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


In connection with the periodic report of Optika Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Steven M. Johnson, Chief Financial
Officer, Executive Vice President, Secretary and Chief Accounting Officer of the
Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:

           (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
           or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


             11/13/2003                             /s/ Steven M. Johnson
        ---------------------               -----------------------------------
               (Date)                                 Steven M. Johnson
                                            Chief Financial Officer, Executive
                                                Vice President, Secretary
                                               and Chief Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned officer of Corvus Technologies Corp. (the "Company"),
hereby certify to my knowledge that:



The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2014 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



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.



|Date: May 5, 2015 | /s/ Glen Var Rosenbaum 
|----------------- | -----------------------
|                  | Chief Executive Officer
|                  |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19849]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): September 
19, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 13, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 357 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-200, CP2017-303.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-19849 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20182

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO ESTRADA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-100-ALL

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

October 29, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Antonio Estrada-Martinez (Estrada) appeals the 36-month

sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of

being found in the United States after deportation, a violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

was an element of the offense that should have been charged in

the indictment.

Estrada acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the

Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
No. 01-20182

-2-

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for

Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Estrada’s

argument is foreclosed. 

Estrada also contends that the indictment is fatally

defective, as a matter of constitutional law, for failing to

allege general intent. This contention lacks merit. See United

States v. Berrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d 294, 298-300 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, U.S. (U.S. Oct. 1, 2001) (No. 01-5535). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

       CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


        Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted), Michael R. Knapp, Chief Executive Officer
of Caliper Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), and James L. Knighton, the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

        1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
        30, 2002, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1,
        (the "PERIODIC REPORT") fully complies with the requirements of section
        13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

        2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
        all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of
        the 14th day of August, 2002.


                                         /s/ Michael R. Knapp
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Michael R. Knapp
                                         Chief Executive Officer


                                         /s/ James L. Knighton
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         James L. Knighton
                                         Chief Financial Officer


                                       25
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1768

_____________________________

KHALIL FLOZEL TAYLOR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

July 22, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Frank Moehrle, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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 Transition Report on Form 10-K of Terra Income Fund 6, Inc. (the “Company”) for the transition period from October 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce D. Batkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gregory M. Pinkus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:


1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: February 22, 2019


/s/ Bruce D. BatkinBruce D. BatkinChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Gregory M. PinkusGregory M. PinkusChief Financial Officer,Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### The C. M. Titus.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

January 31, 1882.)

Salvage Service — Absence of Necessity — Liability of Cargo.

The absence of any immediate necessity for the service rendered, even though of a salvage character, qualifies tlie power of the carrier; and where, in addition, the owner of the cargo, though accessible, was not communicated with, and there was an evident attempt, by concert between libellant and the master, to throw the whole expense on the cargo, the right to enforce the demand is forfeited as respects the cargo.

In Admiralty.

*E. D. McCarthy,*for libellant.

*J. A. Bush,*for claimant.

*

Reported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.

Blatchford, C. J.

Assuming that the service in this case was a salvage service as respects the cargo, but not deciding that it was, there was no pressing necessity for the service without communicating with the owner of the cargo, who was immediately accessible. The absence of such necessity must qualify the power of the carrier, as the power is founded solely on the necessity. The views stated by the district judge, in his opinion on this subject, are those sanctioned by principle and precedent. In view of the absence of immediate necessity, of the exaggeration of the claim by unduly increasing the time charged for, of the antedating of the written agreement, and of the evident attempt, by consent between the libellant and the master, to throw the whole expense on the cargo, the demand, even though of a salvage character, must be held to be one the right to enforce which has been forfeited, as respects the cargo. The libel is dismissed, with costs to the claimant in the district court, taxed at $37.50, and his costs in this court, to be taxed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Paul G. Vanderhoven, as Senior Vice President - Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of Sterling Chemicals, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report of the Company for the period
ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: May 10, 2005

