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 Quarterly Report of Boykin Lodging Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Shereen P. Jones, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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 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/ Shereen P. Jones Shereen P. Jones  Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Investment Officer  May 5, 2006
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, James Green, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant, Digital Lightwave, Inc. 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 12, 2004
##### 



Exhibit 12

|                                   |  |                            |       |      |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |      | 
|---------------------------------- |  | -------------------------- | ----- | ---- |  | ---- | ----- | ---- |  | ---- | ----- |  |  |  | ----- |  |  |  | ---- | 
|                                   |  | Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
|                                   |  |                           
|                                   |  | 1999                       |       | 2000 |  | 2001 |       | 2002 |  | 2003
|                                   |  |                            |       |      |  |      |       |      |  |     
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |  |                            | 26.9x |      |  |      | 21.0x |      |  |      | 22.2x |  |  |  | 27.6x |  |  |  | 6.4x | 

For purposes of computing the ratios of earnings to fixed charges,
earnings represent pretax income from continuing operations plus fixed charges.
Fixed charges represent interest expense and the portion of rents
representative of interest related to continuing operations.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION**


**Pursuant
      to 18 United States Code Section 1350**





The
      undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the
      year ended December 31, 2004 of Nanobac Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated (the
      "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such
      report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.








/s/
      John
      D Stanton





John
      D
      Stanton


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      4 ,
      2005





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Nanobac Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated and will be retained by it and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







28
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Edward Dean GEATHERS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-7297.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 19, 2008.

Decided: June 23, 2008.

Edward Dean Geathers, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Dean Geathers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Geathers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Second Amendment to
                    Certificate of Limited Partnership of
               Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership III-D

     The  undersigned,  desiring to amend its amended  certificate  of limited
partnership  pursuant to the Oklahoma Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act,
as amended,  Okla.  Stat. tit. 54 (1993),  Section 301 et seq (the "Act"),  do
hereby state:

     1.   The  name  of the  limited  partnership  is  Geodyne  Energy  Income
Limited Partnership III-D.

     2. The date of filing of the original  Certificate  of Limited  Partnership
was  September  5, 1990,  as amended by the First  Amendment to  Certificate  of
Limited  Partnership of Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership III-D filed on
February 25, 1993.

     3. The Amended  Certificate  of Limited  Partnership  is hereby  revised to
change  the name of the  General  Partner  and  Registered  Agent  from  Geodyne
Production Company to the following:

            Geodyne Resources, Inc.

Geodyne Production  Company merged with Geodyne Resources,  Inc., with Geodyne
Resources, Inc. surviving, effective June 30, 1996.

     DATED:    July 1, 1996

                                       Geodyne Production Company
                                        by Geodyne Resources, Inc.,
                                        successor by merger

                                        By:  /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Dennis R. Neill
                                             President

                                       Geodyne Resources, Inc.
                                        as General Partner

                                        By:  /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Dennis R. Neill
                                             President



                                      -1-
<PAGE>




                                       Geodyne Depositary Company, as the
                                       Limited Partner

                                       By:   /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Dennis R. Neill
                                             President

                                       Geodyne Resources, Inc., as
                                       Attorney-in-Fact for all Substituted
                                       Limited Partners

                                       By:   /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Dennis R. Neill
                                             President


                                      -2-
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Gantt v. Kay Management, Inc.

September 12, 1986

Case No. (Law) 9367

By JUDGE DONALD H. KENT

This matter came before the Court upon the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment and upon the defendant’s motion for leave to file responsive pleadings.

The Court finds that the defendant failed to respond previously due to an inadvertent omission; that the defendant was not engaged in dilatory tactics; and that an extension would not prejudice the plaintiff.

[The defendant] will be granted ten days from the date of this letter within which to file responsive pleadings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GS INDUSTRIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-01-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,326<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    138,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               261,237
<PP&E>                                         254,876<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 636,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          152,150
<BONDS>                                        336,241
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   636,953
<SALES>                                        831,845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               831,845
<CGS>                                          749,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (9,560)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24,611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       740
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (25,351)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (25,351)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Amounts presented are net
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard

          - 33 CFR Part 165
          - [Docket No. USCG-2017-0679]

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation; change of enforcement date.

# SUMMARY:

                        On August 7, 2017, the Coast Guard provided notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         that the agency would enforce                               ( print page 45465)                            the North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, NJ, safety zone from 9:00 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. on October 10, 2017. The purpose of this document is to announce a change in the enforcement date. The zone will be enforced on October 7, 2017, instead of October 10, 2017.                    

# DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on October 7, 2017, for the safety zone listed as (a.)11 in the Table to § 165.506.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, you may call or email MST2 Amanda Boone, Sector Delaware Bay Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 215-271-4889, email                         *Amanda.N.Boone@USCG.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Please refer to the notice of enforcement published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 7, 2017 (82 FR 36688), FR Doc. 2017-16506.                

Dated: September 22, 2017.

Scott E. Anderson,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.

[FR Doc. 2017-20900 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3247 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3247

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2012

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1100 Town and Country Commons in Chesterfield, Missouri, as the 
      ``Lance Corporal Matthew P. Pathenos Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL MATTHEW P. PATHENOS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1100 Town and Country Commons in Chesterfield, Missouri, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Lance Corporal Matthew P. 
Pathenos Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lance 
Corporal Matthew P. Pathenos Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 15, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Balance Forward                      41,338,333
Date                Number           Days

<S>                 <C>              <C>               <C>

Jan. 4                 50,000           178            48901.099
Jan. 6                150,000           176            145054.95
Jan. 7                 52,000           175                50000
Jan. 10                 2,000           172            1890.1099
Jan. 12                20,000           170            18681.319
Jan. 13                 2,000           169            1857.1429
Jan. 17                80,000           165            72527.473
Jan. 18                10,000           164             9010.989
Jan. 18/19             30,000         163.5            26950.549
Jan. 19               240,000           163            214945.05
Jan. 20                87,000           162             77439.56
Jan. 21                71,500           161                63250
Jan. 18/20          1,120,000        162.33            998953.85
Jan. 20/24              4,000           160            3516.4835
Jan. 21/24             50,000         159.5            43818.681
Jan. 24                45,000           158            39065.934
Jan. 20/25            145,000         159.5            127074.18
Jan. 25               130,000           157            112142.86
Jan. 26                15,000           156            12857.143
Jan. 27                60,000           155            51098.901
Feb. 4                  7,500           147            6057.6923
Feb. 8                100,000           143            78571.429
Feb. 11             1,300,000           140              1000000
Feb. 18                25,000           137            18818.681
Feb. 21               100,000           134            73626.374
Feb. 25               285,000           130            203571.43
Mar. 22                70,000           104                40000
Apr. 12                 5,000            79            2170.3297


Weighted average                                      44,873,415
Loss for the period                                      654,749
Net loss per share                                          0.01

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. HENDERSON.

1. Criminal Daw — Practice—Indictment.—A general verdict of guilty on an indictment containing one good count will be sustained.

2. Witness — Ibid.'—To Contradict a witness by contrary statement, he must be admonished as to time, place, and person, but not as to purpose. *Following State*v. *White,*15 S. C., 381.

Before Buchanan, J., Spartanburg, April, 1898.

Affirmed.

Indictment against B. F. Henderson for selling, and for storing and keeping in possession whiskey. From verdict and sentence, defendant appeals.

*Mr. Ralph K.*Carson,

cites: *Contradiction of witness:*

15 S. C., 381.

*Assistant Attorney*General, contra.

Oral argument.

June 30, 1898.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Pope.

The defendant was indicted and tried for selling intoxicating liquors, and also for storing and keeping in possession intoxicating liquors, contrary to *471the provisions of the law of this State known as the dispensary law. He now appeals to this Court upon the single question, that in the examination of Grant Evans, a witness for the defense, on the single ground of a sale made to him by the defendant, and which sale was denied by said witness, the foundation for his contradiction was not sufficiently laid. It is well to notice that no question is made by the appeal as to the conviction of the defendant on the second count, for storing and keeping in possession intoxicating liquors contrary to the provisions of the dispensary law. Under that law both the sale and keeping and storing of such liquors are misdemeanors, and are subject to same punishment. 21 Stat. at Barge, 721. We do not see how the defendant, therefore, is to be benefited if this Court should sustain this appeal, which relates to the former or first count in the indictment. As long ago as the year 1814, this Court held that when there are two counts in an indictment, one of which is bad, a. general verdict of guilty is good, if there is one good count to which the evidence applies. *The State*v. Poole, 2 Brev., 490. There is no complaint by the appellant as to the verdict on the second count.

We cannot, therefore, sustain the appeal; but it may be well for this Court to announce that it adheres to the rule in *State*v. White, 15 S. C., 381, that when it is desired to contradict a witness by means of a contrary statement, he should be admonished as to the time when, the place where, and the person to whom such contrary statements were made, but it is not necessary to warn him of the purpose to contradict, and in doing so to hold that the witness, Grant Evans, was not so admonished.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Gary concurs in result.