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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K (the
"Report") of AMCON Distributing Company (the "Company") for the fiscal year
ended September 26, 2003, I, Michael D. James, Vice President and Chief
Financial 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 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; 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: January 26, 2004        /s/ Michael D. James
                              -------------------------
                              Title: Vice President and
                              Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to AMCON Distributing Company and will be retained by AMCON
Distributing Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Abatement Order filed November 15 , 20 1 1

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00 929

- CR

____________ GREGORY HEARN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1296471



### ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant is not represented by counsel on appeal. Appellant has requested appointment of counsel. This court is unaware whether appellant is entitled to appointment of counsel and to proceed without the payment of costs. Accordingly, we
enter the follo wing order.
We ORDER the judge of the 185th District Court to immediately conduct a hearing at which appellant and counsel for the State shall be present to determine whether appell ant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is ind igent and, thus entitled to appointed counsel and a free record. The judge shall appoint appellate counsel for2

appellant, if necessary. The judge shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shal l order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing the findings and
conclusions. Those records shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or before December 15, 2011

. The appeal is abated, treated a s a closed case, and removed from this Court ’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court ’ s active docket when the trial court ’ s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to r einstate the appeal filed by either party, or the Court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with thi s Court ’ s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
#### Thomas Glenn WYRICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathy MENDOZA-POWERS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-15840.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Linda Buchalter, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Kasey E. Jones, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Thomas Glenn Wyrick appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Wyrick contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Wyrick raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

KENNETH EUGENE HOLLOWAY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10490 

D.C. No. 4:07-cr-00344-CW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Kenneth Eugene Holloway appeals from the district court’s order denying 

his second motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Holloway argues that the district court erred by failing to consider 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-10490 

adequately his amended Guidelines range, all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors, and by insufficiently explaining its decision. The record 

reflects the district court acknowledged the reduced Guidelines range and 

Holloway’s eligibility for a reduction. The court noted its reasons for denying 

Holloway’s first motion for a sentence reduction in 2012, and then discussed 

several of the section 3553(a) factors and its reasons for again denying the 

reduction in light of those factors. On this record, we conclude that the court 

considered the section 3553(a) factors and adequately explained the sentence. See 

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (describing 

what constitutes an adequate explanation and stating that “[t]he district court need 

not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them”).

Holloway also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in 

light of his post-sentencing rehabilitation and other mitigating factors. The district 

court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce Holloway’s sentence. See 

United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Holloway’s 147-

month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) 

sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and 

circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. 

See id. at 1159-60.

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John A. GULLETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-11807

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 8, 2011.

Anne R. Schultz, Kathleen M. Salyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Bertha R. Mitrani, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brenda G. Bryn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Kathleen M. Williams, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WILSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John A. Gullett appeals his 51-month sentence, imposed above his guideline range of 27 to 33 months, after a jury convicted him of four counts of subscribing to a false U.S. individual income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).

Although it is disputed whether Gullet preserved his reasonableness challenge, we find his sentence to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable under either a plain-error or an abuse-of-diseretion standard of review, for the following reasons. Gullett’s 51-month sentence was procedurally reasonable. The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Moreover, despite Gullett’s contentions, the district court adequately explained at sentencing why a sentence within the guidelines range would not satisfy the § 3553(a) factors. Likewise, the district court’s explanation of its reasons for varying upward was sufficiently justified to support the degree of the variance. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (explaining that when a district court varies from the applicable guidelines range, the justification must be “sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance”).

Gullett’s 51-month sentence was also substantively reasonable. The district court did not err when weighing the § 3553(a) factors because it did not give undue weight to any particular factor and focused on the relevant factors in imposing its sentence. The record shows that the district court correctly calculated the guideline range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and heard Gullet’s arguments in mitigation. The district court neither abused its discretion nor committed plain error in concluding that an upward variance sentence was necessary to comply with the purposes of § 3553(a) — Gullett’s *851sentence was appropriate to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, provide adequate deterrence, and protect the public from further crimes. *See*§ 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C).

Gullett has failed to carry his burden of showing that his sentence was unreasonable. *See United States v. Pugh,*515 F.3d 1179, 1189 (11th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper ve rsion filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3
v. NO. 33,546 4 DORA DAVENPORT, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Sergio Viscoli, Appe llate Public Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16
MEMORANDUM OPINION 172 HANISEE, Judge. 1 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to dismiss 2 the charge of commercial burglary. Defendant entered a conditional plea reserving for 3 appeal the issues raised in her motion to di smiss. On the basis of this Court’s opinion 4 in State v. Archuleta , ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (N o. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014), 5 cert. granted , 2015-NMCERT-___ (No. 35,005, Jan. 6 26, 2015), we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to 7 reverse. The State has responded with an obj ection to our notice and a request to hold 8 this appeal in abeyance or provide the State with a reasonable opportunity to seek 9 guidance from the New Mexico Supreme C ourt on all pending appeals controlled by 10 our opinion in Archuleta . [MIO 1-2] We have provided the State with such an 11 opportunity, and the Supreme Court has deniedthe State a stay or other remedy that 12 would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta . Thus, pursuant to Rule 12-405(C) 13 NMRA, we apply Archuleta. See Rule 12-405(C) (“A petition for a writ of certiorari 14 filed pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme Court order granting the petition 15 does not affect the precedential value of anopinion of the Court of Appeals, unless 16 otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.”). 17 {2} In its response to our notice, the State simply objects to our proposed 18 disposition without elaboration. [MIO 1, 3] We continue to belie ve that there are no 193 material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in 1 Archuleta . For the reasons stated in our notice, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for 2 commercial burglary. 3 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

