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 Amendment No. 1
to the Annual Report of Aerosonic Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kevin J. Purcell, 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.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                      |  |                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|Dated: May 31, 2013 |  |  |  | By:                                                  |  | /s/ KEVIN J. PURCELL
|                    |  |  |  | Kevin J. Purcell                                    
|                    |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K 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 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.
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 First Ipswich Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Donald P. Gill, Chief Executive Officer and Acting 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.

      This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),
this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B)
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.


/s/ Donald P. Gill
------------------------------------------
Donald P. Gill
Chief Executive Officer and
Acting Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2005
Interim Decision #1638

MaTry,..te OF LEGER Deportation Proceedings
A-14689836 

### Decided by Board August 25, 1966

:Since adjustment of status pursuant to section 245, Immigration and Na-

. tionality Act, an amended, is discretionary in nature and since respondent has not established that his case merits the exercise of such discretion, there is no necessity to determine whether respondent, who is engaged inthe fruit peddling business, is exempt from the presentation of a certification issued by the Secretary of Labor under section 212(a) (14) of the Act.
-thIABGE :Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2)]—Nonimmigrant, remained longer.
This is an appeal from the decision of the special inquiry officerfinding the respondent deportable as charged, denying the application for adjustment under section 245, and granting voluntary departure. The appeal will be dismissed. The respondent is a 31-year-old married male, native of Tonga and citizen of Cheat Britain. He was admitted to the United. States at Honolulu, Hawaii, as a visitor for pleasure, on. May 31, 1965, with permission to remain wail November 30, 1965. On June 80, 1965, he submitted an application for adjustment to permanent resident status. His application was denied on October 18, 1965, and he was given until November 12, 1965, to depart. He remained beyond that time without authority and has conceded deportability on the charge contained in the order to show cause.At the deportation hearing, the respondent-renewed his application for section 245 adjustment. The respondent has no immediate familyin the United States, his wife and three children- being residents of Tonga. When respondent applied for his visitor's visa, he indicated that his purpose in coming to the United States was "Holi- .day", but he has testified that his main parpoie in coming-to the
796

### Interim Decision 401688
"United States was to see if he could remain permaitently. Whatever 

### investment respondent has made in the fruit peddling business (the material submitted on appeal does not indicate what portion wasinvested by respondent and what portion by his partner) was concededly made after the hearing, at which the special inquiry officer had rendered his oral decision denying the application. The granting of adjustment is discretionary, and is not automatic upon the establishment of eligibility. There must be outstanding equities, in a general meritorious case, to warrant it. (Cf. Matter of Ortiz Prieto, 

### Int. Dec. No. 1508.) Respondent has not presented a picture that merits the favorable exercise of discretion in his behalf. There is therefore no •need to consider whether the character of thepeddling business in which respondent has engaged meets the conditions required for the exemption of the respondent from the presentation of a labor certification. 

### ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

797
Exhibit 32.2



OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel M. Walker, Senior Vice President and 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 12, 2005



/s/ DANIEL M. WALKERDaniel M. WalkerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




25
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 548 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 548

  To clarify that funding for the Public Company Accounting Oversight 
                 Board is not subject to the sequester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 2015

 Mr. Enzi (for himself and Mr. Murphy) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify that funding for the Public Company Accounting Oversight 
                 Board is not subject to the sequester.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION.

    Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) does not apply with respect to the funding 
of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.
                                 <all>
```
|               | ESTIMATED REMAINING | FUTURE NET REVENUE |
|--------------------|---------------------|--------------------|
|               | NET RESERVES        |               | Present Worth |
| RESERVE            | Oil                 | Gas                | TOTAL | Disc. @ 10% |
| CLASSIFICATION     | (BBLS)              | (MCF)              | ($) | ($) |
|               |                |               |   |   |
| Proved Undeveloped |  -             |  1,400,000    |  11,271,001 |  8,170,935 |

----

|               | ESTIMATED REMAINING |   |   | FUTURE NET REVENUE |   |
|--------------------|---------------------|--------|--------|--------------------|--------|
|               | NET RESERVES        |   |   |               |   |   | Present Worth |   |
| RESERVE            |                | Oil    |   |               | Gas    |   |   | TOTAL |   |   | Disc. @ 10% |   |
| CLASSIFICATION     |                | (BBLS) |   |               | (MCF)  |   |   | ($) |   |   | ($) |   |
|               |                |   |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Proved Developed   |                |   |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Producing          |                |   | 36,809 |               |   |   | 2,485,643 |   |   |   | 9,904,830 |   |   |   | 6,002,299 |   |
| Non-Producing      |                |   | -      |               |   |   | 217,016 |   |   |   | 1,545,637 |   |   |   | 506,789 |   |
|               |                |   |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Sub-Total          |                |   | 36,809 |               |   |   | 2,702,659 |   |   |   | 11,450,467 |   |   |   | 6,509,088 |   |
|               |                |   |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Proved Undeveloped |                |   |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Primary            |                |   | -      |               |   |   | 4,694,375 |   |   |   | 24,702,225 |   |   |   | 11,298,590 |   |
|               |                |   |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| TOTAL ALL RESERVES |                |   | 36,809 |               |   |   | 7,397,034 |   |   |   | 36,152,692 |   |   |   | 17,807,678 |   |
Exhibit 77.B
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DHARMESH BALUBHAI PATEL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-72230

Agency No. A072-176-625

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Dharmesh Balubhai Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the decision of an

immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Patel’s motion to continue his removal

proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

DEC 05 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v.

Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and review de novo

whether the agency applied a correct legal standard, Florez-de Solis v. INS,

796 F.2d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1986). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Patel’s motion to

continue in order to wait for an employment-based immigrant visa to become

available to him, where he failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance. See

Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (rejecting an abuse-of-discretion challenge to an

IJ’s refusal to continue removal proceedings where “no relief was then

immediately available”).

The agency also applied the correct legal criteria and provided a reasoned

explanation for its decision denying Patel’s motion to continue, where the agency

invoked the applicable “good cause” legal standard and cited pertinent legal

authorities. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009)

(concluding that “the IJ applied the correct legal standard” where “the IJ expressly

cited and applied [relevant case law] in rendering its decision, which is all our

review requires”).

2 12-72230
We lack jurisdiction to consider Patel’s unexhausted contention that the IJ

failed to redress the harm from the agency’s earlier finding of frivolousness in his

asylum application. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 12-72230
**Exhibit
32.2**
 
 
 **Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**
 **(Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stratus Properties Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), John E.
Baker, as Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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:
May 13, 2005
 
 
 /s/
John E. Baker
 John E. Baker
 Senior
Vice President &
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 
 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.
 
 This
certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 ofHarbinger Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip A. Falcone, as Chairman ofthe Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the best of my knowledge, that: 

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

March 25, 2013 

This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|  | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10‐K of SB/RH Holdings, LLC for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018; and |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | /s/ David M. Maura |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | David M. Maura     |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
II 

Calendar No. 104 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 552 

To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to provide for increased 

limitations on leverage for multiple licenses under common control. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2015 

Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. AYOTTE, Mrs. SHAHEEN, and Mr. 

VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

JUNE 10, 2015 

Reported by Mr. VITTER, with an amendment 

[Insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to 

provide for increased limitations on leverage for multiple 

licenses under common control. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Invest5 ment Capital Company Act of 2015’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 552 RS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED LIMITATIONS ON LEVERAGE FOR MUL2 TIPLE LICENSES UNDER COMMON CONTROL. 

3 Section 303(b)(2) (B) of the Small Business Invest4 ment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(B)) is amended 

5 by striking ‘‘$225,000,000’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘$350,000,000’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 104 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 552 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 

trol. verage for multiple licenses under common con1958 to provide for increased limitations on leJUNE 10, 2015 

Reported with an amendment 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-10281

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AUDIE EUGENE COUCH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-61-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Audie Eugene Couch, federal prisoner # 42886-177, has applied for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the denial of his motion 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction in light of Amendment 

782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed IFP in this court, 

Couch challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for leave to proceed 

IFP on appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Couch 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 20-10281 Document: 00515519286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2020
No. 20-10281

2

must demonstrate that he will present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See 

Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).

The Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step inquiry in considering a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). 

Before it considers a defendant’s post-conviction conduct and the statutory 

sentencing factors, the district court must first determine whether the 

defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction and the extent of the reduction 

authorized under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id.

Couch pleaded guilty to possessing 49 grams of methamphetamine, and 

he was found responsible at sentencing for 60.1 kilograms. His base-offense 

level of 38 was not lowered by Amendment 782. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) 

(2014). The district court did not err in determining that Couch is ineligible 

for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, 

p.s., comment. (n.1(A)). 

Because Couch has not presented a nonfrivolous issue for review, the 

request for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. The appeal is DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202.

 Case: 20-10281 Document: 00515519286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2020
**EXHIBIT 32.1****Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**     The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Zale Corporation, certifies, to the best ofher knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2005, whichaccompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ZaleCorporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is madepursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not berelied upon for any other purpose.This 3rd day of October, 2005.         By: /s/ Mary L. Forté             Mary L. Forté      President and Chief Executive Officer,      Director      (principal executive officer of the registrant)
Exhibit 32.1
 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 filed on
the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Annual Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ William T. Kerr

William T. KerrChief Executive OfficerDate: March 1, 2010/s/ Sean R. Creamer

Sean R. CreamerChief Financial OfficerDate: March 1, 2010