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

The undersigned, Andrew P. Blocher, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Federal Realty Investment Trust (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |                                                                                                          
|----------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|May 6, 2009 |  | /s/    Andrew P. Blocher                                                                                 
|            |  | Andrew P. Blocher,                                                                                       
|            |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)
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

I, Raymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended January 20, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: March 6, 2006



/s/ Raymond F. LancyRaymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6700

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL S. SOFIDIYA, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-21-A, CA-99-1600-AM) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Sofidiya, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen P. Learned, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael S. Sofidiya seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Sofidiya , Nos. CR-97-21-A; CA-99-1600-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2001). 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
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

Shirley Evans, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) No. 12 C 1656 

 ) 

NCO Financial Systems, Inc., a ) Judge Gottschall 

Pennsylvania corporation, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, pursuant to settlement and F.R.C.P. Rule 41, hereby stipulates to the 

dismissal of her claims against the Defendant with prejudice. 

Dated: April 24, 2012 

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys 

/s/ David J. Philipps_______

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285) 

Mary E. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06197113) 

 Philipps & Philipps, Ltd. 

9760 S. Roberts Road 

Suite One 

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465 

davephilipps@aol.com 

mephilipps@aol.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-01656 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:25
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 24, 2012, a copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be 

sent to the following parties by U.S. Mail, first class postage pre-paid, on April 24, 2012, 

by 5:00 p.m. 

NCO Financial Systems, Inc. 

c/o Nicole Barrett 

Sessions, Fishman & Nathan, LLP 

55 W. Monroe Street 

Suite 1120 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

/s/ David J. Philipps__________

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285) 

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd. 

9760 South Roberts Road 

Suite One 

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465 

(708) 974-2900 

(708) 974-2907 (FAX) 

davephilipps@aol.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-01656 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/24/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:26
### §3407. Referendum

The Secretary shall conduct a referendum as soon as practicable among end product manufacturers not exempt hereunder who, during a representative period preceding the date of the referendum, as determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the manufacture of end products, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance of an order is approved or favored by such manufacturers. Qualified end product manufacturers may register with the Secretary by mail to vote in such referendum during a period ending not less than thirty days prior to the date of the referendum. Within ten days thereafter, the Secretary shall determine which end product manufacturers are eligible to vote in such referendum and cause to be published the list of such eligible voters. The Secretary shall issue ballots to all such persons who have so registered and been declared eligible to vote. No order issued pursuant to this chapter shall be effective unless the Secretary determines (1) that votes were cast by at least 50 per centum of such registered end product manufacturers, and (2) that the issuance of such order is approved or favored by not less than two-thirds of the end product manufacturers voting in such referendum or by a majority of the end product manufacturers voting in such referendum if such majority manufactured end products containing not less than two-thirds of the total processed wheat contained in all end products manufactured by those voting in the referendum, during the representative period defined by the Secretary: Provided, That at the time of the registration provided under this section each end product manufacturer so registering shall certify to the Secretary the amount of processed wheat contained in the end products manufactured by such end product manufacturer during such representative period. The Secretary shall be reimbursed from assessments collected by the Council for any expenses incurred for the conduct of the referendum. Eligible voter lists and ballots cast in the referendum shall be retained by the Secretary for a period of not less than twelve months after they are cast for audit and recount in the event the results of the referendum are challenged and either the Secretary or the courts determine a recount and retabulation of results is appropriate.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XVII, §1708, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 1036.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 1901 of Pub. L. 95–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 1307 of this title.
Exhibit 23.1





                         Consent of Independent Auditors





The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Unique Mobility, Inc.:

Our report dated May 22, 1998,  contains an explanatory section that states that
we did not audit the  financial  statements  of Taiwan UQM Electric Co., Ltd. (a
38.25% percent owned investee company).  The financial  statements of Taiwan UQM
Electric  Co.,  Ltd.  were  audited  by other  auditors  whose  report  has been
furnished to us, and our opinion,  insofar as it relates to the amounts included
for Taiwan UQM Electric Co., Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 1998 and the five
months ended March 31, 1997 is based solely on the report of the other auditors.

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on
Form S-8 (Nos.  33-23113,  33-24071,  33-34612,  33-35055,  33-34613,  33-41325,
33-64852, 33-47454, 33-81430 and 33-92288) and in the registration statements on
Form S-3 (Nos. 33-61166, 33-63399, 333-01919,  333-13883,  333-44597, 333-23843,
333-50393 and  333-52861) of Unique  Mobility,  Inc. of our report dated May 22,
1998 relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of Unique  Mobility,  Inc. and
subsidiaries  as of  March  31,  1998 and  1997,  and the  related  consolidated
statements  of  operations,  stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the year
ended March 31, 1998, the five months ended March 31, 1997 and each of the years
in the two-year period ended October 31, 1996, which report appears in the March
31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Unique Mobility, Inc.


                                  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Denver, Colorado
June 25, 1998
### SUBCHAPTER II—NATIONAL GENETIC RESOURCES PROGRAM
November 19, 1974.

M. P. No. 1911.

#### Janet G. Swanson *et al. v.*Israel Moses, *Esquire.*

Respondent is directed to show cause why he should not be disbarred for failure to comply with the order of Court, *Swanson et al.*v. *Moses,*110 R. I. 929, 295 A.2d 695 (1972). Respondent is directed to file his answer to this order not later than December 9, 1974.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 22025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08542]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty First Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport 
Security Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security 
Access Control Systems.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
twenty first meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport 
Security Access Control Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 9-10, 2013 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224. The agenda will 
include the following:

May 9-10, 2013

     Welcome, Introductions & Administrative Remarks
     Review and Approve Summary of Twentieth Meeting
     Updates from TSA (as required)
     Document Detailed Review
     Document Finalization Process
     Time and Place of Next Meeting
     Any Other Business
     Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 5, 2013.
Paige Williams,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal 
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-08542 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### 1232.7003-1 Electronic authentication.

