alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit32.2

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

In connection with the annual report of Ames TrueTemper, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended October 1, 2005, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Troy W. Bryce, the ChiefAccounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

|           |                                                                                                                                    |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (i)  | The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|            |                                                                                                                                                    |
|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (ii)  | The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

Date:December 22, 2005

/s/ Troy W.Bryce                                        TroyW. Bryce Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting OfficerandPrincipal Financial Officer)

----
(December 21, 1960)

#### The People of the State of New York v. Kenneth Gaynor.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person denied. (See *People*v. *Sheehan,*4 A D 2d 143.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
#### John Ashdown, as Executor of Flora Ashdown, Deceased, Appellant, v Karl Kluckhohn, as Executor of Marilyn Kluckhohn, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff executor appeals from a judgment based on a jury verdict awarding $80,000 in a wrongful death action arising out of an automobile accident in which his wife was killed. The verdict was apportioned 90% against the estate of Marilyn Kluckhohn, the driver of the car in which she was riding, and 10% against the tractor-trailer with which the Kluckhohn car collided (Reed Lines, Inc.) and the driver thereof (Robert H. Swan). Appellant urges that there should be a reversal and new trial because the trial court, in answer to an inquiry from the jury prior to the verdict, directed that if one juror were not in agreement with the other five on the question of liability, that juror should not participate in the decision on damages. Before answering the jury’s question, the court heard counsel in chambers. Concededly, counsel for both defendants objected to permitting the question of damages to be decided by five jurors while counsel for plaintiff-appellant "argued strenuously for the very position” ultimately adopted by the court. Under these circumstances, the general rule applies, that "One who, as a party to an action, has helped to induce a ruling of the court which appears to be to his advantage, is not to be permitted to seek a change in the ruling, or to question its validity, because it has turned out to be to his disadvantage.” (21 NY Jur, Estoppel, § 55; see, also, 21 NY Jur, Estoppel, § 54; *Matter of Grainger [Shea Enterprises],*286 App Div 802, mod on other grounds 309 NY 605; *Long*Is. *R. R. Co. v City of New York,*64 NYS2d 391; *Matter of Brundage,*134 NYS2d 703, affd 285 App Div 1185). *Measeck v Noble*(9 AD2d 19), relied on by appellant, is distinguishable. There, the appealing party, unlike plaintiff-appellant, had not affirmatively urged prior to the rendition of the verdict that the jury be permitted to decide the case with less than the full number of jurors. We agree with the trial court’s determination in refusing to set aside the verdict for inadequacy. The verdict for a 48-year-old housewife employed as a clerical worker with no children living at home cannot be said to be "so grossly inadequate * * * as to be unconscionable” *(Brown v Sutter,*60 AD2d 788, quoting *Watson v Archer,*46 AD2d 997; *Hallenbeck v Caiazzo,*41 AD2d 784). Nor do we find that on the record presented the trial court erred in following *Zaninovich v American Airlines*(26 AD2d 155) and excluding the proffered expert testimony concerning the cost of providing an employee to perform household services. The jury could use its own knowledge in assessing how much, if any, pecuniary loss the husband sustained by virtue of the loss of his wife’s services in performing the household duties. (Appeal from judg*1138ment of Erie Supreme Court—wrongful death.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Hancock, Jr., and Denman, JJ. [90 Misc 2d 618.]
§ 983.2 When the tenant-based voucher rule (24 CFR part 982) applies. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 38304 , May 7, 2024.
( a ) *24 CFR Part 982 .* Part 982 is the basic regulation for the tenant-based voucher program. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section describe the provisions of part 982 that do not apply to the PBV program. The rest of part 982 applies to the PBV program. For use and applicability of voucher program definitions at § 982.4, see § 983.3.
( b ) *Types of 24 CFR part 982 provisions that do not apply to PBV.* The following types of provisions in 24 CFR part 982 do not apply to PBV assistance under part 983. ( 1 ) Provisions on issuance or use of a voucher;
( 2 ) Provisions on portability;
( 3 ) Provisions on the following special housing types: Shared housing, manufactured home space rental, and the homeownership option.
( c ) *Specific 24 CFR part 982 provisions that do not apply to PBV assistance.* The following specific provisions in 24 CFR part 982 do not apply to PBV assistance under part 983: ( 1 ) In subpart D of part 982: paragraph (e)(2) of 24 CFR 982.158;
( 2 ) In subpart E of part 982: paragraph (e) of 24 CFR 982.201, paragraph (b)(2) of 24 CFR 982.202, and paragraph (d) of 24 CFR 982.204;
( 3 ) Subpart G of part 982 does not apply, with the following exceptions: ( i ) Section 982.310 (owner termination of tenancy) applies to the PBV program, but to the extent that those provisions differ from § 983.257, the provisions of § 983.257 govern; and
( ii ) Section 982.312 (absence from unit) applies to the PBV Program, but to the extent that those provisions differ from § 983.256(g), the provisions of § 983.256(g) govern; and
( iii ) Section 982.316 (live-in aide) applies to the PBV Program;
( 4 ) Subpart H of part 982;
( 5 ) In subpart I of part 982: 24 CFR 982.401; paragraphs (a)(3), (c), and (d) of 24 CFR 982.402; 24 CFR 982.403; 24 CFR 982.404; paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (i), and (j) of 24 CFR 982.405; paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) of 24 CFR 982.406; and 24 CFR 982.407;
( 6 ) In subpart J of part 982: paragraphs (a), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (c) of § 982.451; and § 982.455;
( 7 ) Subpart K of part 982: subpart K does not apply, except that the following provisions apply to the PBV Program: ( i ) In 24 CFR 982.503, paragraphs (a)(1) and (d)(1)-(4) do apply;
( ii ) Section 982.516 (family income and composition; regular and interim examinations);
( iii ) Section 982.517 of this title (utility allowance schedule), except that 24 CFR 982.517(d) does not apply.
( 8 ) In subpart M of part 982: ( i ) Sections 982.603, 982.607, 982.611, 982.613(c)(2), 982.619(a), (b)(1), (b)(4), (c); and
( ii ) Provisions concerning shared housing (§ 982.615 through § 982.618), manufactured home space rental (§ 982.622 through § 982.624), and the homeownership option (§ 982.625 through § 982.641).
[70 FR 59913, Oct. 13, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 36165, June 25, 2014; 81 FR 12377, Mar. 8, 2016; 88 FR 30504, May 11, 2023; 89 FR 38304, May 7, 2024]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 18, 2020

