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





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


AS
ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Scott
Gomez, Chief Accounting Officer of Hollywood Media Corp. (the “Company”),
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (1) the
accompanying Form 10-K report for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:   March
      19, 2010
                By:
                /s/ Scott GomezScott Gomez, Chief Accounting Officer
#### SYNQOR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Astec America, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, and Bel Fuse, Inc., Cherokee International Corp., Delta Electronics, Inc., Delta Products Corp., Lineage Power Corp., Murata Electronics North America, Inc., Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Murata Power Solutions, Inc., and Power-One, Inc., Defendants.

No. 2011-1191.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 31, 2011.

Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Washington, DC, Robert J. McAughan Jr., Jeffrey A. Andrews, Locke, Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP, Houston, TX, Erik R. Puknys, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Palo Alto, CA, Steven N. Williams, Kennedy, Clark & Williams, P.C., Dallas, TX, Avin Sharma, Yasquez Benisek & Lindgren, LLP, Lafayette, CA, Alan D. Smith, Fish *&*Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Thomas D. Rein, Robert N. Hochman, Sidley Austin *360LLP, Chicago, IL, Michael D. Hatcher, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before LINN, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Astee America, Inc. submits a motion for a stay, pending appeal, of the injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

SynQor, Inc. is directed to respond no later than February 4, 2011. The injunction is temporarily stayed to the extent that it applies to products listed on page 2 of Astec’s motion that it asserts are sold by Astee to Cisco Systems, Inc. and Juniper Networks, Inc., pending this court’s consideration of the papers submitted.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-55527]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52


Toll Free Service Access Codes

CFR Correction

    In Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 40 to 69, 
revised as of October 1, 2000, part 52 is corrected by adding 
Sec. 52.111, to read as follows:


Sec. 52.111  Toll free number assignment.

    Toll free numbers shall be made available on a first-come, first-
served basis unless otherwise directed by the Commission.

[FR Doc. 01-55527 Filed 9-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 131146 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131146 COA: 265467 Wayne CC: 97-000792-01 LENWARD HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 21, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1023 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.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2861 

To prosecute, as a Federal crime, the assault or intimidation of a passenger 

train crew member to the same extent as such actions against aircraft 

crew members are prosecuted. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2018 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prosecute, as a Federal crime, the assault or intimidation 

of a passenger train crew member to the same extent 

as such actions against aircraft crew members are prosecuted. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Passenger Rail Crew 

5 Protection Parity Act’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2861 IS

1 SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH PASSENGER TRAIN CREW 

2 MEMBERS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 281 of title 49, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘§ 28104. Interference with passenger train crew 

7 members 

8 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—It shall be unlawful for any person, 

9 while on a passenger train— 

10 ‘‘(1) to assault or intimidate a crew member, 

11 and thereby interfere with the performance of the 

12 duties of a crew member or lessen the ability of a 

13 crew member to perform those duties; or 

14 ‘‘(2) to attempt or conspire to perform an act 

15 described in paragraph (1). 

16 ‘‘(b) PENALTIES.—A person who violates subsection 

17 (a)— 

18 ‘‘(1) shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned 

19 for not more than 20 years, or both; and 

20 ‘‘(2) if a dangerous weapon is used in assault21 ing or intimidating the crew member, shall be im22 prisoned for any term of years or for life. 

23 ‘‘(c) TRAINING.—Each passenger rail carrier is en24 couraged to review training programs of the rail carrier 

25 and provide, as necessary, additional training in areas 

26 such as de-escalating hostile situations, written protocols 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2861 IS

1 on dealing with hostile situations, and reporting of inci2 dents. 

3 ‘‘(d) DEFINITION OF CREW MEMBER.—In this sec4 tion, the term ‘crew member’ includes engineers, conduc5 tors, on-board service personnel, and similar employees as6 signed to duty on an in-service passenger train.’’. 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The analysis for chap8 ter 281 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 

9 adding at the end the following: 

‘‘28104. Interference with passenger train crew members.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
      32.01





Certification





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350,


Chapter
      63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officer of Interactive Systems Worldwide Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
      “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Form 10-QSB”) of
      the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form
      10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      August 16, 2007


By:
            /s/
                Bernard AlbaneseBernard
                Albanese
              Chairman
                  of the Board and
                Chief
                  Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial
                  Officer




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
      63
      of Title 18, United States Code).
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

 

I,Tom W. Olofson, Chief Executive Officer of Epiq Systems, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify pursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, UnitedStates Code, and Section 906 of the Sarbanes — Oxley Act of 2002, that, tothe best of my knowledge, (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company to which this Exhibit is attached (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Tom W. Olofson                         |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Tom  W. Olofson                             |   |
|                                        |   |
| Dated:   July 28,  2010 |   |

 

 

I,Elizabeth M. Braham, Chief Financial Officer of Epiq Systems, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify pursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, UnitedStates Code, and Section 906 of the Sarbanes — Oxley Act of 2002, that, tothe best of my knowledge, (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company to which this Exhibit is attached (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.

