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



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 January 21, 2005 (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 7, 2005



/s/ Raymond F. LancyRaymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)




18
No. 47,284

#### Larry J. Henderson, Appellant, v. State of Kansas, *Appellee.*

(518 P. 2d 392)

Opinion filed January 26, 1974.

*Marvin C. Pendergraft,*of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for Appellant.

*Clifford L. Beitholf,*assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and *R. K. Hollingsworth,*assistant district attorney, *Vein Miller,*attorney general and *Keith Sanborn,*district attorney, were with him on the brief for Appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1507, challenging petitioner s 1968 convictions for robbery and unlawful possession of firearms, and the resulting sentences imposed under the Habitual Criminal Act, K. S. A. 21-107a.

Careful consideration has been given to the record, briefs, and questions raised by the petitioner, and they are disposed of as follows:

1. The record conclusively shows the appointment of counsel and evidentiary hearing on petitioners application for relief under K. S. A. 60-1507 were unnecessary.

2. The district court’s finding the petitioner’s complaints had been “laid to rest in the case of *State v. Henderson,*205 Kan. 231 (1970)” met the requirements of supreme court Rule 121 (/); and further, the petitioner had not been prejudiced by the lack of more elaborate findings.

3. Except for the claim that K. S. A. 21-107a is unconstitutional (made here for the first time) petitioner’s claims of error and denial of due process were thoroughly presented, considered and disposed of in his appeal reported as *State v. Henderson,*205 Kan. 231, 468 P. 2d 136, and are not now subject to review either in the district court or in this appeal.

4. Though not briefed and presumably abandoned, the claim in petitioner’s “Questions Raised” that K. S. A. 21-107a is unconstitutional, is noted and considered. The claim is that the “title to *891chapter 178, 1939 Session Láws, is defective.” We find no merit in this contention.

For reasons stated above, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
#### 207.105 Contents of written acquisition plans.

In addition to the requirements of FAR 7.105, planners shall follow the procedures at PGI 207.105.

[71 FR 53045, Sept. 8, 2006]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8558-8559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01299]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 18-177; FRS 17376]


Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of compliance date.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission announces that compliance 
with the rule for reporting information about the most recent date of 
permanent

[[Page 8559]]

disconnection to the Reassigned Numbers Database per the 2018 Second 
Report and Order, published on March 26, 2019, is now required.

DATES: Compliance with 47 CFR 64.1200(l)(2), published at 84 FR 11226, 
March 26, 2019, is required as of March 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Schroeder of the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Policy Division, at (202) 418-
0654 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9dd6fceff8f3b3cefef5eff2f8f9f8efddfbfefeb3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a113b283f347409393228353f3e3f281a3c3939743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document announces that OMB approved 
the information collection requirement in Sec.  64.1200(l)(2) on June 
2, 2020.
    The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the 
compliance date of the rule.
    The Commission previously announced that compliance with the rules 
for aging numbers and maintaining records of the most recent date of 
permanent disconnection was required as of July 27, 2020, published at 
85 FR 38334, June 26, 2020.
    To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9afaaaafcf9fd89afaaaae7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d4b4e4e181d196d4b4e4e034a425b">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

    Editorial Note:  This document was received for publication by 
the Office of the Federal Register on January 14, 2021.

[FR Doc. 2021-01299 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### HAMILTON et al., Appellants, v. WINCH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

*1129Action by Charles H. Hamilton and others against Frank Winch.

L. Frankel, for appellants. E. D. O’Brien, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA FALES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2878

)

CIGPF I CORP., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has just been

assigned to this Court’s calendar. Its initial review of the

Complaint reveals that plaintiff Cynthia Fales (“Fales”) is a

Maine citizen from whom debt collector CIGPF I Corp. and its

affiliated co-defendant debt collectors attempted to collect a

debt by writing to her at her home from their offices elsewhere

(Minnesota and Georgia). In any event, this action has nothing

to do with Illinois except that Fales is represented by Chicago

counsel.