No. 04-19-00732-CR

Eric Nathaniel REEL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR11077

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to 

raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, 

informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of 

his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous, 

and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the 

procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 

924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). On March 16, 2020, 

appellant filed the form motion requesting a copy of the appellate record. 

After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s request for a copy of the clerk’s record and 

reporter’s record. If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by May 4, 

2020. At this time, the State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless 

appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a

responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in 

abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80–82 (1988) 

(holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently 

reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); 

Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same). 
_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Joseph Y.Liu, Chief Executive Officer of Oplink Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that,to the best of his knowledge:**1.**The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and**2.**The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Quarterly Report and results ofoperations of the Company for the periods covered by the Quarterly Report.**In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 9th day of February, 2007.   /s/ Joseph Y. Liu   Joseph Y. Liu  Chief Executive Officer  This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SECand is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Actof 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley
Cornerstone Fund IV L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Christian
Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:
(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 Partnership.








By: /s/Christian Angstadt

Name:	  Christian Angstadt
Title: Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
       the general partner of the Partnership

Date:  May 15, 2008
#### MARTIN DESOMMA *v.*ANTOINETTE DESOMMA

(AC 25443)

Schaller, Bishop and Gruendel, Js.

Submitted on briefs May 27

officially released June 28, 2005

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.140 What is the purpose and scope of this subpart? ( a ) This subpart applies to all gas produced from Federal oil and gas leases onshore and on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). It explains how you, as a lessee, must calculate the value of production for royalty purposes consistent with mineral leasing laws, other applicable laws, and lease terms.
( b ) The terms “you” and “your” in this subpart refer to the lessee.
( c ) If the regulations in this subpart are inconsistent with a(an): Federal statute; settlement agreement between the United States and a lessee resulting from administrative or judicial litigation; written agreement between the lessee and ONRR's Director establishing a method to determine the value of production from any lease that ONRR expects would at least approximate the value established under this subpart; express provision of an oil and gas lease subject to this subpart, then the statute, settlement agreement, written agreement, or lease provision will govern to the extent of the inconsistency.
( d ) ONRR may audit and order you to adjust all royalty payments.
#### Bird *v.*The State.

July 11, 1912.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Hawkins. Toombs superior court. March 15, 1912.

