what was to be done, agreed what has been done, and what has been omitted.

At Law. Suit for damages for breach of contract. Motion to make petition more definite and certain.

The petition states, in substance, that on January 1,1882, the defendant and plaintiff entered into an agreement, whereby the latter agreed to organize, and aid in the organization of, “a railroad company to construct and operate a railroad between the town of Pacific, in this state, and the city of St. Louis, ” and to act as secretary of *183said company for a period of three years from its organization, at a salary of $5,COO per annum; and that he also agreed to impart “certain information of law and fact affecting the charter rights and privileges of a certain railroad company, named in said undertaking,” of which ho was possessed; that in consideration of the premises the defendant agreed to advance all money which it should be necessary to expend in locating said road, and organizing said company, and to allow plaintiff for his'services 45 per cent, of the capital stock of the company when organized, and riot to nse said information for any purpose if the contract were not carried out. The petition further states that the plaintiff imparted said information as he had agreed to, and in conformity with the agreement took necessary steps to the organization of said company, and performed labor and services necessary to the location of the proposed line of said road, the expenses of which were defrayed by defendant, and was ready to perform his part of said agreement; but that the defendant refused to carry out or perform the agreement, and has ever since refused to carry it out, and in violation of said agreement has made use of said information.

*Krum & Jonas,*for plaintiff.

*Thos. J. Portis*and *Bennett Pike,*for defendant.

1

 Reported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.

Treat, J.

As to the first and second points, it suffices that if the alleged contract was in writing, not averred, and contract filed, the statute provides for the result. It must he taken for granted that the contract was oral. The contract is not clearly stated as to the road or enterprise, or what was done or omitted to be done. Motion sustained.