alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2005 (the "Report") of Kearny  Financial Corp. (the "Company") as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof,  we, John N.
Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Albert E. Gossweiler, Senior
Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer,  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) 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/ John N. Hopkins
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       John N. Hopkins
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer



                                       /s/ Albert E. Gossweiler
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Albert E. Gossweiler
                                       Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
                                       Officer


September 26, 2005
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANITA HUNTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITIBANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-cv-02079-JCS 

ORDER FOR REPLY BRIEF FROM 

ASM CAPITAL AND SETTING 

HEARING

Claimants Sam Braswell and Sandra Stroud (“Claimants”) have filed a brief objecting to 

payment of settlement funds in this action to A.S.M. Capital, L.P. (“ASM”) pursuant to 

assignments between Claimants and ASM that ASM contends assigned to it Claimants’ claims in 

this action. See Docket No. 640. The Court requests that ASM provide a responsive brief, not to 

exceed ten (10) pages, no later than March 18, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02079-JCS Document 641 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 RiskMetrics Group, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
February 27, 2009

/s/ DAVID M. OBSTLER David M. Obstler (Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
### §53508. Separate accounts within a fund

(a) In General.—A capital construction fund shall have three accounts:

(1) The capital account.

(2) The capital gain account.

(3) The ordinary income account.

(b) Capital Account.—The capital account shall consist of—

(1) amounts referred to in section 53505(a)(2) of this title;

(2) amounts referred to in section 53505(a)(3) of this title, except that portion representing a gain not taken into account because of section 53507(a)(2) of this title;

(3) the percentage applicable under section 243(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 243(a)(1)) of any dividend received by the fund for which the person maintaining the fund would be allowed (were it not for section 53507(a)(3) of this title) a deduction under section 243 of such Code (26 U.S.C. 243); and

(4) interest income exempt from taxation under section 103 of such Code (26 U.S.C. 103).

(c) Capital Gain Account.—The capital gain account shall consist of—

(1) amounts representing capital gains on assets held for more than 6 months and referred to in section 53505(a)(3) or (4) of this title; minus

(2) amounts representing capital losses on assets held in the fund for more than 6 months.

(d) Ordinary Income Account.—The ordinary income account shall consist of—

(1) amounts referred to in section 53505(a)(1) of this title;

(2)(A) amounts representing capital gains on assets held for not more than 6 months and referred to in section 53505(a)(3) or (4) of this title; minus

(B) amounts representing capital losses on assets held in the fund for not more than 6 months;

(3) interest (except tax-exempt interest referred to in subsection (b)(4)) and other ordinary income (except any dividend referred to in paragraph (5)) received on assets held in the fund;

(4) ordinary income from a transaction described in section 53505(a)(3) of this title; and

(5) that portion of any dividend referred to in subsection (b)(3) not taken into account under subsection (b)(3).

(e) When Losses Allowed.—Except on termination of a fund, capital losses referred to in subsection (c) or (d)(2) shall be allowed only as an offset to gains referred to in subsection (c) or (d)(2), respectively.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1595.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 53508 | 46 App.:1177(e). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title VI, §607(e), 49 Stat. 2005; June 23, 1938, ch. 600, §§23–28, 52 Stat. 960; Aug. 4, 1939, ch. 417, §10, 53 Stat. 1185; July 17, 1952, ch. 939, §§17–19, 66 Stat. 764; Pub. L. 85–637, Aug. 14, 1958, 72 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 86–518, §1, June 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 87–45, §6, May 27, 1961, 75 Stat. 91; Pub. L. 87–271, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 570; restated Pub. L. 91–469, §21(a), Oct. 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 1028; Pub. L. 99–514, title II, §261(e)(3), (4), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2215. |

