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



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

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Certification of CFO



The undersigned hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge (i) the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed by KH Funding Company (the Issuer) for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the period presented therein



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                  
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Dated March 30, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    Louise B. Sehman                                          
|                     |  |  |  |                                                                  
|                     |  |  |  | Louise B. Sehman Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         764,891
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,058,912
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,487,375
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       4,748,925
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     13,228,943
<ALLOWANCE>                                    133,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,508,641
<DEPOSITS>                                  19,844,536
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            286,148
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,370,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              26,508,641
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                605,126
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              456,275
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,061,401
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             313,598
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          747,777
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  134,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,058,992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (396,474)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (396,474)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (376,474)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.39
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,781
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      658
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              133,342
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        133,342


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 of Amazon Biotech, Inc., a Utah
corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

      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/ MECHAEL KANOVSKY, PH.D.
-------------------------------------
Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
July 3, 2006
Exhibit 10.56
 BURGER KING HOLDINGS, INC.
2006 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN
 PERFORMANCE AWARD
 Award Agreement Plan
  Individual Performance Award:
    
    The number of shares underlying your
Individual Performance award (the
Individual Award) is available atwww.benefits.ml.com under the Grant
Information section.Performance Period:
    
    July 1, [___]through and ending on June
30, [___](the Performance Period)Date of Grant:
    
    []Vesting Schedule:
    
    3 Year CliffVesting Date:
    
    [3rdanniversary of grant date]
 Exhibit A




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
PERFORMANCE AWARD
 No Payment for Shares .
  Nature of Award .
  Determination of Number of Performance Shares Earned
  [# of Performance Shares = Company Performance Factor x Individual Award]
 [ date that is 90 days following beginning of performance period (or, if earlier, 1/4 of the
way through performance period) ]
 Settlement of Performance Shares .
  Termination .




---



##### 



e.g.
    Cause




---



##### 



provided
  Disability provided
 Without Cause provided
 Taxes .




---



##### 



No Guarantee of Continued Service .
  Termination for Cause; Restrictive Covenants .




---



##### 



Companys Right of Offset .
  Acknowledgment of Nature of Award .




---



##### 



Data Privacy Notice and Consent .
   No Compensation Deferrals .




---



##### 



1 2
 Securities Laws .
  Entire Agreement; Dispute Resolution; Governing Law .
    Electronic Delivery .




---



##### 



Agreement Severable .
  Language .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         333,024<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  211,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,366
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               632,773
<PP&E>                                         187,583<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,148,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          242,070
<BONDS>                                      1,110,569
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          311,746
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (53,682)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,148,906
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               671,485
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               379,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             128,710
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                154,336
<INCOME-TAX>                                   128,288
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,892)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,892)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes $193,163 of restricted cash
<F2>PP&E is stated net of accumulated depreciation
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### LARRY L. DAIGNEAULT *v.*STATE OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL BRANCH, ET AL.

(AC 33170)

Bear, Espinosa and Sullivan, Js.

Argued October 17

officially released November 1, 2011

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
1

The HONORABLE GARY A. FENNER, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the

HONORABLE JAMES C. ENGLAND, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1245

___________

Minor Moody, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Bill Hedrick, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 28, 2002

 Filed: April 4, 2002 

___________

Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minor Moody appeals from the district court’s1

 order dismissing without

prejudice his habeas petition, which he filed during the pendency of an 18 U.S.C.

§ 4246 commitment proceeding (resulting in a commitment order that is the subject

of a separate appeal before us). Because we agree with the district court that Moody
-2-

must direct his arguments concerning an outstanding criminal charge to the court in

which the charge is pending, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,889-01

EX PARTE MICHAEL HAROLD BARNES, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. D-41,236 IN THE 358 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM ECTOR COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion in which JOHNSON, J., joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I respectfully concur in the Court’s order that remands this pro se habeas application

to the convicting court for further development of the record. I, however, do not join the

Court’s order because it fails to accurately track the statutory language in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in that it improperly limits an indigent pro se habeas applicant’s

entitlement to the assistance of appointed post-conviction counsel to situations involving a

hearing on remand. As I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Ex parte Pointer,

in order to comply with the statutory requirements in the Code, this Court’s order should

instead more broadly require a habeas court to appoint counsel for an indigent pro se habeas
Barnes - 2

applicant whenever the court determines that the interests of justice require it. See Ex parte

Pointer, Nos. WR-84,786-01 & WR-84,786-02, 2016 WL 3193254 (Tex. Crim. App. June

8, 2016) (Alcala, J., concurring) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.051(d)(3) (providing

that an indigent habeas applicant “is entitled to have the trial court appoint an attorney to

represent him in . . . a habeas corpus proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of

justice require representation”)). Because the Court’s order fails to track the statutory

language in the Code of Criminal Procedure by incorrectly suggesting that the habeas court’s

authority to appoint post-conviction counsel is limited to situations involving a hearing on

remand, I cannot join the Court’s order. Aside from my disagreement with the language in

this Court’s order, I otherwise respectfully concur.

