alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Bruce D.Horn, Chief Financial Officer of Oplink Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his knowledge:**1.**The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (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 10th day of February, 2006.   /s/ Bruce D. Horn Bruce D. Horn  Chief Financial 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.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-92,072-04

EX PARTE JARROD DERAY PHILLIPS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 114-0953-14-B IN THE 114TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM SMITH COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and

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

11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a district clerk is required to forward to this Court,

among other things, “the application, any answers filed, any motions filed, transcripts of all

depositions and hearings, any affidavits, and any other matters such as official records used by the

court in resolving issues of fact.” Id. at § 3(d); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). The record

forwarded to this Court appears, however, to be incomplete. Applicant’s memorandum of law and

affidavit from Tishunta Waddle are referred to in the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions

of law but the documents are not in the record.
2

The district clerk shall either forward to this Court the missing documents or certify in

writing that these documents are not part of the record. The district clerk shall comply with this

order within thirty days from the date of this order.

Filed: February 13, 2023

Do not publish
§ 1207.4 Contracts made pursuant to old form leases. ( a ) Old form leases are those containing provisions prohibiting sales or disposal of oil, gas, natural gasoline, and other products of the lease except in accordance with a contract or other arrangement approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or by the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) or his/her representative. A contract or agreement made pursuant to an old form lease may be made without obtaining approval if the contract or agreement contains either the substance of or is accompanied by the stipulation set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, signed by the seller (lessee or operator).
( b ) The stipulation, the substance of which must be included in the contract, or be made the subject matter of a separate instrument properly identifying the leases affected thereby, is as follows:
It is hereby understood and agreed that nothing in the written contract or in any approval thereof shall be construed as affecting any of the relations between the United States and its lessee, particularly in matters of gas waste, taking royalty in kind, and the method of computing royalties due as based on a minimum valuation and in accordance with the terms and provisions of the oil and gas valuation regulations applicable to the lands covered by said contract.
[53 FR 1225, Jan. 15, 1988, as amended at 78 FR 30204, May 22, 2013]
§ 93.452 Corrective and remedial actions. ( a ) *General.* HUD will use the procedures in this section in conducting the performance review as provided in § 93.451 and in taking corrective and remedial actions.
( b ) *Performance review.* ( 1 ) If HUD determines preliminarily that the grantee has not met a requirement of this part, the grantee will be given notice of this determination and an opportunity to demonstrate, within the time prescribed by HUD (not to exceed 30 calendar days) and on the basis of substantial facts and data, that it has done so.
( 2 ) If the grantee fails to demonstrate to HUD's satisfaction that it has met the requirement, HUD will take corrective or remedial action in accordance with this section or § 93.453.
( c ) *Corrective and remedial actions.* Corrective or remedial actions for a performance deficiency (failure to meet a provision of this part) will be designed to prevent a continuation of the deficiency; mitigate, to the extent possible, its adverse effects or consequences; and prevent its recurrence. ( 1 ) HUD may instruct the grantee to submit and comply with proposals for action to correct, mitigate, and prevent a performance deficiency, including: ( i ) Preparing and following a schedule of actions for carrying out the affected activities, consisting of schedules, timetables, and milestones necessary to implement the affected activities;
( ii ) Establishing and following a management plan that assigns responsibilities for carrying out the remedial actions;
( iii ) Canceling or revising activities likely to be affected by the performance deficiency, before expending HTF funds for the activities;
( iv ) Reprogramming HTF funds that have not yet been expended from affected activities to other eligible activities;
( v ) Reimbursing its HTF account in any amount not used in accordance with the requirements of this part;
( vi ) Suspending disbursement of HTF funds for affected activities; and
( vii ) Establishing procedures to ensure compliance with HTF requirements;
( 2 ) HUD may also change the method of payment from an advance to reimbursement basis and may require supporting documentation to be submitted for HUD review for each payment request before payment is made; determine the grantee to be high risk and impose special conditions or restrictions on the allocation in accordance with 2 CFR 200.207 or 200.338; and take other remedies that may be legally available.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO CORTEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-56924D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01473-CABWMC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 4, 2014 UCLA Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Because this claim arises under the Federa l Tort Claims Act, we apply state law to Cortez’s false imprisonment and assault/battery claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). 