Section
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Josephine J. Janusz, Respondent, v Kistler Instrument Corp. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeals from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed June 18, 1976 and March 29, 1977. Claimant contracted an occupational disease resulting from the handling of epoxy and other chemicals in her work for an electronics manufacturer. A form of dermatitis known as onchyolysis, the condition causes a distortion and separation of the fingernails. While she could no longer work with chemicals, claimant did find intermittent employment as a waitress. In acting on her claim for compensation, the board determined that claimant has a 25% causally related disability and affirmed an award of $20 per week for reduced earnings, the minimum amount. On this appeal the carrier contends there is no substantial evidence to support an award for loss of earnings since it appears that claimant’s periodic loss of employment as a waitress was due to economic conditions rather than a work-connected disability. The award for loss of earnings is grounded on a disability to perform the work at which claimant was last employed (see Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 37, subd 1). If economic conditions thereafter prohibit work in fields to which she is limited, claimant is still entitled to reduced earnings based upon her disability provided there is substantial evidence to support a finding that her disability contributed directly to the loss of wage-earning capacity and is not *solely*the result of those conditions. We find such evidence in this record *(Matter of Calogero v State Ins. Fund,*53 AD2d 726). Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
### §12115. Temporary endorsement for vessels procured outside the United States

(a) General Authority.—The Secretary and the Secretary of State, acting jointly, may provide for the issuance of a certificate of documentation with an appropriate endorsement for a vessel procured outside the United States and meeting the ownership requirements of section 12103 of this title.

(b) Authorized Activity.—Subject to limitations the Secretary may prescribe, a vessel documented under this section may proceed to the United States and engage en route in foreign trade or trade with Guam, American Samoa, Wake, Midway, or Kingman Reef.

(c) Application of United States Jurisdiction and Laws.—A vessel documented under this section is subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the United States. However, if the Secretary considers it to be in the public interest, the Secretary may suspend for a period of not more than 6 months the application of a vessel inspection law carried out by the Secretary or regulations prescribed under that law.

(d) Surrender of Certificate.—On the vessel's arrival in the United States, the certificate of documentation shall be surrendered as provided by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §5, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1498.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 12115(a) | 46:12112(a). | |
| 12115(b) | 46:12112(b) (1st sentence). | |
| 12115(c) | 46:12112(c). | |
| 12115(d) | 46:12112(b) (last sentence). | |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 12115, Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 589, originally derived from section 65d of former Title 46, Shipping, related to names of vessels, prior to being repealed by Pub. L. 100–710, title I, §§106(b)(5), 107(a), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4752, effective Jan. 1, 1989.
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Max Gastman. (B) The People of the State of New York v. James Oree.

[In each action] Motion for leave to reinstate appeal denied. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGINA GUITIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-02323 WHA

JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the accompanying order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, granting defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and affirming the decision of

the administrative law judge, FINAL JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED in favor of defendant and

against plaintiff. THE CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE FILE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02323-WHA Document 22 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 1
Order entered October 3, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00893-CV

CIBIL KURIAKOSE VADACKANETH, Appellant

V.

SEENA ASARIYATHU SEBASTIAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-06642

ORDER

Before the Court are appellee’s September 20, 2022 motion to rescind her 

request for oral argument and appellant’s September 23, 2022 response. The Court 

will determine the necessity of oral argument at the time the appeal is set for 

submission and after its review of the briefs.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
-97° 00’ 00”.
26° 30’ 00”

-96°54’ 00”

~96° 48° 00”

~96° 42’ 00"

-96? 36’ 00” -96* 30’ 00” 96° 24’ 00"

 -96918' 00”

267 24’ 00%

qT

8744

26° 184 00” pi:

26? 12’ 00”

-96*.12’ 00”

—— tn

9
2
s 2

3

~967 06" 00”

of

-96° 00’ 00”

Dg yg
a
s [8

7S4O

<2.

981

Erma

rw

26206’ 00% W——-}+———--}+-

~97? ao’ ao”

est

-96°54' 00”

95107

=_

cee

gtk
140
got

re0

932

ot
933

Age

B20

996

-96° 48’ 00”

~96* 42’ 00”

874309
87419

6z

-96° 36’ 00” -96* 30’ 00” -96*° 24’ 00”

/;
"|
[38 ; »
Mindy
|
|
\

|

) ul
|

-96* 18’ 00"

eq

-96° 12’ 00"

Aly 1€l

-96° 06’ 00”

PADRE

SCALE:

(2

~96" 00’ 00”

N260096W

1:100,000
NOS MULTIBEAM SURVEYS

Conturs in corrected meters

LMISI

26% 30’ 00”

26% 24’ 00”

26°18’ 00".