*F. H. Saffold,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. S. Felder, attorney-general, Alfred Herrington, solicitor-general,*and *Hines & Jordan,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

No error of law is complained of, and the evidence supports the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Public Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Appellant, v Bankers Federal Savings and Loan Association et al., Respondents.

Order, Appellate Term, entered June 14, 1977, affirming a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County, entered April 23, 1976, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint after trial, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to respondents. We find it unnecessary on this appeal to reach the question as to whether or not section 123 (subd 3, par [b]) of the Insurance Law, bars an action in *quantum meruit*by an adjuster. From the facts developed at the trial, it is apparent that the plaintiff, a public adjuster, performed services in connection with the settlement of a claim pursuant to a contract with the mortgagor and not at the request or invitation of the defendant mortgagee. Nothing in the facts disclosed supports an action in *quantum meruit*against this defendant. Concur—Silverman, J. P., Evans, Lynch, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ. [91 Misc 2d 118.]
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Antonia Bold-de-Haughton, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB (Amendment No. 1) of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

|Date:  November 2, 2006 | /s/ Antonia Bold-de-Haughton
Antonia Bold-de-Haughton 
Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 964.315 HAs role in activities under this part. The HAs shall develop a process that assures that RC/RMC representatives and residents are fully briefed and have an opportunity to comment on the proposed content of the HA's application for funding. The HA shall give full and fair consideration to the comments and concerns of the residents. The process shall include: ( a ) Informing residents of the selected developments regarding the preparation of the application, and providing for residents to assist in the development of the application.
( b ) Once a draft application has been prepared, the HA shall make a copy available for reading in the management office; provide copies of the draft to any resident organization representing the residents of the development(s) involved; and provide adequate opportunity for comment by the residents of the development and their representative organizations prior to making the application final.
( c ) After HUD approval of a grant, notify the duly elected resident organization and if none exists, notify the residents of the development of the approval of the grant; provide notification of the availability of the HUD-approved implementation schedule in the management office for reading; and develop a system to facilitate a regular resident role in all aspects of program implementation.
§ 972.224 Necessary conditions for HUD approval of conversion. ( a ) *Conditions.* In order to convert a public housing development, the PHA must conduct a conversion assessment that demonstrates that the conversion of the development: ( 1 ) Will not be more expensive than continuing to operate the development (or portion of it) as public housing;
( 2 ) Will principally benefit the residents of the public housing development (or portion thereof) to be converted, the PHA, and the community; and
( 3 ) Will not adversely affect the availability of affordable housing in the community.
( b ) *Evidence* — ( 1 ) *Relative expense.* The relative expense of continuing operation as public housing or conversion to tenant-based assistance may be demonstrated by the cost analysis and market value analysis.
( 2 ) *Benefit to residents, PHA, and the community.* ( i ) The benefit to residents, the PHA, and the community may be demonstrated in the rental market analysis, the analysis of the impact on the neighborhood, the market value analysis, and the proposed future use of the development. In determining whether a conversion will principally benefit residents, the PHA, and the community, HUD will consider whether the conversion will conflict with any litigation settlement agreements, voluntary compliance agreements, or other remedial agreements signed by the PHA with HUD.
( ii ) In making the determination of whether a conversion would principally benefit residents, the PHA, and the community, the PHA must consider such factors as the availability of landlords providing tenant-based assistance, as well as access to schools, jobs, and transportation.
( iii ) To determine the benefit to residents, the PHA must hold at least one public meeting with residents of the affected site (including the duly elected Resident Council, if any, that covers the development in question). At the meeting, the PHA must: ( A ) Explain the requirements of section 22 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and these regulations, especially as they apply to residents of affected developments;
( B ) Provide draft copies of the conversion assessment to the residents; and
( C ) Provide the residents with a reasonable period of time to submit comments on the draft conversion assessment.
( iv ) The conversion assessment submitted to HUD must contain a summary of the resident comments, and the PHA responses to any significant issues raised by the commenters.
( 3 ) *Impact on affordable housing.* The impact on affordable housing may be demonstrated in the rental market analysis and the analysis of the impact of conversion on the neighborhood.
#### Glen McDougal, Appellant, v. Karl Ouderkirk, Respondent.

Same decision and like cause of action as in companion case of *McDougal*v. *Ouderkirk*(11 A D 2d 753).
### §1247. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Jan. 17, 1933, ch. 11, §17, 47 Stat. 770; Mar. 24, 1934, ch. 84, §17, 48 Stat. 465, related to effective date, and was omitted in view of recognition of Philippine independence.