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



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, J. Keith Kitchen, Chief Accounting Officer of Intellisync Corporation (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:



| |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended January 31, 2004, as filed 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: March 15, 2004                           
|                                                
|/s/ J. KEITH KITCHEN                            
|J. Keith Kitchen                                
|Vice President of Finance and Administration and
|Chief Accounting Officer
Indurator Fuel

Nat Gas

MMBTU/mo

Jan-07 114,641

Feb-07 117,928

Mar-07 127,525

Apr-07 48,250

May-07 138,517

Jun-07 130,039

Jul-07 133,305

Aug-07 132,976

Sep-07 129,620

Oct-07 116,654

Nov-07 121,869

Dec-07 107,096

Jan-08 127,722

Feb-08 131,000

Mar-08 134,062

Apr-08 52,732

May-08 120,009

Jun-08 121,655

Jul-08 125,053

Aug-08 127,495

Sep-08 114,834

Oct-08 140,626

Nov-08 118,949

Dec-08 126,556

Jan-09 131,110

Feb-09 113,479

Mar-09 113,786

Apr-09 89,605

May-09 -

Jun-09 -

Jul-09 -

Month-Year Question 3

Document 3-1

C:\PROGRA~1\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\263600469035690362\09000064810c3523.xls

Monthly Gas

Date Printed: 8/13/2012

Page 1 of 1

Jul-09 -

Aug-09 -

Sep-09 -

Oct-09 80,917

Nov-09 126,000

Dec-09 108,039

Jan-10 131,532

Feb-10 118,526

Mar-10 131,186

Apr-10 78,176

May-10 104,945

Jun-10 120,950

Jul-10 129,212

Aug-10 128,544

Sep-10 126,776

Oct-10 131,435

Nov-10 108,903

Dec-10 128,322

Jan-11 131,532

Feb-11 118,526

Mar-11 131,186

Apr-11 78,176

May-11 104,945

Jun-11 120,950

Jul-11 129,212

Aug-11 128,544

Sep-11 126,776

Oct-11 131,435

Nov-11 108,903

Dec-11 128,322

C:\PROGRA~1\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\263600469035690362\09000064810c3523.xls

Monthly Gas

Date Printed: 8/13/2012

Page 1 of 1
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         51,745
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  50,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    7,096
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,332
<PP&E>                                         912,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,077,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          360,105
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       354
<OTHER-SE>                                     436,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,077,927
<SALES>                                        215,281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               216,964
<CGS>                                          116,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  116,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               83,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             14,528
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,923
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,923
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,923
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.08
        



</TABLE>
### §7111. Congressional findings

The Congress of the United States finds that—

(1) the United States faces an increasing shortage of nonrenewable energy resources;

(2) this energy shortage and our increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies present a serious threat to the national security of the United States and to the health, safety and welfare of its citizens;

(3) a strong national energy program is needed to meet the present and future energy needs of the Nation consistent with overall national economic, environmental and social goals;

(4) responsibility for energy policy, regulation, and research, development and demonstration is fragmented in many departments and agencies and thus does not allow for the comprehensive, centralized focus necessary for effective coordination of energy supply and conservation programs; and

(5) formulation and implementation of a national energy program require the integration of major Federal energy functions into a single department in the executive branch.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title I, §101, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 567.)
### §655a. Provision for reimbursement of expenses

For purposes of section 655 of this title, expenses incurred to reimburse State employment offices for furnishing information requested of such offices—

(1) pursuant to section 49b(b) of title 29, or

(2) by a State or local agency charged with the duty of carrying a State plan for child support approved under this part,

shall be considered to constitute expenses incurred in the administration of such State plan.

(Pub. L. 94–566, title V, §508(b), Oct. 20, 1976, 90 Stat. 2689; Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §110(a), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2171; Pub. L. 105–220, title III, §302(b), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1081.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 603a of this title.

Section was not enacted as part of the Social Security Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1998—Par. (1). Pub. L. 105–220 substituted "section 49b(b) of title 29" for "the third sentence of section 49b(a) of title 29".

1996—Pub. L. 104–193 amended section catchline and text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "For purposes of section 603 of this title, expenses incurred to reimburse State employment offices for furnishing information requested of such offices pursuant to the third sentence of section 49b(a) of title 29, by a State or local agency administering a State plan approved under part A of this subchapter shall be considered to constitute expenses incurred in the administration of such State plan; and for purposes of section 655 of this title, expenses incurred to reimburse State employment offices for furnishing information so requested by a State or local agency charged with the duty of carrying out a State plan for child support approved under part D of this subchapter shall be considered to constitute expenses incurred in the administration of such State plan."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–220 effective July 1, 1999, see section 311 of Pub. L. 105–220, formerly set out as a note under section 49a of Title 29, Labor.

