alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David A. O'Neil,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

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

Date: May 13, 2004

                                              /s/ David A. O'Neil
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              David A. O'Neil
                                              Treasurer and Principal Financial
                                              Officer


                                       30
IN THE SUPREME COURT FO R THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. DA 21-0327 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. THOMAS JAMES LUCERO, Defendant and Appellant. ORDER Upon consideration of Defendant a nd Appellant’s Motion For Ext ension Of Time (Second Or Subsequent), a nd with good cause shown, Defenda nt and Appellant Thomas Lucero is here by granted an extension of time until June 11, 2022 in which to prepare, file and serve Defendant and Appellan t’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 11 2022

05/11/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0327
#### Susan Thompson, Respondent, v. Henry Litinsky et al., Respondents, and St. Vincent's Hospital, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of alleged negligence and malpractice, the defendant hospital appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 17, 1961, which denied its motion, under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the amended Complaint as against it. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.3





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-159930, 333-156086, 333-132551, 333-146376 and 333-177900) on Form S-8 and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-166131 and 333-169253) of EXCO Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) of the reference to Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. and the inclusion of our report dated January 4, 2013 in the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012, of the Company and its subsidiaries, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.





By:    /s/ C.H. (Scott) Rees III


C.H. (Scott) Rees III, P.E.


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





Dallas, Texas


August 29, 2013
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6616

MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES FELTS, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers,

District Judge. (5:06-cv-00605)

Submitted: August 6, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Allen Kokoski, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Allen Kokoski, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West

2006 & Supp. 2007) petition. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Kokoski v. Felts, No. 5:06-cv-00605 (S.D.W.

Va. Apr. 12, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 28.205 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 28.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or an extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting of a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( c ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( d ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
[55 FR 6737, 6752, Feb. 26, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 57 FR 6199, 6200, Feb. 21, 1992]
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Grahams Construction Inc. ) ) 

### . Under ContractNo. W912DY-l l-D-0040 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61927

Daniel G. Rosenberg, Esq.

James McHugh Construction Co. Chicago, IL Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engi,neer ChiefTrial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL On December 28, 2018, the Boardreceived a letter dated December 27, 2018, on James McHugh Construction Co. (McHugh) letterhead, purportingto be a notice of appeal from a contracting officer's final decision dated November 1, 2018, which asserted a government claim against Grahams Construction Inc. (Grahams). The letter was signed by Daniel G. Rosenberg. Esq., a McHugh Senior Vice President and General Counsel. and indicated that he was signing "forJames McHugh Construction Co." In the letter. Mr. Rosenberg stated that McHugh was filing the appeal "onbehalfof[Grahams] with Grahams' and [U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers'] express written permission as detailed further herein." The Board docketed this matter as ASBCA No. 61927. By Order dated January 8, 2019, the Board directed Grahams to affirm, no later than January 23, 2019, that it wishes to pursue this appeal and that it is representedby Mr. Rosenberg or, ifit does not wish to berepresented by Mr. Rosenberg, to have a representative meeting the requirements ofBoardRule l5(a) file a written notice of appearance. The Order also directed McHugh, ifGrahams failed to complywith the Order, to demonstrate that it has standing to pursue this appeal on behalfofGrahams or otherwise show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdictionby February 20, 2019. The Board sentthe Order to Mr. Rosenberg at McHugh and to Grahams at the address for Grahams set forth in the final decision attached to McHugh's letter dated December 27, 2018. In an email dated January 8, 2019, sentto the Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney and copied to the Board, Mr. Rosenberg stated, in relevantpart: I am not legal counsel to Grahams Construction. Ihave never acted as such counsel and cannot agree to do so now or in the 

# Ifuture regardless ofGrahams Construction's desire or lack thereof.... I do believe McHugh has standingto act for Grahams for a variety ofreasons and will address those reasons ifit proves necessary to do so. The Boardreceived no response from Grahams orMcHughto its January 8 Order, nor to two subsequent Orders. Without a representative meeting the requirements of Board Rule 15(a). the Board is unable to proceed. The appeal is dismissed. Dated: April 8. 2019

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals OWEN C. WILSON Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

ALEXAN Administrativ u e Acting Vice Chair an Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals ER

I certify thatthe foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61927, Appeal ofGrahams Construction Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Editorial Note on Part 724
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