# FILED
MAR 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.page 2 1. Under California law, “[t]he elemen ts of a tortious claim of false imprisonment are: (1) the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, (2) without lawful privilege, and (3) for an appreciable period of time, however brief.” Easton v. Sutter Coast Hosp. , 80 Cal. App. 4th 485, 496 (2000). The Border Patrol agents had legal authority to refer Co rtez to secondary inspection without any individualized suspicion. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte , 428 U.S. 543, 562 (1976); United States v. Preciado-Robles , 964 F.2d 882, 884 (9th Cir. 1992). The trial court credited the agents’ testimony th at the duration of Cortez’s detention at secondary inspection was a direct resu lt of his own obstruction and failure to cooperate with their permissible follow- up questions, and that Cortez was released once he complied with their request to produce his law enforcement credentials. Cortez has failed to show that this cred ibility determination was clearly erroneous. See Valenzuela v. Michel , 736 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. To make out a claim for assault/batte ry against the Border Patrol agents, Cortez must establish that they used unreas onable force to detain him. Cal. Penal Code § 835a; Edson v. City of Anaheim , 63 Cal. App. 4th. 1269, 1272–73 (1998); Judicial Council of Cal., Civ. Jury Instr. § 1305. Because we find that Cortez’s detention at secondary inspection was pr oper, we need not address his argumentpage 3 that the use of any force to effect thatdetention was per se unreasonable. Nor do we find the “‘guided’ extraction” of Cort ez from his vehicle or the assumption of a “bladed stance” by a nearby officer during this process to be unreasonable under the circumstances.
AFFIRMED.
§ 882.513 Public notice to low-income families; waiting list. ( a ) *Public notice to low-income Families.* ( 1 ) If the PHA does not have a waiting list which is sufficient to provide applicants for the units under the Moderate Rehabilitation Program, the PHA must, promptly after receiving the executed ACC, make known to the public the availability of the Program. ( i ) The notice must state that assistance under this Program will be available only in specified units which have been rehabilitated under the Program.
( ii ) The notice must be made in accordance with the PHA's HUD-approved application and with the HUD guidelines for fair housing requiring the use of the equal housing opportunity logotype, statement and slogan.
( b ) *Waiting list.* The PHA must maintain a waiting list for applicants for the Moderate Rehabilitation Program. This requirement may be met through the use of waiting lists for other subsidized housing programs such as the Existing Housing Program.
#### NEW YORK WATER CO., Respondent, v. BOARD OF WATER COM’RS OF CITY OF YONKERS, Appellant.

(No. 1.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 27, 1905.)

Action by the New York Water Company against the board of water commissioners of the city of Yonkers. No opinion. Order affirmed, on argument, with $10 costs and disbursements.
§ 52.7 How does the Secretary communicate with state and local officials concerning the Department's programs and activities? ( a ) For those programs and activities covered by a state process under § 52.6, the Secretary, to the extent permitted by law— ( 1 ) Uses the state process to determine views of state and local elected officials; and,
( 2 ) Communicates with state and local elected officials, through the state process, as early in a program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions.
( b ) The Secretary provides notice to directly affected state, areawide, regional, and local entities in a state of proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development if— ( 1 ) The state has not adopted a process under the Order; or
( 2 ) The assistance or development involves a program or activity not selected for the state process.
This notice may be made by publication in the Federal Register or other appropriate means, which the Department in its discretion deems appropriate.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q  of  InteliData
Technologies  Corporation  (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Alfred S. Dominick,  Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, 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) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


By:      /s/ Alfred S. Dominick, Jr.
         -----------------------------------
         Alfred S. Dominick, Jr.
         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
         (Principal Executive Officer)

August 6, 2004

This  certificate  is being  furnished  as an exhibit to the Report  pursuant to
Exchange  Act Rule 13a-14 and Item 601 of  Regulation  S-K and not as a document
"filed"  as a  part  of  the  Report.  This  certificate  shall  not  be  deemed
incorporated by reference into any of the Company's  Securities Act registration
statements.



<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            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  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q  of  InteliData
Technologies  Corporation  (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Alfred S. Dominick,  Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

By:      /s/ Alfred S. Dominick, Jr.
         -----------------------------------
         Alfred S. Dominick, Jr.
         Chief Financial Officer
         (Principal Financial Officer)

August 6, 2004

This  certificate  is being  furnished  as an exhibit to the Report  pursuant to
Exchange  Act Rule 13a-14 and Item 601 of  Regulation  S-K and not as a document
"filed"  as a  part  of  the  Report.  This  certificate  shall  not  be  deemed
incorporated by reference into any of the Company's  Securities Act registration
statements.
§ 964.340 Resident compensation. Residents employed to provide services or renovation or conversion work funded under this program shall be paid at a rate not less than the highest of: ( a ) The minimum wage that would be applicable to the employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), if section 6(a)(1) of the FLSA applied to the resident and if the resident were not exempt under section 13 of the FLSA;
( b ) The State or local minimum wage for the most nearly comparable covered employment; or
( c ) The prevailing rate of pay for persons employed in similar public occupations by the same employer.
#### Miller Fruit Company, appellee, v. David Kellerman, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,118.

Judgment affirmed, following Miller Fruit Co. v. Kellerman, 229 Ill. App. 499. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Howard Hayes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

*Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Blum, Wolfsohn & Blum, for appellant; Isadore Wolfsohn and Harry J. Fireman, of counsel. Peaks, Bunch & Latimer, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court. •
### §765g. Exclusivity arrangements

#### (a) In general

No satellite operator shall acquire or enjoy the exclusive right of handling telecommunications to or from the United States, its territories or possessions, and any other country or territory by reason of any concession, contract, understanding, or working arrangement to which the satellite operator or any persons or companies controlling or controlled by the operator are parties.

