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 LaBranche & Co Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey A. McCutcheon hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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



|                      |  |        |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 11, 2008 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Jeffrey A. McCutcheon                        
|                      |  | Name:  |  | Jeffrey A. McCutcheon                            
|                      |  | Title: |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LaBranche & Co Inc. and will be
retained by LaBranche & Co Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         254,122
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                       565
<INVENTORY>                                     13,268
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               318,178
<PP&E>                                         123,012
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,705
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 534,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,338
<BONDS>                                        924,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (461,639)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   534,626
<SALES>                                         69,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,617
<CGS>                                           30,056
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   634
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,676
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (37,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        87
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (37,365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 413,856
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,853)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   373,638
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
* 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

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40568

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE VICTOR RUFINO-CERVANTES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-2308

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Victor

Rufino-Cervantes raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00190-CR

IN RE CHARLES ROBERT BLAKE

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This original proceeding, in which the pro se relator seeks habeas corpus relief in 

the form of pretrial bail reduction, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because this court 

lacks original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters.1 Ex parte Hearon, 3 

S.W.3d 650, 650 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding); see TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 

22.221(d) (West 2004) (providing appellate-court jurisdiction to issue habeas corpus writ 

only in an underlying civil case).

 

1 The petition for writ of habeas corpus lacks proof of service. A copy of all documents presented to the 

Court must be served on all parties (e.g., the trial court and the district attorney) and must contain proof of 

service. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 52.2. The petition also lacks most of the required contents. Id. 52.3, 52.7. To 

expedite this matter, we implement Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend these requirements. Id. 2.
In re Charles Robert Blake Page 2

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 27, 2013

Do not publish

[CR25]
Exhibit 10.26


    EXHIBIT
      10.26

    


    EMPLOYMENT
      AGREEMENT EXTENSION

    


    THIS
      AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION (the “Agreement”) is made and
      entered into effective as of April 13, 2007 between FindEx.com, Inc., a Nevada
      corporation (the “Corporation”), and Kirk R. Rowland (“Officer”) as a term
      extension to the previous Employment Agreement originally entered into on July
      25, 2003.

    


    R E C I T A L S

    


    THE
      PARTIES AGREE to modify Section 3.2 of the Employment Agreement as follows:
      

    


    The
      term
“Corporation’s Net Income” shall be replaced with “Income (Loss) from Operations
      adjusted for Other Income and Interest Expense, as determined by the
      Corporation’s annual audit”.

    


    WITNESS
      WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the day and
      year first above written.

    


    


    OFFICER:

    


     

    /s/
      Kirk R. Rowland

    Kirk
      Rowland 

    


    


    COMPANY:

    


    


    /s/
      Steven Malone

    Steven
      Malone

    FindEx.com,
      Inc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Jason MOREFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30862.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 24, 2008.

Sonia Peters Cassidy, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gordon Neal Blackman, Jr., Blackman Law Firm, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jeremy Jason Morefield pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 3 of an indictment charg*372ing him with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and has appealed his sentence. Morefield contends that his two prior Texas convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver should not have been regarded as “controlled substance offense[s]” for purposes of applying the career-offender Guideline. *See*U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a) & (b). He contends that the Guideline defining the term “controlled substance offense,” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), does not use the term “deliver” in describing this category of offenses. We recently rejected this argument in *United States v. Ford,*509 F.3d 714, 714-17 (5th Cir.2007).

Morefield argues that “[tjhere is insufficient detail in the Presentence Report to make a factual determination that ... [Morefield] pled to conduct that falls within the definition of a controlled substance offense” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. Because this contention has been raised for the first time on appeal, our review is for plain error. *See United States v. Ochoa-Cruz,*442 F.3d 865, 866-67 (5th Cir.2006). Morefield does not dispute that his prior convictions were for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, an offense that we determined in *Ford*was equivalent to the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. *See Ford,*509 F.3d at 717. For that reason, he has not shown that his substantial rights were affected. *See Ochoa-Cruz,*442 F.3d at 867. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *372published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### William GOLFIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY FOR the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-11049

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 25, 2008.

William Golfín, Chipley, FL, pro se.

Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant William Golfín, a Florida state prisoner proceeding *pro se,*appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as barred by the one-year statute of limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). We granted Golfín a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on one issue only:

> Whether the district court erred by dismissing appellant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred where appellant filed a petition for discretionary review with the Florida Supreme Court but the district court found that 28 U.S.C. [§ 2244(d)’s] limitation period began to run 90 days after the District Court of Appeal affirmed appellant’s conviction and sentence.