                                    /s/ PAUL G. VANDERHOVEN
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Paul G. Vanderhoven,
                                    Senior Vice President - Finance and
                                    Chief Financial Officer
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00374-CR

DAVID ALLEN RUSSELL

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

199th District Court of Collin County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 199-81326-2012

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 29, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 15 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 15

    Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 
                               amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2015

 Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. 
    Boxer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. 
    Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
  Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Peters, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. 
  Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. 
    Wyden, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Reed) introduced the following joint 
 resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 
                               amendment.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding any time 
limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208, 92d Congress, as agreed 
to in the Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed 
to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents 
and purposes as part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the 
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32
   (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation and its
subsidiary.
 /s/ Steven C. Futrell
    
    /s/ Kendall W. RiemanSteven C. Futrell, President and CEO
    
    Kendall W. Rieman, Treasurer(Principal Executive Officer)
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)Date: April 28, 2009
    
    Date: April 28, 2009
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2013 (the “Report”) of Fifth Street Senior Floating Rate Corp . (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Alexander C. Frank , the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, 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 of 1934, as amended; and


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





/s/    Alexander C. FrankName:    Alexander C. FrankDate: November 25, 2013
**
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-194719,333-202652,333-209835,333-212954 and 333-216208 on FormS-8 of our report dated August 28, 2018, relating to the consolidated financial statements of A10 Networks, Inc. and its subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to the restatement of the 2016 and 2015 financial statements) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of A10 Networks, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

San Jose, California 

October 10, 2018 
**
Opinion filed March 5 , 20 20



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 20

- 00 036

- CV

__________


### IN THE INTEREST OF E.S.L

. , A CHILD

On Appeal from the 4 46th District Court Ector County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. E

- 17

- 091

- PC

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On February 4, 2020
, counsel for E.S.L.’s father filed a notice of appeal relating

to the order of termination of parental rights that was signed by the trial court on October 22, 2019

. W hen the appeal was docketed in this court, the clerk of this court
notified the parties that i t a ppear ed to this court that the notice of appeal was not timely
filed , and we requested that Appellant res pond a nd show grounds to continue th e appeal. Appellant has not responded to this court’s letter.
The documents on file in this appeal show that, on October 22, 2019
, the trial court signed an order of termination that was a final, appeal able order

. The notice of appeal was therefore due to be filed on November 12 , 2019

. See T EX

. R.2 A PP

. P. 26.1(b) , 28.1(b) (providing that, in an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal,
must be filed within twenty days after the date the order was signed ) ; see als o T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 4.1(a) ( applying when last day of filing deadline falls on a weekend or holiday)

. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until February 4, 2020

— well after
the deadline and also after the time in which this court would be authorized to grant a
fifteen

- day extension

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3. W e are prohibited from suspending the Rules of Appellate Procedure “to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil
case.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys. , 160 S.W.3d 559, 56 4 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank , 227 S.W.3d 233 , 233

– 34 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Because we are without jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3 (a)

. T h is appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

March 5, 2020
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1
Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor 

550 South Tryon Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2013, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator, and Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-LC12 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far

  |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
#### Berrian *v.*Chetwood.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

December 14, 1881.)

1. Removal op Cause after Default in Pleading.

Where the petition for removal was presented after defendant’s time to answer had expired, and he was in default, *held,*that there was no controversy between him and plaintiff, within the meaning; of the statute, so as to make a case for removal.

Motion to Remand.

*

Reported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.

Blatchford, C. J.

Even conceding that there were proper written extensions of time to answer till November 1st, nothing that then or before or afterwards occurred in oral conversation between the attorneys amounted to a consent by the plaintiff’s attorney to extend the time to answer beyond November 1st. Bo, on November 3d, when the petition for removal was presented and the bond approved, the defendant’s time to answer had expired, he was in default, and there was no controversy between him and the plaintiff, within the meaning of the statute, so as to make a case for removal.

The motion to remand the cause is granted, with costs.