#### (b) Exception

In enforcing the provisions of this section, the Commission—

(1) shall not require the termination of existing satellite telecommunications services under contract with, or tariff commitment to, such satellite operator; but

(2) may require the termination of new services only to the country that has provided the exclusive right to handle telecommunications, if the Commission determines the public interest, convenience, and necessity so requires.

(Pub. L. 87–624, title VI, §648, as added Pub. L. 106–180, §3, Mar. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 57.)
§ 81.73 GSE request for proprietary treatment. ( a ) *General.* A GSE may request proprietary treatment of any mortgage data or AHAR information that the GSE submits to the Secretary. Such a request does not affect the GSE's responsibility to provide data or information required by the Secretary. Where the Secretary grants a request for proprietary treatment, HUD will not include the data or information in the public-use database or publicly disclose the data or information, except as otherwise provided in accordance with this subpart.
( b ) *Request for proprietary treatment of mortgage data and AHAR information.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a GSE requesting proprietary treatment of mortgage data or AHAR information shall: ( 1 ) Clearly designate those portions of the mortgage data or AHAR information to be treated as proprietary, with a prominent stamp, typed legend, or other suitable form of notice, stating “Proprietary Information—Confidential Treatment Requested by [name of GSE]” on each page or portion of page to which the request applies. If such marking is impractical, the GSE shall attach to the mortgage data or information for which confidential treatment is requested a cover sheet prominently marked “Proprietary Information—Confidential Treatment Requested by [name of GSE];”
( 2 ) Accompany its request with a certification by an officer or authorized representative of the GSE that the mortgage data or information is proprietary; and
( 3 ) Submit any additional statements in support of proprietary designation that the GSE chooses to provide.
( c ) *Alternative procedure available for mortgage data or AHAR information subject to a temporary order, final order, or regulation in effect.* When the request for proprietary treatment pertains to mortgage data or AHAR information that has been deemed proprietary by the Secretary under a temporary order, final order, or regulation in effect, the GSE may reference such temporary order, final order, or regulation in lieu of complying with paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.
( d ) *Nondisclosure during pendency.* Except as may otherwise be required by law, during the time any Request for Proprietary Treatment under § 81.73 is pending determination by the Secretary, the data or information submitted by the GSE that is the subject of the request shall not be disclosed to, or be subject to examination by, the public or any person or representative of any person or agency outside of HUD.
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of L.W., a Child

No. 06

- 23

- 00059

- CV Appeal from the 354th District Court of

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 91297 ).

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief

Just ice Stevens

, Justice van Cleef and

Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated her inability to pay costs of appeal.

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 27, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
(April 7, 1978)

#### The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Rodney Taylor, Petitioner, v Eugene S. LeFevre, as Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Application dated March 14, 1978 for *1078writ of habeas corpus, denied. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
[ARTICLE] 6
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   12-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1997
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1997
[INVESTMENTS-AT-COST]                      171,676,957
[INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE]                     180,695,469
[RECEIVABLES]                                2,034,090
[ASSETS-OTHER]                                       0
[OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS]                                 0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                             182,729,559
[PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES]                       810,704
[SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT]                              0
[OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES]                    1,095,090
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES]                          1,905,794
[SENIOR-EQUITY]                                      0
[PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON]                   157,022,171
[SHARES-COMMON-STOCK]                       14,453,123
[SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR]                                0
[ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT]                      286,592
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII]                               0
[ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS]                         43,367
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS]                             0
[ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC]                     9,018,512
[NET-ASSETS]                               180,823,765
[DIVIDEND-INCOME]                            3,680,066
[INTEREST-INCOME]                            7,294,647
[OTHER-INCOME]                                       0
[EXPENSES-NET]                               1,050,895
[NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME]                      9,923,818
[REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT]                     8,770,212
[APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT]                    1,268,334
[NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS]                       19,962,364
[EQUALIZATION]                              42,333,211
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME]                    9,850,406
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS]                     8,787,456
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER]                                0
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD]                     65,409,414
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED]                 37,836,437
[SHARES-REINVESTED]                         14,760,234
[NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS]                      43,657,713
[ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR]                        158,963
[ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR]                      112,202
[OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR]                              0
[OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR]                           0
[GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES]                          806,436
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[GROSS-EXPENSE]                              1,050,895
[AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS]                       161,320,698
[PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN]                            12.31
[PER-SHARE-NII]                                    .77
[PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC]                            .84
[PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND]                               .77
[PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS]                          .64
[RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL]                                 0
[PER-SHARE-NAV-END]                              12.51
[EXPENSE-RATIO]                                    .65
[AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING]                               0
[AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE]                                 0
</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER XXXVII—POLLOCK-HERREID UNIT, PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, SOUTH DAKOTA
### SUBCHAPTER V—PUERTO RICO INFRASTRUCTURE REVITALIZATION