alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
      32**




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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002**




The
      undersigned executive officers of Liberty Bancorp, Inc. (the “Registrant”)
      hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September
      30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained
      in
      this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Registrant.


By:
              /s/
                  Brent M. GilesBrent
                  M. GilesChief
                  Executive OfficerBy:
              /s/
                  Marc J. WeishaarMarc
                  J. WeishaarChief
                  Financial Officer




Date:
      December 28, 2007
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

March 31, 2003

Via EDGAR
Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:      Consolidated Water Co. Ltd.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Frederick W. McTaggart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

This certification is being furnished to the SEC solely pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or
as a separate disclosure document.

                                             Very truly yours,



                                             /s/ FREDERICK W. MCTAGGART
                                             --------------------------
                                             Frederick W. McTaggart
                                             Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 on Form 10-Q of Agile Software Corporation (the Company)
for the quarter ended January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jay B. Fulcher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.



|                     |  |  |  |                                       
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: March 19, 2007 |  |  |  | /S/    JAY B. FULCHER                 
|                     |  |  |  | Jay B. Fulcher Chief Executive
Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo Ramon RAMOS-LUJAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-51221

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 2008.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Eduardo Ramon Ramos-Lujan raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Bray 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

OSBURNE WYNN, JR., s/k/a 

 OSBORNE WYNN, JR. 

v. Record No. 0914-94-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JULY 25, 1995 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 

Russell I. Townsend, Jr., Judge 

 James B. Melton for appellant. 

 Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Osburne Wynn, Jr. (defendant) was convicted by jury of 

distribution of an imitation controlled substance in violation of 

Code § 18.2-248. Defendant complains on appeal that the 

Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to prove that the 

offending substance was "subject to abuse," "sold for 

substantially more than its reasonable over-the-counter price," 

and "imitate[d] a controlled substance." However, these issues 

were not properly presented to the trial court and will not be 

considered on appeal. We, therefore, affirm the conviction. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in this 

case, and we recite only those facts necessary to explain our 

holding. 

 It is well established that, "[o]n appeal, a ruling of a 

trial court cannot be a basis for reversal unless an objection is 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

stated 'together with the grounds therefor at the time of the 

ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of 

Appeals to attain the ends of justice.'" Campbell v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 480, 405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991) (en 

banc) (quoting Rule 5A:18). Arguments not presented to the trial 

court will not be entertained on appeal. Jacques v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991). 

"'A mere statement that the judgment . . . is contrary to the law 

and the evidence is not sufficient to constitute a question to be 

ruled upon on appeal.'" Hogan v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 36, 

45, 360 S.E.2d 371, 376 (1987) (citation omitted). 

 At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case, defendant 

moved the court to strike its evidence, arguing only that 

defendant had not been sufficiently identified as the offender. 

After the jury returned its verdict, defendant moved "to dismiss" 

because the "finding" was "contrary to the evidence" and the 

sentence excessive. Neither motion embraced those issues raised 

by defendant on appeal.1

 Therefore, finding no justification for 

the "ends of justice" exception to Rule 5A:18, we are precluded 

from now considering defendant's arguments. See Mounce v. 

Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 435-36, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987). 

 Affirmed. 

 

 1Although the record reflects mention by the Commonwealth to 

the trial court of former Code § 18.2-247(B) and related remarks 

by defendant's counsel, that statute was inapplicable to these 

proceedings, and the exchange occurred after sentencing, during 

the trial court's consideration of an appeal bond.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April

26 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00638

- CV

IN RE FREDERICK GENE TAYLOR , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 328th District Court Fort Bend County, T exas Trial Court Cause No. 20

- DCV

- 273004



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 8, 2021 , relator Frederick Gene Taylor filed a petition for writ
of m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator a sks this Court to compel the Honorable Walter G. Armatys, presiding judge of the 328th District Court of Fort Bend County
, to vacate the trial court ’ s November 4, 2021 order on m otion to s trike and l imit

t estimony and e vidence

.2

Relator has not establish e d that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus . We further order the stay issued by this Court on November 8, 202 1 , lifted

.

PER CURIAM

P anel c onsists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.
Certification
Pursuant To


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


As
Adopted Pursuant To


Section
906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of MagneGas Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the twelve months ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Luisa Ingargiola, Chief
Financial Officer, 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) 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 of the Company as of the dates presented and the results
of operations of the Company.








/s/Luisa
Ingargiola


Luisa
Ingargiola


Chief
Financial Officer







Dated:
March 31, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Gary Schultheis, President and Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Evolve One, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Evolve One, Inc.

September 20, 2004
                                    By:    /s/ Gary Schultheis
                                    Name:  Gary Schultheis
                                    Title: President and Principal Financial
                                           and Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Oliver Creek Resources Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the year ending January 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce
Thomson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
30th day of April, 2007.


/s/ Bruce Thomson
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
#### Michael JEFFERY, Appellant, v. Warden, John F. AULT, Appellee.

No. 06-3327.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 7, 2007.

Filed: May 5, 2008.

Paul Herschel Rosenberg, Paul Rosenberg & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, IA, for Appellant.

Robert P. Ewald, Attorney General’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellee.