§ 724.109 Types of administrative discharges. ( a ) A determination reflecting a member's military behavior and performance of duty during a specific period of service. The three characterizations are: ( 1 ) *Honorable.* A separation from the naval service with honor. The issuance of an Honorable Discharge is contingent upon proper military behavior and performance of duty.
( 2 ) Under Honorable Conditions (also termed General Discharge). A separation from the naval service under honorable conditions. The issuance of a discharge under honorable conditions is contingent upon military behavior and performance of duty which is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an Honorable Discharge.
( 3 ) *Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (formerly termed Undesirable Discharge).* A separation from the naval service under conditions other than honorable. It is issued to terminate the service of a member of the naval service for one or more of the reasons/basis listed in the Naval Military Personnel Manual, Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual and their predecessor publications.
( 4 ) *Entry Level Separation.* ( i ) A separation initiated while a member is in entry level status will be described as an Entry Level Separation except in the following circumstances: ( a ) When characterization under Other Than Honorable Conditions is authorized and is warranted by the circumstances of the case; or
( b ) When characterization of service as Honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances including personal conduct and performance of naval duty and is approved on a case-by-case basis by the Secretary of the Navy. This characterization will be considered when the member is separated by reason of Selected Changes in Service Obligation, Convenience of the Government, or Disability.
( ii ) With respect to administrative matters outside the administrative separation system that require a characterization of service as Honorable or General, an Entry Level Separation shall be treated as the required characterization. An Entry Level Separation for a member of a Reserve component separated from the Delayed Entry Program is under honorable conditions.
( b ) [Reserved]
[50 FR 10943, Mar. 19, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 44909, Dec. 15, 1986; 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000]
MEMORANDUM 

TO: Counsel to the Inspector General 

FROM: Inspcclor General 

SUBJECT: Redelegation of Authority for Freedom of Information Act Requests for OIG 

Records 

I. DELEGATION 

Under the authority vested in me by a delegation from the Secretary, delegation 

EAlEF/l 93. certified on May 10, 2011. and subject to the reservations noted below, I 

hereby delegate to you, and to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority 

to administer the Department's responsibilities under the Freedom of Infannalion Act 

(FOIA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, for 

records maintained in the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This includes the authority 

to deny the release of documents, or portions of documents, to the extent that such denial 

is consistent with the FOIA. the Privacy Act, Departmental Regulations, and Executive 

Orders. This also includes the authority to charge fecs to requesters of documents 

maintained in the OIG, consistent with the FOIA, Departmental Regulations, and 

Executive Orders. 

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authorities 

delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation. 

II. RESERVATIONS 

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the following are 

not delegated: 

• the authori ty to issue decisions on administrative appeals of denials of 

requests for records is reserved to the Inspector General; 

• the authority to waive or reduce all or part of any fee is reserved to the 

Departmental Headquarters Designated Denial Officer; and 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF INS PECTOR GENERAL 
Page 2 - Redclcgation of Authority 

• the authority to submit FOJA reports to Congress or the President is reserved to 

the Secretary unless otherwise provided by law. 

III. REDELEGATION 

No further rcdelegation is authorized. 

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE 

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal Delegations 

Control Officer and supersedes delegation EFIEF!l88. I hereby ratify actions within the 

scope of this delegation taken by the addressee prior to the date of certification. 

<C 

Kathleen 

..... ' S "'\-t=:=" 

S. Tighe 

V1,.LjoA f 1 ~ DI) 

CERnAED DAm '" r Y} 

~ 7. {It.JvedDeportmental DeleptJons Conuol Officer 

EF!U/l CIj 

Control Number
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1463 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1463

    Censuring Representative Bennie Thompson for inciting violence, 
 including two assassination attempts, against President Donald Trump.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2024

  Ms. Greene of Georgia submitted the following resolution; which was 
                  referred to the Committee on Ethics

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Censuring Representative Bennie Thompson for inciting violence, 
 including two assassination attempts, against President Donald Trump.

Whereas Representative Bennie Thompson has introduced H. R. 8081, the DISGRACED 
        Former Protectees Act, targeting President Donald J. Trump by attempting 
        to remove his United States Secret Service protection, which is granted 
        to all former presidents;
Whereas Representatives Troy Carter, Barbara Lee, Frederica Wilson, Yvette 
        Clarke, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jasmine Crockett, Joyce Beatty, and Steve 
        Cohen are cosponsors of the bill;
Whereas a staffer of Representative Bennie Thompson said after the first 
        assassination attempt on President Trump, ``I don't condone violence but 
        please get you some shooting lessons so you don't miss next time...ooops 
        that wasn't me talking.'';
Whereas Representative Jasmine Crockett lashed out in a recent interview, just 
        hours before the second assassination attempt on President Trump, 
        saying, ``MAGA in general--they are threats to us domestically.'';
Whereas Representative Steve Cohen said, ``Trump is an enemy of the United 
        States.''; and
Whereas Representative Joyce Beatty said President Trump ``stepped on our 
        democracy. He defied the Constitution.'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) the House of Representatives censures Representative 
        Bennie Thompson for inciting violence, including two 
        assassination attempts, against President Donald Trump;
            (2) Representative Thompson will forthwith present himself 
        in the well of the House of Representatives for the 
        pronouncement of censure; and
            (3) Representative Thompson will be censured with the 
        public reading of this resolution by the Speaker.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.13

                                   GUARANTEE

      THIS GUARANTEE, dated July 31, 2009 (the "Guarantee"),is made by
   SOUTHWEST GEORGIA BANK, a Georgia bank ("Bank").

