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

Certification of the 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 of Inergy Holdings, L.P. (the Company) on this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Brooks Sherman, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Inergy Holdings, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ R. Brooks Sherman, Jr.R. Brooks Sherman, Jr. Chief Financial OfficerMay 19, 2006


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 the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



47
### §10261. Definitions

As used in this subchapter:

(1) The term "Chairman" means the Chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.

(2) The term "Board" means the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board established under section 10262 of this title.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title V, §501, as added Pub. L. 100–202, §101(d) [title III], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–104, 1329–121; Pub. L. 100–203, title V, §5051, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–248.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 100–202 and Pub. L. 100–203 added identical sections.
#### § 1510.3 Requirements.

No portion of a rattle, when tested in accordance with the procedure of § 1510.4 below, shall be capable of entering and penetrating to the full depth of a cavity in a test fixture with dimensions shown in figure 1. (In determining these dimensions for compliance purposes, the English measurements shall be used. Metric equivalents are included for convenience.) Rattles shall meet this requirement both before and after performing the use and abuse tests of § 1500.51 of this chapter (excluding the bite and flexure tests of paragraphs (c) and (d)).
I am asking for a exemption under 14 CFR part 120 to combine my part 135 with my

91.147 operation. I am the owner of both and think that in the public interest this would be a better use of material available. The combination would alow our operation to use the same drug program with the same personel.The name of the companies are: Under 91.147 John Tomaino DBA American Helicopters and under Part135 Western States Aircraft LLC with me(John Tomaino) as the DER.
#### Michael Stevens, Respondent, v. Joseph C. Bancroft, Appellant.

The proposed witnesses are law enforcement officials, and it appears that not only their convenience will be served but that the ends of justice will be promoted by designating as the place of trial the county where the cause of action arose. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur; Wenzel, J., dissents and votes to affirm. [See *post,*p. 962.]
Second Amendment to
Employment Agreement 




        This
Second Amendment to Employment Agreement is made effective on the 31st day of July, 2007,
between Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation (“Company”), and Donald Birak (“Employee”). 





        Whereas,
the parties executed an Employment Agreement dated July 1, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”),
and 





        Whereas,
the Employment Agreement initial term was defined as July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2007
and was further amended to extend the term through June, 2008, and 





        Whereas,
the parties desire to further extend the term of the Employment Agreement as contemplated
by the Employment Agreement and as set forth below; 





NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of
the mutual promises and covenants herein contained to be kept and performed by the
parties hereto, the parties agree as follows: 



1.    Term of Employment. The
Employment Agreement shall be amended in Section 2 to read that the term of employment
shall be extended to the 30th day of June, 2009, unless sooner terminated as provided in
the Employment Agreement. It is further agreed that the Employment Agreement may be
further considered for an additional one year extension during the month of June, 2008,
to the end that the parties may be once again bound to a two year duration of the
Agreement. It is understood, however, that termination can occur in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 7 of the Employment Agreement, notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in this Second Amendment to Employment Agreement.  




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this Second Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the day and year first
written above. 



Coeur d’ Alene Mines Corporation 



By: /s/ Dennis E. Wheeler

Dennis Wheeler, President and CEO 



/S/ Donald Birak 
Employee
### SUBCHAPTER VI—TREATMENT FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS WHO ARE VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Melvin L. Flanigan hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: November 9, 2007 |  |     |                                                                
|---------------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | By: | /s/MELVIN L. FLANIGANMelvin L. Flanigan Chief Financial Officer

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

---



QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Samuel Opler, Respondent, and Miltenberg & Samton Inc., Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2


Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer


of CNA Financial Corporation


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350


(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of CNA Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:


|  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|• | the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedJune 30, 2012filed on the date hereof with the 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; and

|  |                                                                                                                                                     
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|• | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:July 31, 2012By/s/ D. Craig MenseD. Craig MenseChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamont Walker, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 921]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Sheila A. DiTullio, J.— Attempted Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree). Present — Pigott, Jr., EJ., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
### §17102. Prohibition on acquisition or purchase of motor vehicles by Federal Government

The Federal Government shall not purchase a motor vehicle for use by the Government unless that motor vehicle is equipped with reasonable passenger safety devices that the Administrator of General Services requires. Those devices shall conform with standards the Administrator prescribes under section 17103 of this title.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1279.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 17102 | 40:701. | Pub. L. 88–515, §1, Aug. 30, 1964, 78 Stat. 696. |

Section

The words "manufactured on or after the effective date of this section" are omitted as executed.
exv10w2



 





Exhibit 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR DEFERRED STOCK UNIT PROGRAM




August 6, 2007



WHEREAS, on May 18, 2006, Endocare, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted the Non-Employee Director Deferred
Stock Unit Program (the “Program”); and