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–193 effective July 1, 1997, with transition rules relating to State options to accelerate such date, rules relating to claims, actions, and proceedings commenced before such date, rules relating to closing out of accounts for terminated or substantially modified programs and continuance in office of Assistant Secretary for Family Support, and provisions relating to termination of entitlement under AFDC program, see section 116 of Pub. L. 104–193, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section 601 of this title.
#### Robert P. Weiss, as Administrator of the Estate of Providence L. Weiss, Deceased, Respondent, v. Harold Rubin et al., Appellants-Respondents, and Stanford Pulrang, Appellant.

Motion by plaintiff to dismiss the appeals of defendants Rubin and St. John’s Riverside Hospital dismissed, as academic. (See *Weiss*v. *Rubin,*11 A D 2d 818.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Iileinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
### §6726. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–30, title VI, §603(i), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat 166

Section, Pub. L. 94–369, title II, §206, July 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 1007, provided for the filing of optional State allocation plans.
#### § 92.40 Authentication of foreign extradition papers.

Foreign extradition papers are authenticated by chiefs of mission.
#### In the Matter of Philip S. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Appellant; Theresa M., Respondent.

[715 *459NYS2d 890]

—In a proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, the petitioner Suffolk County Department of Social Services appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), entered October 13, 1999, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the petition is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings, including a dispositional hearing.

The Family Court improperly dismissed the instant petition to terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother Theresa M. At the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner Suffolk County Department of Social Services established by clear and convincing evidence that, despite its diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the mother failed for a period of more than one year to plan for the future of the subject child *(see,*Social Services Law § 384-b; *Matter of Jamie M.,*63 NY2d 388; *Matter of Jeremy KK.,*251 AD2d 904; *Matter of Roderick W.,*96 AD2d 746). Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7139

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Joe Johnson, a/k/a Joseph Johnson, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-96-180-A, CA-98-1066-A) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph R. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Gerard Connolly, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on August 6, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 10, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s order. 2 PER CURIAM: Joseph R. Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Johnson , Nos. CR-96-180- A; CA-98-1066-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 10, 1999). * We deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Richard L. Lewis, an Infant, et al., Appellants, v Jewish Guild for the Blind et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages predicated upon an alleged conspiracy to deprive the infant plaintiff of an education and the benefits of defendants-respondents’ charitable services, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 4, 1975, which denied their postjudgment motion for a new trial. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff Richard Lee Lewis suffers from the twin handicap of being blind and emotionally disturbed. The record reveals an unfortunate account of a child whose emotional handicap frustrated what apparently scarce resources were available to deal with the primary physical handicap of blindness. Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that defendants, three charitable institutions, were involved in a malicious conspiracy, or "nefarious scheme”, to deny the child educational and rehabilitative services. Plaintiffs sought, *inter alia,*6 cents compensatory damages and $1,000,000 punitive damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint after plaintiffs rested for failure to establish a prima facie case and, subsequently, plaintiffs’ appeal to this court was withdrawn at their express insistence. Thereafter, the plaintiffs returned to Special Term and made a motion for a new trial pursuant to CPLR 5015. Special Term denied the motion and plaintiffs have appealed to this court. On the appeal, plaintiffs’ main contention is that the trial court was biased and prejudiced against them and, hence, denied them their right to a fair trial. In our view, the plaintiffs have failed to preserve this issue and cannot *918properly raise it at this time. Once the appeal was withdrawn, plaintiffs could be relieved from the judgment upon the grounds specifically enumerated in CPLR 5015, i.e., lack of jurisdiction, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misrepresentation by adverse parties, etc. (see *Matter of Huie [Furman],*20 NY2d 568, 572; *Herpe v Herpe,*225 NY 323, 327; *Matter of City of New York [Squitieri],*39 AD2d 669; *Parker v McMahon,*53 AD2d 1034). The bias or prejudice of the trial court is not one of the specified grounds. We agree with Special Term that the plaintiffs have failed to establish either newly discovered evidence or fraud by adverse parties within the meaning of CPLR 5015 sufficient to justify a new trial. We note further that we have reviewed the entire record, and find no justification for the contention that the trial court was biased or prejudiced against the plaintiffs. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY MITCHELL SR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF PITTSBURG,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-00794 SI

THIRD

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT: September 3, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.