*529Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Michael Kelly Jeffery was sentenced to life in prison after an Iowa jury convicted him of kidnapping and robbery in violation of Iowa Code Ann. §§ 710.1(3), 710.2, 711.1(1), 711.2 (West 2003). He appeals the district court’s 1 judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The issue is whether the Iowa Court of Appeals rendered a decision that was not contrary to, or involved no unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (concerning habeas claims adjudicated in state court); Iowa Code Ann. § 702.18 (West 2003) (defining serious injury); *Jeffery v. Iowa,*No. 04-0351, 2005 WL 67591, at *1-2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2005) (affirming denial of petition for postconviction relief); *Morales v. Ault,*476 F.3d 545, 549-50 & n. 3 (8th Cir.) (when state prisoner files federal habeas petition, court of appeals, like district court, undertakes limited and deferential review of state court decisions adjudicating his claims; to establish ineffective assistance, movant must demonstrate that his attorney’s performance was deficient and that he suffered prejudice as result), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 177, 169 L.Ed.2d 120 (2007); *Rodriguez v. United States,*17 F.3d 225, 226 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless challenge).

Because Jeffery has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we decline to expand the certificate of appeal-ability granted by the district court to include Jeffery’s pro se arguments.

We affirm the judgment of the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and Jeffery’s motion to appoint new counsel is denied.

1

. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
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 Greystone Logistics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William W. Rahhal, 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) 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.
 
 
 April 19, 2011
/s/ William W. Rahhal
 William W. Rahhal

Chief Financial Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  11,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 424,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  11,459
<BONDS>                                              0                 413,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 424,459
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                  11,459
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                  11,459
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0                       0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1653
MICHAEL HANNON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMERICAN SERVICE CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-962-JCC) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Hannon, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Lewis Duston, Edward Ross Levin, Linda Grace Hill, SCHMELTZER, APTAKER & SHEPARD, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Hannon appeals the district court’s order granting American Service Center Associates, LLC’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Hannon’s employment discrimination and retaliation action, and its order denying Hannon’s motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the reasoning of the district court, and the denial of the motion for reconsideration on our finding of no abuse of discretion. Temkin v. Frederick County Comm’rs , 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991). See Hannon v. American Serv. Ctr. Assoc., LLC , No. CA-962-JCC (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2004; May 11, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0318. SHARON HEARD v. BRENDETTE L. WILLIAMS.

A19D0320. BRENDETTE L. WILLIAMS v. SHARON HEARD et al.

A19D0323. BAKER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD A/K/A BAKER COUNTY

SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BRENDETTE L. WILLIAMS.

Sharon Heard, Brendette L. Williams, and the Baker County School Board

have all filed applications for discretionary review from the trial court’s order

awarding attorney feesin favor of Williams. The underlying action involved Heard’s

petition to contest the May 2016 Democratic primary election for a seat on the Baker

CountyBoard of Education. The Supreme Court previously decided an interlocutory

appeal in this case in Williams v. Heard, 302 Ga. 114 (805 SE2d 1) (2017). 

The Supreme Court “has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over ‘[a]ll cases of

election contest.’” Cook v. Bd. of Registrars, 291 Ga. 67, 68 (2) (a) (1) (727 SE2d

478) (2012) (quoting Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II (2)). Because the

underlying subject matter of this action is an “election contest,” it appears that

jurisdiction over these applications lies in the Supreme Court. See Davis v. Dunn,

286 Ga. 582, 582 (690 SE2d 389) (2010) (exercising its jurisdiction over an attorney

fee award in an election contest case). As the Supreme Court has the ultimate

responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis

February 20, 2019
& Med. Clinic, Inc., 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), these applications are

hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/20/2019
Amendment No. 2 to QVM $20 million Note to Comerica Bank



 Exhibit 10.19 
 Amendment No. 2 to Note 
 This Amendment to Note (“Amendment”), made, delivered, and effective as of
December 20, 2006, by and between QUANTUM VALUE MANAGEMENT, LLC (“Borrower”) and COMERICA BANK (“Bank”). 
 WHEREAS, Borrower
and Bank are parties to that certain Variable Rate – Single Payment Note in the original principal amount of $20,000,000 dated March 10, 2005, as amended (“ Note”); and 
 WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower desire to amend the Note as set forth below: 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises contained in this Amendment, Borrower and Bank agree as follows: 
  

	1.	The Maturity Date of the Note is now April 1, 2008. 

  

	2.	The execution of this Amendment shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any Default or Event of Default. 

  

	3.	All the terms used in this Amendment which are defined in the Note shall have the same meaning as used in the Note, unless otherwise defined in this Amendment.


  

	4.	This Amendment is not an agreement to any further or other amendment of the Note. 

  

	5.	Borrower expressly acknowledges and agrees that except as expressly amended in this Amendment, the Note, as amended, remains in full force and effect and is ratified, confirmed and
restated. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Amendment on the date set forth above. 
  

									
	QUANTUM VALUE MANAGEMENT, LLC	 		 	COMERICA BANK
					
	By:	 	 /s/
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/

	Its:	 	 MANAGING MEMBER
	 		 	Its:	 	 F.V.P.