Golfín argues only that he is entitled to equitable tolling for the time he filed for discretionary review with the Florida Supreme Court. The State responds that we should affirm the district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition because Golfín did not address the issue raised in COA and therefore abandoned the issue.

Under our well-established procedural rules, we consider issues not clearly raised on appeal abandoned. *Jones v. Campbell,*436 F.3d 1285, 1303 (11th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 619, 166 L.Ed.2d 428 (2006). Under the AEDPA, “appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA.” *Murray v. United States,*145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 1998), *see also*28 U.S.C. § 2253. We liberally construe the pleadings of a *pro se*petitioner. *Gomez-Diaz v. United States,*433 F.3d 788, 791 (11th Cir.2005). Nevertheless, we will not act as *de facto*counsel for a *pro se*litigant. *GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla.,*132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.1998).

Golfín did not address the issue raised by the COA; rather he argued that he was entitled to equitable tolling. Thus, he abandoned the issue on which we granted a COA. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.

AFFIRMED.
#### In re: James Allen IRBY, III, Petitioner.

No. 11-1128.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

James Allen Irby, III, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Allen Irby, III, petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court, on February 18, 2011, denied Irby’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Irby’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit 31.2
 
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 UNDER
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
 
 I, Michael J. Lewis, Chief Financial Officer of Collectors Universe, Inc. certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Collectors Universe, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004;
 
 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
 Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15( e) of the Exchange Act) for the registrant and we 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 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably
 likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
  (b)           A ny 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: May 17, 2004

/s/ MICHAEL J. LEWISMichael J. LewisChief Financial Officer
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas R. Brown, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Laburnum Ventures Inc. (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, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the
      year ended October 31, 2007, and to which this certification is attached
      as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                               



| | By:    | /s/
      Thomas R. Brown                              
| | ------ | -------------------------------------------------------
| |        |                                                        
| | Name:  | THOMAS R. BROWN                                        
| |        |                                                        
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
      Officer,
| |        | President, Secretary and
      Treasurer               
| |        |                                                        
| | Date:  | February 13, 2008                                      
| |        |                                                        

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gorden Steve MAHOOD, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gorden Steve Mahood, Defendant-Appellant. *724United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gorden Steve Mahood, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 06-30227, 06-30228, 06-30230.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 8, 2008.

Timothy J. Racicot, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Gorden Steven Mahood, Federal Correctional Institution, Sheridan, OR, David E. Stenerson, Hamilton, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated cases, Gordon Steve Mahood appeals from his 111-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(a), (e); aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A; and attempted escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ma-hood’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 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 *Pennon 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-168006) ofCurrencyShares® Swiss Franc Trust of our reports dated January 14, 2011, with respect to the financialstatements of CurrencyShares® Swiss Franc Trust, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of CurrencyShares® Swiss Franc Trust, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year endedOctober 31, 2010. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

McLean, Virginia 

March 10, 2011
## On this page

        - About 
        - Meeting Schedule 
        - Related Information 

## About

----

Chairman Daniel B. Maffei directed Commissioner Carl W. Bentzel to lead this data initiative. Commissioner Bentzel will hold meetings with maritime and intermodal stakeholders as outlined below. Meetings began in December 2021 and will culminate in June 2022 with a Data Summit.

Commissioner Bentzel will focus the data initiative on three key objectives:
          - Cataloging the status quo in maritime data elements, metrics, transmission and access;
          - Identifying key gaps in data definitions/classification; and
          - Developing recommendations for common data standards and access policies/protocols.

Meetings can be viewed by the public through the links below. Public feedback and comment on data gaps and needs is encouraged.

Public input can be submitted to maritimedata@fmc.gov.
          - Please reference whether it is a comment generally or is regarding a specific meeting listed below.
          - If submitting attachments to an email, please only send them as Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF documents.
          - Only non-confidential and public versions of confidential comments should be submitted by email.
          - To the extent allowed by law, comments received will be posted on this page.

          - Maritime Transportation Data Initiative (MTDI) Recommendations and Views Report  [PDF, 1002 KB]

## Meeting Schedule

----

(Meetings are scheduled for every Tuesday 3pm to 4pm)

          - View meeting schedule here

## Related Information

----

            - Federal Maritime Commissioner Carl W. Bentzel to Convene Kickoff Maritime Information Transparency Meeting  – 11/24/2021
            - Carr and Ramezani, The Impact of New Digital Technologies on U.S. Containerized Agricultural Exports – Focusing on the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland  – 4/18/2022
            - Coalition for Reimagined Mobility, Solving the Global Supply Chain Crisis with Data Sharing  [PDF, 6.6 KB] – June 2022