Counsel must file a joint case management statement seven days in advance of the conference.

DISCOVERY PLAN: Per F.R.Civ.P and Local Rules, subject to any provisions below.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is September 30, 2010.

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS: 9/17/10; REBUTTAL: 10/4/10. Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is October 29, 2010.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by November 12, 2010; 

Opp. Due November 29, 2010; Reply Due December 6, 2010;

 and set for hearing no later than December 20, 2010 at 9:00 AM.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: February 1, 2011 at 3:30 PM.

JURY TRIAL DATE: February 14, 2011 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS:

The Court continued the trial schedule as indicated above.

By May 14, 2010, the parties may file a stipulation to amend the complaint to add defendant Agent

weilsch as a defendant. Agent Weilsch’s responsive pleading shall be filed by June 11, 2010.

Magistrate-Judge Chen shall conduct a further settlement conference during the 1st two weeks in

November 2010.

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action. 

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00794-SI Document 48 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 1
### §6991j. Use of funds for release prevention and compliance

Funds made available under section 6991m(2)(D) of this title from the Trust Fund may be used to conduct inspections, issue orders, or bring actions under this subchapter—

(1) by a State, in accordance with a grant or cooperative agreement with the Administrator, of 1 State regulations pertaining to underground storage tanks regulated under this subchapter; and

(2) by the Administrator, for tanks regulated under this subchapter (including under a State program approved under section 6991c of this title).

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §9011, as added Pub. L. 109–58, title XV, §1526(a), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 1097.)

1 So in original.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2784 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2784

             To suspend temporarily the duty on Omite Tech.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2005

 Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on Omite Tech.

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

SECTION 1. OMITE TECH.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.95      Sulfurous acid,     Free         Free             No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         2[4(1,1-dimethyl-                                                  31/2008
                         ethyl)phenoxy]cyc
                         lohexyl-2-
                         propynylester
                         (CA) (CAS No.
                         2312-35-8)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2920.90.10)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### KNIGHT & WALL CO. v. THOMAS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 7, 1905.)

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by the Knight & Wall Company against Orlando F. Thomas and another. From an order denying a motion by defendant Thomas to change the place of trial, he appeals. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.

Frank Brundage, for appellant.

Charles A. Brodek, for respondent.

McLAUGHLIN, J.

The defendant Thomas appeals from an order denying a motion to change the place of trial from the county of New York to the county of Wayne. The facts set out in the record bearing upon the question of the change of place of trial are precisely the same as in Washington v. Thomas (decided herewith) 92 N. Y. Supp. 994, and for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered in that case the order here appealed from must be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, to abide event. All concur.
#### § 1000.332 Will data used by HUD to determine an Indian tribe's or TDHE's formula allocation be provided to the Indian tribe or TDHE before the allocation?

Yes. HUD shall provide the Indian tribe or TDHE notice of the data to be used for the formula and projected allocation amount by June 1.

[77 FR 71528, Dec. 3, 2012]
#### Ernest Bouchard et al., Appellants, v. Phillip J. Sinaguglia, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide event. Memorandum: The jury found a verdict of no cause for action. But the weight of the evidence indicates an impact with the plaintiff’s wife at a crosswalk on a public street in the nighttime on the defendant’s wrong side of the highway, without warning and without proper vigilance on defendant’s part. The verdict, therefore, was against the weight of the evidence and should be reversed. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Trial Term for defendant for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, J J.
§ 98.1 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) Convention means the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, done at The Hague on May 29, 1993.
( b ) Convention record means any item, collection, or grouping of information contained in an electronic or physical document, an electronic collection of data (including the information contained in the Case Registry), a photograph, an audio or video tape, or any other information storage medium of any type whatever that contains information about a specific past, current, or prospective adoption covered by the Convention (regardless of whether the adoption was made final) that has been generated or received by the Secretary or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Convention record includes a record, generated or received by the Secretary or DHS, about a specific adoption case involving two Convention countries other than the United States in connection with which the Secretary or DHS performs a Central Authority function.
( c ) Such other terms as are defined in 22 CFR 96.2 shall have the meaning given to them therein.
#### Murray Flug v. Aschlee Realty Corp. et al.

Motion for an order adding the appeal to the November 1960 Term Enumerated Calendar of this court denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.