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 Annual Report of Meredith Enterprises, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles P. Wingard, Vice President/Treasurer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, 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.



|                    |                    |                                             
|------------------- | ------------------ | --------------------------------------------
|March 25, 2004 Date |                    | /s/ Charles P. Wingard                      
|                    | Charles P. Wingard
|                    |                    | Vice President/Treasurer                    
|                    |                    | (principal financial and accounting officer)
Dismissed; Opinion Filed February 14, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00108-CR

DENNIS JEROME PIERCE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F02-24969-Q

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness

Dennis Jerome Pierce appeals his conviction for indecency with a child. On January 25, 

2019, appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal with this Court, stating he was appealing the trial 

court’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc on back time credit. After reviewing the 

notice of appeal, we notified appellant and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office that we 

had concerns regarding our jurisdiction and requested a letter brief from each. Specifically, we 

questioned how we had jurisdiction because the denial of a nunc pro tunc on back-time credit is 

not appealable. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In this case, 

we have not found any rule or any statutory or constitutional provision that would authorize 

appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s post-judgment order denying his time-credit motion.”). In 

response, appellant filed a motion to dismiss.
–2–

An appellate court has jurisdiction to determine an appeal only if the appeal is authorized 

by law. Id. at 696–97. When the appellate court’s jurisdiction is not legally invoked, the court’s 

power to act is as absent as if it did not exist. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1996). Appellate courts may consider criminal appeals only after final conviction or the 

entry of a narrow set of appealable interlocutory orders. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); Wright v. State, 

969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.).

Here, appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro 

tunc on back time credit. Because there is no rule or statutory or constitutional provision allowing 

such an appeal, we conclude we lack jurisdiction. See Abbott, 271 S.W.3d at 697.

We dismiss this appeal.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

190108F.U05

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DENNIS JEROME PIERCE, Appellant

No. 05-19-00108-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F02-24969-Q.

Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness, Justices Bridges and Carlyle 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Judgment entered this 14th day of February, 2018.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                        
        This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the
    Partnership's  audited financial statements for the twelve months ended July
    31, 1996 and is qualified  in its  entirety by  reference to such  financial
    statements.
</LEGEND>                       
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                   3637
<SECURITIES>                             6280
<RECEIVABLES>                           18539
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         3809
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          29243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      81
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              29162
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            29243
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2331
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          1806
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      1806
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                             1806
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             3.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                             3.24
        

</TABLE>
**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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of The Houston Exploration Company (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William G. Hargett, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report 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 material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.            /s/ William G. Hargett   Name:  William G. Hargett   Title:  Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned certify, to their best
knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of First Community Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2016 (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: March 7, 2017



|    |  |                             |  |     |  |                        
|--- |  | --------------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ William P. Stafford, II |  | By: |  | /s/ David D. Brown     
|    |  | William P. Stafford, II     |  |     |  | David D. Brown         
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Weingarten Realty Investors

Appellate case number: 01-21-00398-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-34588

Trial court: 151st District Court of Harris County

Relator, Weingarten Realty Investors, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

challenging the trial court’s July 5, 2021 order granting a motion to compel filed by real parties in 

interest, Landry’s Seafood Inn & Oyster Bar–Galveston, Inc. (“La Griglia”) and Morton’s of 

Chicago/Houston, Inc. (“Morton’s”). Weingarten has also filed an emergency motion to stay.

The Court grants in part Weingarten’s motion and stays the trial court’s order of July 5, 

2021 as well as any depositions or other discovery requests seeking information the trial court 

ordered produced in its July 5, 2021 order. The stay will remain in effect until disposition of the 

petition for writ of mandamus or until further order of this Court. 

The Court directs real parties in interest to file a response to the petition within 30 days of 

the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____Justice Richard Hightower_______________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __July 23, 2021____________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS OF LAMINATING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         176,723
<SECURITIES>                                 3,941,050
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,121
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    285,980
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,607,750
<PP&E>                                         199,725<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,807,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          453,758
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,851
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,259,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,807,475
<SALES>                                        124,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,627
<CGS>                                          104,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               821,410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (665,208)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (665,208)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.24)
<FN>
<F1>NET AMOUNTS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Patrick Neal BRADBERRY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ALRIDGE, sued in his/her individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-15907.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Patrick Neal Bradberry, Florence, *AZ,*pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The Clerk shall file the opening brief received on September 20, 2007.