Filed: June 29, 2016

Do not publish
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro MARTINEZ-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10274.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 15, 2011.

Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michele R. Moretti, Esquire, Law Office of Michele R. Moretti, Lake Butler, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Pedro Martinez-Herrera, Atlanta, GA, pro se.

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 **

Pedro Martinez-Herrera appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Martinez-Herrera’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 28, 2009

0420 

# Order

April 28, 2009

138002

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138002 COA: 286026 Wayne CC: 06-014503-01 LEE HANS PACELY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 24, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Certification



I, Thomas J. Flahie, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of eUniverse Inc.;



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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information 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 for establishing 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 our supervision, 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 the registrant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 in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably 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
registrants board of directors:



a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are 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s internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: October 30, 2003 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas J. Flahie
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------
|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                     
|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                     
|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                     



29
#### Maski, Inc., Doing Business as Katherine’s Restaurant, Respondent, v Walter Kaye, Inc., Corporation of Rhode Island, Defendant, Reliance Insurance Company of New York, Respondent, and P. Richard Gunzel et al., Appellants.

[665 NYS2d 592]

—In an action to recover the proceeds of a fire insurance policy, the defendants P. Richard Gunzel and M & R Marcus Company appeal from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated September 11, 1996, which, *inter alia,*denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant P. Richard Gunzel, a retail insurance broker employed by the defendant M & R Marcus Company (hereinafter M & R), submitted an application for fire insurance on the plaintiff’s behalf to the defendant Reliance Insurance Company of New York (hereinafter Reliance). It is undisputed that the application falsely claimed that one of the plaintiff’s principals had five years of prior restaurant experience. The only issue on this appeal is whether the evidence submitted on the motion and cross motion for summary judgment was sufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the misrepresentation was material *(see,*Insurance Law § 3105 [a]; *Wittner v IDS Ins. Co.,*96 AD2d 1053).

*349The record contains clear and uncontradicted evidence, including the applicable underwriting manual of Reliance and the deposition testimony of three people who were familiar with Reliance’s underwriting criteria, which established that Reliance would not have issued the policy to the plaintiff absent the misrepresentation in the application *(see,*Insurance Law § 3105 [b], [c]). Thus, the order must be affirmed insofar as appealed from. Miller, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
1

The HONORABLE JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, Chief Judge, United States

District Court for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3409

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Jeffrey Welker, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 18, 2010

Filed: June 25, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Welker pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent

to distribute less than 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846, and 18

U.S.C. § 2, and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2. He also pleaded guilty to two forfeiture counts,

agreeing to forfeit cash and guns. In accordance with Welker’s written plea

agreement, which the district court1

 accepted pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the
-2-

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court imposed prison terms of 84 months on

the drug conspiracy count and 60 months on the gun count, to run consecutively, and

3- and 5-year concurrent terms of supervised release. On appeal, Welker’s counsel

seeks leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), in which he raises as an issue the reasonableness of the court’s sentence.

Welker has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

The written plea agreement in this case contains an appeal waiver, which we

will enforce. Welker argues in his pro se brief that we should not enforce the waiver,

because the district court’s plea colloquy was not comprehensive enough to ensure

that he understood the appeal waiver and entered into it voluntarily. After careful

review of the plea transcript in this case, we are satisfied that Welker entered into both

the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, as demonstrated

by his sworn responses to the district court’s questions during the change-of-plea

hearing. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). Further, the waiver covers

the arguments raised in this appeal, and given that Welker received the very sentence

that he agreed to in his plea agreement, we see no miscarriage of justice in dismissing

the appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en

banc). 

Finally, having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal that are not covered by the appeal

waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________
<PAGE>

 CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERS
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


                                   Exhibit 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Reality Wireless  Networks,  Inc., a
Nevada  corporation (the "Company"),  on Form 10-QSB for the year ended December
31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the "Report"),
Steve Careaga,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company and Principal  Financial
Officer  of the  Company,  does  hereby  certify,  pursuant  to  ss.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/
--------------------------------------------------
By: Steve Careaga
Its:  Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial
Officer/Acting Chief Financial Officer, Director
February 20, 2004

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Reality Wireless Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Reality
Wireless Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.]