 

 
| /s/  Elizabeth M. Braham                    |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Elizabeth  M. Braham                        |   |
|                                        |   |
| Dated:   July 28,  2010 |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10QSB
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 27, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                       7,956,172
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,318,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                   335,903
<INVENTORY>                                  2,393,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,234,466
<PP&E>                                         927,749
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,896,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,022,930
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    31,526,508
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,674,613)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,896,075
<SALES>                                     23,681,366
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,681,366
<CGS>                                       12,991,830
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,991,830
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,515,834
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             123,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,196,682
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,114,954
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,081,728
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (140,763)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,940,965
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Dennis R. Secor, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Guess?, Inc. (the "Company"), do 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 my knowledge:



|Date: April 1, 2008 |  | By: | /s/DENNIS R. SECORDennis R. Secor Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Guess?, Inc. and will be retained by Guess?, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,383-02

EX PARTE JUAN ORTIZ JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 18-08-137-CRW-A IN THE 81ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM WILSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to thirty-five years’

imprisonment. He filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and

the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant requests a late appeal. Based on the record and trial counsel’s response, the trial

court has found that Applicant was denied an appeal through no fault of his own.

Relief is granted. Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Jones v. State,

98 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Applicant may file an out-of-time appeal of his conviction

in cause number 18-08-137-CRW from the 81st District Court of Wilson County. Within ten days
2

from the date of this Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel

to represent him on direct appeal. Should Applicant decide to appeal, he must file a written notice

of appeal in the trial court within thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to theTexasDepartment ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. 

Delivered: March 9, 2022

Do not publish
2009-1678.

#### State v. McFarland.

Jefferson App. No. 08 JE 25, 2009-Ohio-4391.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4569

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLIFFORD EDWARD SHIRLEY, JR., a/k/a Skip,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00095-BHH-7)

Submitted: May 2, 2017 Decided: May 26, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Anderson, ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Edward Shirley, Jr., pleaded guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, to conspiracy with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of 

cocaine base and 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). The parties agreed to a 120-month term of imprisonment, and the 

district court sentenced Shirley accordingly. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the record contained 

sufficient evidence to substantiate the drug weights alleged in the indictment. Shirley has 

filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the same challenge.

“A defendant who pleads guilty . . . admits all of the factual allegations made in 

the indictment, and waives all non-jurisdictional defects, including the right to contest the 

factual merits of the charges.” United States v. Gosselin World Wide Moving, N.V., 411 

F.3d 502, 515 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Accordingly, by pleading guilty, Shirley waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of 

the drug weight evidence. See United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 491 (4th Cir. 1993).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and 

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Shirley’s conviction, 

and dismiss the appeal from Shirley’s sentence for lack of jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3742(a), (c)(1) (2012); United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 623, 625 (4th Cir. 

2016). This court requires that counsel inform Shirley, in writing, of the right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Shirley requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 
3

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Shirley.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of ATEL 12, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dean L. Cash,
President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Associates 12, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 25, 2009                               
|                                                   
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                   
|Dean L. Cash                                       
|Chairman of the Board, President and               
|Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Associates 12, LLC,
|(Managing Member)                                  

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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

SHAWN CHEEVER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 16-1303 

(D.C. No. 1:15-CR-00031-JLK-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Shawn Cheever pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The presentence report recommended that 

he be subject to the enhanced sentencing provision of § 2252A(b)(2) because he had 

previously been convicted of an offense “relating to . . . possession . . . of child 

pornography.” Id. Cheever had a prior Colorado state conviction for sexual 

exploitation of a child in violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-403(b.5). He objected 

to the enhancement, but the district court overruled his objection. Cheever was 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

December 20, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, the statutory minimum under § 2252A(b)(2). 

He timely appealed. 

On appeal, Cheever concedes that his sole argument—that a Colorado 

conviction for sexual exploitation of a child does not qualify as an offense relating to 

possession of child pornography under § 2252A(b)(2)—is foreclosed by circuit 

precedent. In United States v. Bennett, 823 F.3d 1316 (10th Cir. 2016), we held that 

the defendant’s “prior Colorado misdemeanor conviction for sexual exploitation of a 

child ‘relates to’ child pornography, and he is therefore eligible for the mandatory 

minimum.” Id. at 1318. But see id. at 1327 (Hartz, J., concurring in part and 

dissenting in part) (stating that because “the definition of child pornography in the 

Colorado statute is broader than the definition of the term in the federal enhancement 

statute . . . I would hold that the Colorado statute” does not qualify). “We are bound 

by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding 

contrary decision by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Killion, 7 F.3d 927, 930 

(10th Cir. 1993) (italics omitted). 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM. 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge
**EXHIBIT 23(ii)****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors  Pfizer Inc.:

We consent to the use of our reports dated  February 27, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of Pfizer Inc. and  Subsidiary Companies and the effectiveness of internal control over financial  reporting incorporated herein by reference. 

/s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York   October 9, 2009