We have reviewed the opening brief and the response to the court’s September 12, 2007 order to show cause, and we conclude the district court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. *See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.,*534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (to provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must simply give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs complaint is and the grounds upon which it rests). Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Charles & Colvard, Ltd.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James R. Braun, Vice President of Finance 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:



| | (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/ James R. Braun                                   
|James R. Braun                                       
|Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|November 9, 2004                                     



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Charles & Colvard, Ltd. and will be retained by Charles & Colvard, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30855

USDC No. 95-CV-121

__________________

RAYWARD GROGAN, JR.,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

TERRY TERRELL, Warden,

Allen Correctional Center,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

- - - - - - - - - -

February 6, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rayward Grogan, Jr. moves this court for a certificate of

probable cause (CPC). The issuance of a CPC is unnecessary to

establish appellate jurisdiction because the detention complained

of, loss of good-time credit, does not arise out of process

issued by a state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Therefore, the

petitioner's motion for CPC is DENIED as unnecessary.

 Grogan's petition is construed as being brought under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 because he does not contest the legality of his

conviction or the validity of his initial sentence. See Story

v. Collins, 920 F.2d 1247, 1250 (5th Cir. 1991) (jurisdiction 
No. 95-30855

-2-

over state prisoner's good-conduct claim is based on § 2241

rather than § 2254). 

The district court determined that although Grogan had not

exhausted his state-court remedies, he was procedurally barred

from doing so. The respondents and Grogan do not dispute that he

was procedurally barred from bringing his claim in state court. 

Although the district court erroneously disposed of the petition

as a § 1983 action, the procedural-default doctrine forecloses

federal review. Duff-Smith v. Collins, 973 F.2d 1175, 1180 (5th

Cir. 1992)(§ 2254 case), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1958 (1993). 

AFFIRMED.
* 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

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10472

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN AMADOR-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:02-CR-00046-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Martin Amador-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Amador-Hernandez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Amador-Hernandez maintains that
No. 03-10472

-2-

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the term of imprisonment and supervised release which may

be imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Amador-Hernandez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

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). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20708]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 17-918]


Change in Filing Location for Commercial Overnight Documents FCC 
Warehouse Address Change

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As part of our cost savings initiative, the FCC will close our 
current Warehouse/Mailroom at 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 
MD 20743 at the end of September.

DATES: September 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Zentner at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9af0f5f2f4b4e0fff4eef4ffe8dafcf9f9b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a0005020444100f041e040f182a0c0909440d051c">[email protected]</span></a> 
(202) 418-0119 or Geraldine Taylor at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7b0b2a5b6bbb3beb9b2f9a3b6aebbb8a597b1b4b4f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec8b899e8d8088858289c2988d9580839eac8a8f8fc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a> (202) 
418-0305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, DA 17-918, released September 21, 2017. The complete text of 
this document can be downloaded at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-17-918A1.pdf.
    Effective September 25, 2017, all documents, packages and equipment 
sent to FCC Headquarters via UPS, FedEx, Freight, or any overnight mail 
(other than United States Postal Service Express Mail), must be sent to 
our new Warehouse address: FCC, 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
    Please note that this change has no effect on mail sent through the 
United States Postal Service (USPS). All USPS First Class Mail, Express 
Mail and Priority Mail should continue to be sent to FCC Headquarters 
at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 and will continue being 
processed through USPS.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20708 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
                        CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                               83 PINE STREET
                   WEST PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960-3635
                               (508) 535-0206

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB of Slade's Ferry Bancorp (formerly known as Weetamoe Bancorp) of
our report dated January 14, 1997.


                                       /s/ Shatswell, MacLeod & Company LLP
                                           Shatswell, MacLeod & Company LLP

West Peabody, Massachusetts
March 31, 1997