      WHEREAS, Empire Financial Services, Inc., a Georgia corporation
("Empire") and Charlie Lemons, an individual resident of the State of North
Carolina ("Executive") entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated
as of January 8, 2007 (the "Agreement"); and

      WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the Bank will guarantee Empire's
performance of its obligations under the Agreement;

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Bank hereby
unconditionally guarantees to Executive the due and punctual payment of all
payments (including salary, bonuses, and reimbursements) and other obligations
of Empire owed to Executive under the Agreement when and as the same becomes
due and payable, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.  In case of
the failure of Empire to make any such payments, Bank hereby agrees to cause
any such payment to be made when and as the same becomes due and payable, as
if such payment were made by Empire.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Bank has caused this Guarantee to be executed and
delivered as of the date first written above.

                                             SOUTHWEST GEORGIA BANK
                                             By:     /s/DeWitt Drew
                                             Name:   G. DeWitt Drew
                                             Title:  President and CEO
#### SLATTON v. METRO AIR CONDITIONING

No. 448P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 209

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1997.
<PAGE>   1
                          EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY

                           EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                             Form 10-Q, Exhibit 11



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Third Quarter                    Nine Months
                                                ----------------------------    ----------------------------
                                                    1996            1995            1996            1995
                                                ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
<S>                                             <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Income available for common stock dividends     $ 24,807,000    $ 20,289,000    $ 13,984,000    $ 62,459,000

Primary average common shares outstanding         36,319,086      33,830,327      35,666,868      34,589,863
Primary earnings per share                            0.6830          0.5997          0.3921          1.8057

Fully diluted average common shares outstanding   37,305,664      34,053,823      36,602,621      34,823,887
Fully diluted earnings per common share         $     0.6650    $     0.5958    $     0.3820    $     1.7936

</TABLE>
exv10wb



 







EXHIBIT 10.B




AMENDMENT TO




VIAD CORP

1997 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN

PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT

AS AMENDED MARCH 29, 2005




     Employee, _________, and Viad Corp mutually agree to the following amendment to
the Performance-Based Restricted Stock Agreement for the award of performance-based restricted
stock granted to Employee on February 22, 2006 (the “Agreement”). Unless otherwise defined herein,
capitalized terms used herein will have the same meanings as in the Agreement.



     1. Section 3(a) of the Agreement is amended by deleting the third paragraph in its entirety,
and replacing it with the following:




“If the Employee ceases to be an employee of the Corporation or any of its Affiliates by
reason of normal or early retirement, full ownership of the Earned Shares will occur upon
lapse of the Restriction Period as set forth in paragraph 2 and dividends will be paid
through such period, in each case on a pro rata basis, calculated based on the percentage of
time Employee was employed by the Corporation or any of its Affiliates from the Commencement
Date through the date the Employee was employed during the year in which the award was
granted; provided, however, that full ownership of the Shares (versus pro rata ownership)
will occur upon lapse of such Restriction Period if the Employee has reached age 60 at the
time of retirement and such retirement is at least 2 years subsequent to the date of grant,
or such retirement is at least 6 months subsequent to the date of grant and Employee has
retired due to unforeseen hardship or circumstances beyond the control of Employee, as
reasonably determined by the Human Resources Committee of the Board, in its absolute
discretion.”



     2. This Amendment shall be effective as of March 28, 2006.



     3. Except as otherwise expressly modified or amended herein, all terms and conditions
contained in the Agreement will remain in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be duly
executed.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated:                                          , 2006	 	VIAD CORP
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

General Counsel or Assistant Secretary

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ACCEPTED:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	Employee
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Robert Burd (Reargument). (B) The People of the State of New York v. William W. Nunemaker. (C) The People of the State of New York ex rel. Pablo Prado v. Walter H. Wilkins, as Warden of Attica Prison. (D) The People of the State of New York ex rel. Walter Sullivan v. Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison (Reargument). (E) The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Williams v. Walter H. Wilkins, as Warden of Attica Prison (Reargument).

[In each case] Motion for leave to prosecute appeal as poor person, and for other relief, denied.