267 12’ 00”

A

HaRIND!

Qi
2}
ey

i faa
3)
Zt
BL

HASINNN SNIMVeO

VINUO:

by

|

‘
ws
> —
S
2
» 3 o
ibaa z
Yas &
= BS €
3 =
ge Zz
Zz
a? G
oe Cc
“a 22 <
7 BS
mi w
Q m
é a
A
ral
3
we Zz
s
H
ACCEPTED 03-14-00553-CV 4113095 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/11/2015 3:32:05 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK CAUSE NO. 03-14-00553-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS

STEVEN PAUL WILSON, APPELLANT 

## v. CHARLES C. DORBANDT, APPELLEE
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OFTIME COMES NOW, Appellee Charles C. Dorbandt, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for an extension oftime in which to file Appellee's Memorandum in Answer to Appellant's Brief. In support thereof, Appellant would respectfully show: That Appellee has not received, in atimely fashion, all documents filed by PlaintiffAppellant in this cause ofaction. Appellee has recently been informed by the Court that a Brief was due by January 9, 2015. None
was filed and I was given notice ofthis on Friday, February 6, 2015 at approximately 6:00 p.m. I am now asking for ashort five (5) day extension oftime.Wherefore, Appellee would pray that his Motion be Granted. Chris Dorbandt & Associates, PLLC 7000 N. Mopac Expwy., Ste. 200 Austin, TX 78731 512-407-9700 512-407-9701 (Fax) Email: cdorbandt@austin-law.com

# {~**~** Charles 

### C. Dorbandt SBN: 90000837 ProSe
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Appellee was notable to discuss this Motion with Plaintiff due to his incarceration. Appellee has mailed a copy ofthe enclosed Motion for Extension ofTime to Appellant on the 11th day of February, 2015
.

# ~ Charles 

### C. Dorbandt
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>0001021907
<NAME>TRIANON

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          36,500
<SECURITIES>                                     4,501
<RECEIVABLES>                                  178,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,196
<INVENTORY>                                    111,118
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               350,850
<PP&E>                                         240,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                 199,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 765,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          441,485
<BONDS>                                        273,287
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     43,100
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                    (25,099)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   765,180
<SALES>                                        636,222
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               636,222
<CGS>                                          551,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  551,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,442
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,192
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,673
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,660)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (17)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,056)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
121 STAT. 1820 PUBLIC LAW 110–150—DEC. 21, 2007 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 597 (H.R. 1236): 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110–409, Pt. 1 accompanying H.R. 1236 (Comm. on Energy 

and Commerce). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 110–222 (Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Nov. 13, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 11, considered and passed House, amended. 

Dec. 13, Senate concurred in House amendments. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–150 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the United 

States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY. 

Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended 

by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2011’’. 

SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 

The National Institutes of Health and the Department of 

Defense shall each submit to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office an annual report concerning the use of any 

amounts that it received under section 414(c) of title 39, United 

States Code, including a description of any significant advances 

or accomplishments, during the year covered by the report, that 

were funded, in whole or in part, with such amounts. 

Approved December 21, 2007. 