WHEREAS, Section 7.1 of the Program provides that the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board
of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) shall have the authority, in its sole discretion, to
amend the Program at any time and for any reason it deems appropriate; and



WHEREAS, on August 6, 2007, the Compensation Committee duly approved the amendment set forth below;



NOW, THEREFORE, the Program is hereby amended as follows, effective August 6, 2007:



1. A new Section 3.5 is hereby added to the Program as follows:





     3.5 Maximum Number of Shares. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock
issuable under this Program shall be 1,200,000 shares (adjusted to 400,000 shares upon
effectuation of the planned one-for-three reverse stock split expected to occur on August
20, 2007). Such number automatically shall be adjusted proportionately in the event of any
subsequent change in the outstanding shares of the Company’s Common Stock by reason of a
recapitalization, reclassification, reorganization, stock split, reverse stock split,
combination of shares, stock dividend or similar transaction. Shares of Common Stock
issued under the Program may be authorized but unissued shares of
Common Stock, issued shares held in or acquired for the Company’s treasury or shares reacquired by the Company
upon purchase in the open market.


2. A new Section 7.3 is hereby added to the Program as follows:





     7.3 Term of Program. No additional Deferred Stock Units may be awarded under
this Program after May 18, 2016. However, issuances of Common Stock may be made after May
18, 2016 pursuant to Article 4 of the Program with respect to Deferred Stock Units awarded
on or before such date.



[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]




-1-









 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned duly-authorized Secretary of the Company hereby executes this
First Amendment to Non-Employee Deferred Stock Unit Program.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	                                                          /s/ Clint B. Davis
 	 
	 	Clint B. Davis 	 
	 	Secretary 	 
	 




-2-
1

Workshop on Probabilistic Flood Hazard 

Assessment

Panel 3: Extreme Precipitation Events

Co-Chairs:

John England, Reclamation and Chandra Pathak, USACE

January 29, 2012

Rockville, MD
Panel 3 Presentations

• An Observation-Driven Approach to Rainfall and Flood Frequency 

Analysis Using High-Resolution Radar Rainfall Fields and 

Stochastic Storm Transposition ............Daniel Wright, Princeton

• Regional Precipitation Frequency Analysis and Extremes including 

PMP – Practical Considerations .........Mel Schaefer, MGS Engr.

• High-Resolution Numerical Modeling As A Tool to Assess Extreme 

Precipitation Events.........................Jason Caldwell for Kelly 

Mahoney, NOAA-ESRL

• Precipitation Frequency Estimates for the Nation and Extremes – A 

Perspective...................................Geoff Bonnin, NWS-OHD

• Extreme Precipitation Frequency for Dam Safety and Nuclear 

Facilities – A Perspective.................Victoria Sankovich, BoR
Panel 3 Panelists and 

Rapporteurs

• Panelists:

– Daniel Wright, Princeton University

– Mel Schaefer, MGS Engineering Consultants

– Jason Caldwell, BoR

– Kelly Mahoney, NOAA-ESRL (via phone)

– Geoff Bonnin, NWS-OHD

• Rapporteurs

- Nebiyu Tiruneh, NRC (NRO)

- Brad Harvey, NRC (NRO)
Panel 3 Questions for 

Discussion

1. Describe the advancements and improvements in extreme storm rainfall and 

precipitation observations and data bases over the past 30 years. Are there 

opportunities with radar, point observations, reanalysis data sets, and other 

data that can readily be utilized for extreme precipitation analyses, 

understanding, and applications for critical infrastructure?

2. Outline the advances in statistical and data processing methods that can be 

used for extreme precipitation frequency estimation. These might include 

regional precipitation frequency, regionalization of parameters, Geographic 

Information Systems, climatological estimation (such as PRISM), and other 

areas. How might these tools be applied in practice, and include uncertainty 

estimates?
Panel 3 Questions for 

Discussion

3. Describe the advances in physical and numerical modeling of extreme 

precipitation (such as the Weather Research and Forecasting Model, WRF) 

that can give insights into the processes and magnitudes of extreme 

precipitation, including spatial and temporal distributions. How can these 

tools be applied to provide practical limits to extreme precipitation 

magnitudes, spatial and temporal storm patterns, transposition, and other 

extreme storm scaling?

