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




CLEARPOINT
BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of ClearPoint
Business Resources, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to
this Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”) that:




(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




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




Date:
April 15, 2009




By:
            /s/ John G. Phillips





John G.
Phillips


Chief
Financial Officer




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
Exhibit 12.1  I, Terry Amisano, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Zena Capital Corp.;  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 Annual 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The companys other certifying officer(s) 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 company 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 company, 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; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.   Date: June 29, 2006  Terry Amisano__________ Chief Executive Officer
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 

**E-filed 7/14/10**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

TANIA GARCIA-LOPEZ, et al.,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MICHAEL YATES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-2592 RS 

ORDER RE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED 

CONTINUANCE 

The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s motion to continue the hearing on the cross-motions 

for summary judgment from July 15, 2010 to July 29, 2010, by executing Plaintiff’s proposed order, 

which erroneously stated that the motion was “unopposed.” The Court is aware from the body of 

plaintiff’s motion that defendants in fact opposed the motion on grounds that counsel had already 

purchased airfare and had arranged a vacation. Although the Court strongly discourages telephonic 

appearances at law and motion, should defense counsel wish to appear by telephone at the continued 

hearing, the Court will accommodate a written request to do so, although it may require both sides 

to appear by telephone in that event. 

Dated: 7/14/10 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:09-cv-02592-RS Document 37 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 881.105 Applicability to proposals and projects under 24 CFR part 811.

Where proposals and projects are financed with tax-exempt obligations under 24 CFR part 811, the provisions of part 811 will be complied with in addition to all requirements of this part. In the event of any conflict between this part and part 811, part 811 will control.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7057
JOHN WILLIAM SIMMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN SIZER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-1842-S) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 29, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John William Simms, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Simms v. Sizer , No. CA-98-1842-S (D. Md. July 2, 1998). 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
#### Belotte and Nardone, Inc., Appellant, v. Dunn Garden Apartments, Inc., Respondent.

Motion adjourned to January 23, 1961. Appellant on or before that date to show precise proof as to the status of the preparation of the record, including correspondence with the official stenographer.
## SUBTITLE IX—MULTIMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION

Chapter
Sec.
701.
Multimodal freight policy
70101
702.
Multimodal freight transportation planning and information
70201

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior subtitle IX, consisting of chapters 701 and 703, related to commercial space transportation, prior to being transferred and renumbered as chapters 509 and 511 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.
### §44104. Civil penalty

A person that violates section 44102 or 44103 of this title is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000, plus $200 for each passage sold, to be assessed by the Federal Maritime Commission. The Commission may remit or mitigate the penalty on terms the Commission considers proper.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §7, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1555.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 44104 | 46 App.:817d(c). | Pub. L. 89–777, §§2(c), 3(c), Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1357. |
| | 46 App.:817e(c). | |

Section
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- 1327 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

- NE

- 47

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspect ion 38 $ 3,230.0 0 $0 $ 3,230.00 

### 56 $ 180,880.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 180,880 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### Special considerations for Economic Analysi **s** ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### N/A

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regula tory action”?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
eith er a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:
**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of tran sportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Jonathan Miller

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14634.

*Ronald T. Murphy,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Leon F. Dalbec, Jr.,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided November 4, 1992

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 207 (AC 10071), is granted, limited to the following question:

“Does the Connecticut constitution, in specific, article tenth, § 1, article first, § 7, or article first, § 9, prohibit municipal police from intentionally going into another municipality to perform investigations, stake-outs *Terry*stops, and/or warrantless seizures?”
Order entered August 12, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00995
- CR
COURTNEY EARLENE SHA NNON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011
- 1
- 1161



### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s motion to appoint counsel. In the motion, appellant states that she desires to pursue the appeal, but is indigent and cannot afford counsel. She states she requested appointed counse l from the trial court, but was informed that court did not have jurisdiction. The record reflect appellant was represented by retained counsel at trial, but that counsel was not retained to represent appellant on appeal. We GRANT appellant’s motion as
f ollows.
We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant is indigent and is entitled to court

- appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that appellant is indigent, we ORDER the trial court to appoint counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.If the trial court determines that appellant is not indigent and is not entitled to court

appointed counsel, we ORDER the trial court to determine the name, State Bar number, and contact information for appellant’s retained couns el.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing its written findings of fact, any orders, and any supporting documentation to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.
We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received.
/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
SAMUEL WHITE

,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY

, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR R EHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4696

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Samuel White, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Kenneth S . Steely, General Counsel,

Department of Corrections, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
### **CHAPTER 331—THEFT PREVENTION**

Sec.
33101.
Definitions.
33102.
Theft prevention standard for high theft lines.
33103.
Theft prevention standard for other lines.
33104.
Designation of high theft vehicle lines and parts.
33105.
Cost limitations.
33106.
Exemption for passenger motor vehicles equipped with anti-theft devices.
33107.
Voluntary vehicle identification standards.
33108.
Monitoring compliance of manufacturers.
33109.
National Stolen Passenger Motor Vehicle Information System.
33110.
Verifications involving junk and salvage motor vehicles.
33111.
Verifications involving motor vehicle major parts.
[33112.
Repealed.]
33113.
Theft reports.
33114.
Prohibited acts.
33115.
Civil penalties and enforcement.
33116.
Confidentiality of information.
33117.
Judicial review.
33118.
Preemption of State and local law.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2012**—Pub. L. 112–141, div. C, title I, §31313(1), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 772, struck out item 33112 "Insurance reports and information".
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABDELKAKER MORCELI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

W. MEYERS, Lieutenant,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 15187

D.C. No. 1:11

- cv

- 00685

- AWI

BAM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25 , 2016 **

Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Abdelkaker Morceli appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of

his First Amendment free exercise rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Williams , 791 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9t h Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 4 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 15187

2015)

, and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Morceli

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was

responsible for the challenged headwear policy’s creation and enforcement. See id.

at 1031

- 32 (setting forth elements of a § 1983 free exercise claim); Starr v. Baca

,

652 F.3d 1202, 1207

- 08 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth elements for supe rvisory

liability under § 1983)

. Contrary to Morceli’s contentions, the district court

applied the proper standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in granting

summary judgment where Morceli’s contentions were not supported by facts. See

Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency , 261 F.3d 912, 922 ( 9th Cir. 2001)

(“[C] onclusory allegations unsupported by factual data are insufficient to defeat [a

defendant’s] summary judgment motion .”).