39 USC 414 note. 

Dec. 21, 2007 

[S. 597] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
§ 891.835 Eligible uses of project rental assistance. ( a ) Section 202 or 811 project rental assistance may be used to pay the necessary and reasonable operating costs, as defined in 24 CFR 891.105 and approved by HUD, not met from project income and attributed to Section 202 or 811 supportive housing units. Operating cost standards under 24 CFR 891.150 apply to developments under this part.
( b ) Section 202 or 811 project rental assistance may not be used to pay for: ( 1 ) Debt service on construction or permanent financing, or any refinancing thereof, for any units in the development, including the 202 or 811 supportive housing units;
( 2 ) Cash flow distributions to owners; or
( 3 ) Creation of reserves for non-202 or -811 units.
( c ) HUD-approved operating costs attributable to common areas or to the development as a whole, such as groundskeeping costs and general administrative costs, may be paid from project rental assistance on a pro-rata basis according to the percentage of 202 or 811 supportive housing units as compared to the total number of units.
§ 75.13 Section 3 safe harbor. ( a ) *General.* PHAs and other recipients will be considered to have complied with requirements in this part, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, if they: ( 1 ) Certify that they have followed the prioritization of effort in § 75.9; and
( 2 ) Meet or exceed the applicable Section 3 benchmarks as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Establishing benchmarks.* ( 1 ) HUD will establish Section 3 benchmarks for Section 3 workers or Targeted Section 3 workers or both through a document published in the Federal Register. HUD may establish a single nationwide benchmark for Section 3 workers and a single nationwide benchmark for Targeted Section 3 workers, or may establish multiple benchmarks based on geography, the type of public housing financial assistance, or other variables. HUD will update the benchmarks through a document published in the Federal Register, subject to public comment, not less frequently than once every 3 years. Such notice shall include aggregate data on labor hours and the proportion of PHAs and other recipients meeting benchmarks, as well as other metrics reported pursuant to § 75.15 as deemed appropriate by HUD, for the 3 most recent reporting years.
( 2 ) In establishing the Section 3 benchmarks, HUD may consider the industry averages for labor hours worked by specific categories of workers or in different localities or regions; averages for labor hours worked by Section 3 workers and Targeted Section 3 workers as reported by recipients pursuant to this section; and any other factors HUD deems important. In establishing the Section 3 benchmarks, HUD will exclude professional services from the total number of labor hours as such hours are excluded from the total number of labor hours to be reported per § 75.15(a)(4).
( 3 ) Section 3 benchmarks will consist of the following two ratios: ( i ) The number of labor hours worked by Section 3 workers divided by the total number of labor hours worked by all workers funded by public housing financial assistance in the PHA's or other recipient's fiscal year.
( ii ) The number of labor hours worked by Targeted Section 3 workers, as defined in § 75.11(a), divided by the total number of labor hours worked by all workers funded by public housing financial assistance in the PHA's or other recipient's fiscal year.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Don K. Avni a/k/a Don Avni Kaminetzky v. David A. Newman

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00 863

- CV

Trial court case number: 2010

- 22875

Trial court: 333rd District Court of Harris County

On December 27, 2013 , appellant, David A. Newman , filed a motion to “consolidate herewith the record of prior appeal #01

- 10

- 01113

- CV,” to “extend time to file 1.3.14 1st supplemental record ordered 11/7/13 and completed on 11/19/13

– but still unpaid for to[]date by appellee,” and to “extend time to file appellant’s brief by February 3,[] 2014.” We address appellant’s three separate request s in this order.

First, appellant seeks to consolidate the record from a prior appeal (cause no. 01

- 10

- 01113

- CV) with the record in the present appeal in order to avoid “duplication” of expenditures. The Court issued an opinion in cause no. 01

- 10

- 01113

- CV on December 29, 2011. Appellant cites no authority to support his argument that the records should be consolidated nor provides an explanation as to why the record in cause no. 01

- 10

- 01113

- CV is necessary for this appeal

. Further, the record in the curr en t appeal has already been filed . Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion to consolidate records.

In regards to appellant’s motion to extend time to file “1st supplemental record,” appellant does not specify the documents sought to be included in the sup plemental clerk’s

record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(b)(2) (“A party requesting that an item be included in the clerk’s record must specifically describe the item so that the clerk can readily identify it.”). Additionally, appellant’s motion for extension fails to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b) (governing motions for extension ) . Thus, we
DENY appellant’s motion. Further, to the extent that appellant’s motion seeks an extension in

order to file documents contained in the supplemental clerk’s record filed with this Court on January 3, 2014, we dismiss the request as moot.

With respect to appellant’s motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief, appellant requests the due date for his brief be extended until February 3, 2014. Appellant’s brief was due December 9, 2013. A ppellant has provided no explanation for the need for an extension in his
motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 10.5(b)(1)(C) (requiring moving party to state facts relied on to reasonably explain need for extension). Accordingly, we DENY appellant ’s motion forextension to file appellant’s brief for failing to provide any explanation of the need for an

extension. See id.

Further, we ORDER appellant to file his brief, or a pr oper motion for extension of time providing a reasonable explanation of the need for an extension, no later than 10 days from the date of this order, or appellant’s appeal may be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 38.6(d), 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 9, 2014