_________________________________ 5 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 6

WE CONCUR: 7

_________________________________ 8 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 9

_________________________________ 10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0528 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT DAN FRENCH,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 21 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 12 2024

09/12/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0528
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 on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 of Dutch Gold Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Keaveney, 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) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Date: November 2, 2011





/s/Tom LeaheyTom Leahey, Chief Financial officer, Director(principal accounting officer)
k_ 

--’ 

1 

/ 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Iloaorahle Wlll~nm a. r)rybirm, kcsident 

Texam Teahnolopleel Collepa 

T ab*ack, Texas 

‘ear Pr. Whpmn: Oplnlon ‘110. O-0762 

H. T,. Kent, has hetm gir 

stated t.hereln that the Army and 

an Enljated Reserve; 

that In virtue t.tl ~mrmltted In eerbin lnatanees to 

until the Armed 

Con time in an? 1 eC;e 

S ter some nf these 

art for lrerrlce and were 

en an honorable discharge 

Rnlf ated Reserve Corps. 

dramn no pav, eta., to be 8Onaidwred 8s ConrinF vmder 

the prorl~ion~ of Chapter 337: or shnuld the inmtttutinrtn refu~o to repdster ~ueh stndmtr uwlents they par 

tbo roprul ar twf~ t.*on chnrgeo?‘* 

Art’ioIe 2t?fMb, hctlons 1 crnd 2, of Vwrnon’e ~Atmotnted 

I:e+lsoO Rtatllten‘ 68~ paartwd ln 1933. mR exempta students enterina: t.hc re~rl~fsus Ftate instl,tutions from the pepmt of *all cluea, 
fmlloiable Wll?~ar %. nnyburtl - papa 2 

fear and chargee rhatooetsr , includfng: taea for correrpondmes 

effwrsemic 

In 1943 t,bo Te~l.sl.ature pamme# Cb*rter 337, to ~hlcb 

you refer, and speolt'leal1;1 extended t,he provisions of t.be Act 

of '1933 "to a?1 nnreea, members or the lomm* II Army Auxllirry 

Corps, Woman’s Auxiljary Yolunker Hmar~enay scwviaet end aIf 

mamltern of the tbited Mater Armed Cereea, regwdleas aC rhtfber 

memberm of t,he United States Amay, or of the Imltad Matee raw, 

or the tfdted statem Coast 9uardr The bare per we mow eewiag or 

mar after the pamage Oi Chir Abt, 0eWe in the Amob feraem of 

the Uelted States of Anterloa during? the preamt World WK? %a. II. 

title 10, Bsotlon 9, U.S.C.A., an mmded in 1941, 

@en the oemposltlm of tha Army of the fMted Staterr in the fallorlng lmlgltqet. 

'The Army of the CInlted Metes aball eon&at et 

the #sgula~ Army, the Xatldnal Ottard or the Cnlted 

statm, the Rstioml Quard while in the aewlee of 

the Vnttdd Status, the Offlaere Remwe Corps, the 

Orpmlaed Rnoarven l d t,be Rblimted Remewe Corps 

urd ubrT1 inelsdte person8 induutet! into thcr land 

ferwm of thw Wited fitrtem under etsationr XX-318 

of rppemllx to title 50." 

seotlmi $61~3lR of apmdln to Tjtle Ix) oontrlna the 

~eltotlre ?rrlnln& and Fenies Aet ot 1940. it In under t~hie Aat 

that, the Covernwmnt astrbllshed nbat you say is reaepnlred es the 

Army and Wavy EnI IsteU Reserrtt. Ata we canstrue t.he federal rtatuter dsfinlag rhe eenrtitote the Armed Toreen, the %ljsted Resew0 1 s 813 lntegrml p8rt thereof g 3blm beltR true, al? thorns 

rhe have beem dlseharged by the Federal Oarernmenf from the Unlilted Renews Corps are atat3 tied to the eXemptlOw prorlded tar 

in told -8pteF 337 paswed In 1043. 

ch, January ;9, 11?465 KC releacled our Opinion No. O-dW7a 

to f3onorrb2e C. P. Slmwnsr Comptrol?er of the L%lverelty of Texas, 

1~ rhlah TO held that &&ints diecbarged from tbe Fontal School 

uere entl tlwd to the benef'l tn of said A6t l A copy OP thrb oplnlon I-, _ _ -
|   | 1. | The      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,      2010, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “Periodic      Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;    and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of      the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the      Company for the period covered by the Periodic  Report. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/    | Peter A. Michel              |   | /s/    | Lincoln Zehr                 |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   |                         |   |   |                         |   |
|   | Peter      A. Michel         |   |   | Lincoln      Zehr            |   |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |

----
EXHIBIT 31.3**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Hwee Ling Ng, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary of Sun New Media, Inc.,certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sun New Media, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e)and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report was being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting./s/Hwee Ling Ng