AFFIRMED.
### §11112. Master's lien for wages

The master of a documented vessel has the same lien against the vessel for the master's wages and the same priority as any other seaman serving on the vessel.

(Added Pub. L. 99–307, §1(19)(B), May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 446.)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3398 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the deduction for corporate donations of scientific property and computer technology. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2005 

Mr. TERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the deduction for corporate donations of scientific property and computer technology. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR CORPORATE DONATIONS OF 

4 SCIENTIFIC PROPERTY AND COMPUTER 

5 TECHNOLOGY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 170(e)(6) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subpara8 graph (G). 
2 

•HR 3398 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to contributions made in taxable 

3 years beginning after December 31, 2005. 

Æ
### §§21 to 27. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 21 to 27, relating to Territory of Alaska, were omitted in view of admission of Alaska into the Union.

Section 21, act Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 387, §1, 37 Stat. 512, provided for organization and administration of Territory of Alaska.

Section 22, act Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 387, §2, 37 Stat. 512, directed that Capital of Territory be at Juneau.

Section 23, act Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 387, §3, 37 Stat. 512, extended Constitution and laws of United States to Territory.

Section 24, acts Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 387, §3, 37 Stat. 512; July 28, 1956, ch. 772, title III, §301(c), 70 Stat. 713, limited authority of Territorial legislature to repeal or amend existing laws.

Section 25, act June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §30, 31 Stat. 332, empowered Attorney General to prescribe fees of officers not otherwise compensated.

Section 26, act June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §2, 31 Stat. 321, authorized governor to appoint notaries public.

Section 27, act June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §2, 31 Stat. 321, validated appointments of notaries public made prior to June 6, 1900.
Record of Meeting

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0350

Subject: Airc ra ft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) /Experimental Aircraft

Association (EAA) Petition for Exemption regarding Medical Certificates

On April 1, 2013, several representatives of AOPA met wit h Federal Aviation

Administration Aviation Safety (AVS) representatives to discuss a Request for

Exemption filed by AOPA and EAA.

The organizations requested exemption from various Federal Aviation

Regulations related to FAA

- issued medical certificates. The AOPA

representatives stated their members are very interested in this request

and they expressed concern with the slow pace of FAA's efforts to

address the request. They asked whether budget limitations or

sequestration would impact the pace at which FAA would complete its work

on the request. Finally, they reiterated the safety case they put forth in the Request

for Exemption. Briefing slides are attached to this summary.

AVS representatives stated that the request was published for comment

and ove r 16,000 comments were received. The comments are being reviewed

and final decisions are being considered. Because the Administrator has

a meeting scheduled next week with senior representatives from AOPA and

EAA where this exemption will be raised, we w ill wait until after that

meeting to make final decisions. A summary of that meeting will be

included in the docket as well.

Attachment

– Aeromedical Certification Safety Continuum
### **CHAPTER 241—GENERAL**

Sec.
24101.
Findings, mission, and goals.
24102.
Definitions.
24103.
Enforcement.
[24104, 20105. Repealed.]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2015**—Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title XI, §§11202(c)(2), 11301(c)(2), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1630, 1648, struck out items 24104 "Authorization of appropriations" and 24105 "Congestion grants".

**2008**—Pub. L. 110–432, div. B, title II, §201(e)(2), title III, §302(b), Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4911, 4947, substituted "Findings, mission, and goals" for "Findings, purpose, and goals" in item 24101 and added item 24105.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frances Fetta, Appellant, against W. M. Tynan & Company et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The Workmen’s Compensation Board has found as a fact that claimant was not a dependent of her son at the time of his death in 1955; and we are unable to hold on this record that the finding is without substantial evidence. The decedent lived with his father and mother and contributed $1,440 to the family resources during the year before his death. The father contributed $5,565, so that the total family income was $7,005. From this sum the claimant put $1,070 in the savings bank. In about two years after the son’s death the father was scheduled for retirement on about half-pay; and it is argued that the savings deposits were made with this event in mind and hence were part of the living costs of the family as would be deductions for social security or an annuity, the amortization of a mortgage debt or any other provision against future contingency. It is argued also that the husband’s earnings in this period were unusually high due to temporary circumstances in his employment and would not be expected to continue at that level; and that this should be taken into consideration on the "effect of savings on the question of dependency. These arguments, reasonable as they may seem, all lead into areas of fact and evaluation of fact. The board found that since the father’s income “was sufficient to meet the family needs ” the mother “ was not dependent on the decedent at the time of his death”. We are not able to hold this wrong as a matter of law. Decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Guide to free tax services
** 
p910-2003.pdf
p910-2005.pdf
p910-2007.pdf
p910-2009.pdf
p910-2010.pdf
p910-2011.pdf
p910-2013.pdf
p910-2014.pdf
 
 
SuDoc Number:T 22.44/2:910
Item Number:0964-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:000819284
 
August 9, 2019****