Access to DELPHI is granted with electronic authentication of credentials (name & valid email address) utilizing the General Services Administration (GSA) credentialing platform *login.gov*. Vendors submitting invoices will be required to submit invoices via *iSupplier* (DELPHI) and authenticated via *www.login.gov*.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,581
<PP&E>                                         410,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                 138,056
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 305,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          590,099
<BONDS>                                          4,942
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       384,851
<OTHER-SE>                                   (674,702)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   305,190
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   330
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,351,883
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,724
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,351,554)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,351,554)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.04)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

________________

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY and ) 

GFA BRANDS, INC., ) 

) Nos. 1:12-cv-01508 

Plaintiffs, ) 1:12-cv-01509 

 v. ) 1:12-cv-01511 

) 1:12-cv-01513 

KEEBLER CO.; ) 

FAMOUS AMOS CHOCOLATE CHIP ) 

COOKIE COMPANY, LLC; ) 

MURRAY BISCUIT CO. LLC; ) Judge Richard A. Posner. 

VOORTMAN COOKIES LTD.; ) 

BREMNER FOOD GROUP, INC.; ) 

COOKIE SPECIALTIES INC.; ) 

TOPCO ASSOCIATES LLC; ) 

and NESTLÉ USA, INC., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. )

 

 ORDER OF JANUARY 11, 2013 

The parties’ Daubert motions have raised two questions concerning the proper 

construction of the patents in this case: 

(1) Many of the numerical ranges and ratios in the claims express the quantity of specific 

fatty acids as a percentage of the weight of the blended fat composition. My Markman

order of August 24, 2012 addresses the denominator in these ratios, stating that the 

weight of the fat composition “describes the constituents’ weight in terms of the weight 

of the triglycerides in the blended fat composition.” My order does not address the 

numerator, the weight of the fatty acids themselves. Fatty acids contain a hydroxide 

molecule that is lost when fatty acids combine with glycerol to form a triglyceride. The 

Daubert challenge to Dr. Peter J.H. Jones raise the question of whether the weight of the 

hydroxide molecule should be included in the weight of the fatty acid. The plaintiffs 

Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 458 Filed: 01/11/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:25750
correctly argue that this is a question of claim construction rather than, as the 

defendants have suggested, a question of the reliability of Dr. Jones’s methodology. 

(2) My Markman order also defined the term “margarine” in the ‘192 patent as “a butter 

substitute, having flavorings or other additives, that constitutes an emulsion with a 

water phase and an oil phase.” But I did not resolve whether a margarine, as a butter 

substitute, must be a “stable” emulsion—that is, whether the water and oil must remain 

evenly dispersed for a certain period of time before separating. The Daubert challenges 

to Mr. Harold R. Russell and Mr. Allan Roden raise the question of whether the patent, 

as construed in the Markman order, requires a margarine to remain stable, and if so for 

how long. 

The parties are ordered to simultaneously brief these two questions of claim 

construction by Monday, January 14. The deadline to file summary judgment motions 

is extended to Tuesday, January 29. All other deadlines remain the same. 

 

 United States Circuit Judge 

January 11, 2013 

Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 458 Filed: 01/11/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:25751
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary Financial information extracted from the November
30, 1999 Form 10Q and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  728,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    764,295
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,700,591
<PP&E>                                       1,764,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                 930,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,170,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,332,742
<BONDS>                                        797,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,048
<COMMON>                                       525,703
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,612
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,170,884
<SALES>                                      2,835,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,984,465
<CGS>                                        2,719,754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,860,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,535
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,510)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,022
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,542)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Trust Made by Erland A. Jensen and Another. Thomas E. Jensen et al., Appellants; Anne M. Jensen, as Trustee of the Trust Made by Erland A. Jensen et al., Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 497]—

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered January 13, 2006 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 77, dismissed the petition.

The Jensen Revocable Trust, expressly governed by the laws of Florida, was executed by Erland A. Jensen and Eleanor M. Jensen in 1999 and named respondent, their daughter, as a beneficiary and successor trustee. Following Eleanor Jensen’s death in 2004—her husband had predeceased her—all of her estate’s assets were transferred to the trust pursuant to her will. In 2005, petitioners, who are respondent’s siblings and also beneficiaries of the trust, commenced this proceeding by order to show cause seeking to compel an accounting and distribution of the trust’s assets. Supreme Court dismissed the application for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, prompting this appeal by petitioners.

Inasmuch as the record reflects that the trust has an asset in New York State and respondent resides in Sullivan County, we cannot agree with Supreme Court’s determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction. Those contacts with New York State satisfy two different jurisdictional predicates listed in SCPA 207 (1) and, thus, would confer jurisdiction upon Surrogate’s Court. As a court of general jurisdiction, Supreme Court has at least as much jurisdiction of a lifetime trust as would Surrogate’s Court *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 7 [a]; *Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown,*89 NY2d 714, 718 [1997]; *compare Matter of Witherill,*306 AD2d 674, 675 [2003]). Since respondent has consented to *1137personal jurisdiction,* we now reverse and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination on the merits.

Crew III, J.E, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

*

 Although respondent’s submission purports to also include her consent to Supreme Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, we note that a determination as to the presence of such jurisdiction is a judicial matter (see *Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, supra*at 718).