4. The National Research Council (1994) report on extreme precipitation 

suggested research in several areas, including: radar hydrometeorology and 

storm catalog, numerical modeling of extreme storms in mountainous 

regions, and estimating probabilities of extreme storm rainfalls. Are there 

existing technical barriers to fully probabilistic extreme storm estimation for 

assessing critical infrastructure, as opposed to Probable Maximum 

Precipitation?
§ 1115.25 Definitions. In addition to the definitions given in section 3 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2052), the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Recall* means any one or more of the actions required by an order under sections 12, 15(c), or 15(d) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2061, 2064(c), or 2064(d)).
( b ) *Recall notice* means a notification required by an order under sections 12, 15(c), or 15(d) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2061, 2064(c), or 2064(d)).
( c ) *Direct recall notice* means a notification required by an order under sections 12, 15(c), or 15(d) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2061, 2064(c), or 2064(d)), that is sent directly to specifically-identified consumers.
( d ) *Firm* means a manufacturer (including an importer), retailer, or distributor as those terms are defined in the CPSA.
( e ) *Other persons* means, but is not limited to, consumer safety advocacy organizations, public interest groups, trade associations, industry advocacy organizations, other State, local, and Federal government agencies, and the media.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Roy C. Gasser, as Trustee, and William H. Hayes, as Substituted Trustee and Surviving Executor of Emery L. Ferris, Deceased Substituted Trustee, under an Indenture of Trust Made by William K. Vanderbilt. Muriel V. Adams et al., Appellants; Guaranty Trust Company of New York, as Executor of William K. Vanderbilt, Deceased, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Present — -Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 587.]
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549


FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)     October 28, 2013





CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware1-582336-6169860(State or other jurisdiction(Commission(IRS Employerof incorporation)File Number)Identification No.)











333 S. Wabash, Chicago, Illinois60604(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)





Registrant's telephone number, including area code     (312) 822-5000





NOT APPLICABLE(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)


Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions ( see General Instruction A.2. below):


[ ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


[ ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))








1


---




ITEM 2.02 RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION.


On October 28, 2013, the registrant issued a press release and posted on its website ( www.cna.com ) a financial supplement providing information on its results of operations for the third quarter 2013.  The press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 and the financial supplement is furnished as Exhibit 99.2 to this Form 8-K.


The information under Item 2.02 and in Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 in this Current Report is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  The information under Item 2.02 and in Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 in this Current Report shall not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.





ITEM 9.01 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.


(d) Exhibits:


See Exhibit Index.





2


---




SIGNATURES





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





CNA Financial Corporation(Registrant)Date:  October 28, 2013By/s/ D. Craig Mense(Signature)D. Craig MenseExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer





3


---




EXHIBIT INDEX





Exhibit No.Description99.1CNA Financial Corporation press release, issued October 28, 2013 providing information on the third quarter 2013 results of operations.99.2CNA Financial Corporation financial supplement, posted on its website October 28, 2013, providing supplemental financial information on the third quarter 2013.





4
#### § 1235.1 Scope.

This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for baby changing products.
Cite as 2015 Ark. 260

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-15-407

PHILLIP ENGLES

PETITIONER

V.

CIRCUIT COURT OF BOONE

COUNTY

RESPONDENT

Opinion Delivered June 4, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

REMANDED TO SETTLE THE

RECORD.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Phillip Engles petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to the respondent,

the Circuit Court of Boone County. The petition arises from the circuit court’s order

denying his motion to dismiss based on violation of the speedy-trial provisions of Arkansas

Rule of Criminal Procedure 28 (2014). In his petition, Engles asserts that he was arrested on

December 3, 2012, and filed his motion to dismiss on April 6, 2015. Following a hearing on

Engles’s motion, the circuit court denied it, finding that the time period of August 25, 2014,

through October 6, 2014, was tolled for good cause.

At the hearing on Engles’s motion, the circuit court indicated that, in making its

ruling, it had taken notice of certain letters in the “clerk’s file” that were dated during the

time period at issue; however, those letters, while shown on the circuit court’s docket sheet,

are not included in the record before us, and we are unable to determine whether they were

made a part of the record at the hearing on Engles’s motion. While the State’s response is
Cite as 2015 Ark. 260

somewhat vague, it does reference that the good cause found by the circuit court was based

on a recusal by the original trial judge. Not having the letters on which the circuit court

relied, we are unable to review the merits of Engles’s petition. We therefore remand the

matter to settle the record.

Remanded to settle the record.

2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 03, 2016. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 03, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0112. ALL AMERICAN QUALITY FOODS, INC., d/b/a FOOD DEPOT v. THERA SMITH.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2014CV2041
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-40821

Summary Calendar

_____________________

ROBERT MEADOWS

Plaintiffs-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; 

ANDY COLLINS; JAMES A COLLINS, 

DIRECTOR, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-94-CV-376

_________________________________________________________________

October 11, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
1Redesignated § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) by § 804 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996).

2Douglass v. United States Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)

(en banc); United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

2

Robert Meadows challenges the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)1 dismissal of his civil rights

action which contends that he was denied due process at two disciplinary hearings and

that his assignment to field duty violated the eighth amendment. Having considered

Meadows’ brief and reviewing the findings by the district court under the plain error

standard,2 and noting no error of law, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.