This Court must not be misunderstood as looking askance at

the efforts of Fales’ counsel, who are described in Complaint ¶3

as “the legal aid attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinic’s Legal

Advocates for Seniors and People with Disabilities program

(‘LASPD’) located in Chicago, Illinois,” to pursue violators of

the Act. But as those counsel well know, this Court takes a dim

view of haling an asserted violator of the Act into court here in

Illinois where nothing about the lawsuit itself has any Illinois

Case: 1:12-cv-02878 Document #: 6 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:31
connection. Indeed, the selfsame plaintiff’s counsel have very

recently moved, in an identical situation in another lawsuit

assigned at random to this Court’s calendar, to transfer it

elsewhere. This Court will not issue its customary initial

scheduling order in the hope that like action will attend this

case.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 23, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-02878 Document #: 6 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:32
19.813 Protesting an 8(a) participant's eligibility or size status. ( a ) The eligibility of an 8(a) participant for a sole source or competitive 8(a) requirement may not be challenged by another 8(a) participant or any other party, either to SBA or any administrative forum as part of a bid or other contract protest (see 13 CFR 124.517).
( b ) The size status of an 8(a) participant nominated for an 8(a) sole source contract may not be protested by another 8(a) participant or any other party.
( c ) The size status of the apparent successful offeror for competitive 8(a) awards may be protested. The filing of a size status protest is limited to— ( 1 ) Any offeror whom the contracting officer has not eliminated for reasons unrelated to size;
( 2 ) The contracting officer; or
( 3 ) The SBA District Director in either the district office serving the geographical area in which the contracting activity is located or the district office that services the apparent successful offeror, or the Associate Administrator for Business Development.
( d ) Protests of competitive 8(a) awards shall follow the procedures at 19.302. For additional information, refer to 13 CFR 121.1001.
[82 FR 4730, Jan. 13, 2017]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jimmie Lee Paul, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court (9 A D 2d 719) and, according to the District Attorney’s brief, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied in February, 1960 (Desmond, Ch. J.). The appellate process as to the judgment of conviction was effectively terminated by that denial. *(People*v. Muller, 11 N Y 2d 154.) Therefore, *coram nobis*is not available to raise the question sought to be presented. (Appeal from order of Ontario County Court denying a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction for carrying and use of concealed weapons on March 24,1959, after prior conviction of a crime.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
19.1500 General. ( a ) Section 8(m) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(m)) created the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program.
( b ) The purpose of the WOSB Program is to ensure women-owned small business concerns have an equal opportunity to participate in Federal contracting and to assist agencies in achieving their women-owned small business participation goals (see 13 part CFR 127).
( c ) An economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB) concern and a WOSB concern eligible under the WOSB Program are subcategories of “women-owned small business concern” as defined in section 2.101.
[76 FR 18311, Apr. 1, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 12917, Mar. 2, 2012; 87 FR 58241, Sept. 23, 2022]
< > 

CERTIFICATE 

State of Oregon 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 

I, Austin Wray Schulz, certify that in accordance with ORS 171.325 that the attached copies listed below are a true 

and correct copy extracted trom the 2009 Oregon Revised Statutes. 

1. ORS 183.310 through 183.750. 33 pages in length. 

O F 

^CV: 

s 

/ 

" ^ 

^8 5 9 

In Testimony Whereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand 

and affixed hereto the Seal of the Secretary of State 

ofthe State of Oregon. 

Done at Salem, Oregon, this 

June4, A.D. 2010. 

Au«in Wray Schulz 

Assistant to the Secretary of State 
V' 

CERTIFICATE 

State of Oregon 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 

I, David B. Wendell, certify that in accordance with ORS 171.325 the attached copies listed 

below are a tme and correct copies extracted fi-om the 2009 Oregon Revised Statutes. 

FROM THE RECORDS OF: THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 

One copy, ORS chapter 465, 42 pages in length. 

One copy, ORS chapter 466, 47 pages in length. 

3. One copy, ORS chapter 468, 46 pages in length. 

1. 

2. 

.iti i%i. A A» . 

\ 

^ . 

^W' 

> 

/ a 5 9 

In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set 

my hand and affixed hereto the Seal ofthe 

Secretary of State ofthe State of Oregon. 

7th Done at Salem, Oregon, this 7 day of April 

A.D.2010. 

David B. Wendell 

Assistant to the Secretary of State
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 Year-end Report on Form 10-K of Public Storage, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ronald L. Havner, Jr., as
Chief  Executive  Officer and President of the Company and John Reyes,  as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  each hereby certifies,  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) 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.


/s/ Ronald L. Havner, Jr.
------------------------------
Name:    Ronald L. Havner, Jr.
Title:   Chief Executive Officer & President
Date:    March 15, 2006

/s/ John Reyes
------------------------------
Name:    John Reyes
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:    March 15, 2006


This   certification   accompanies   the  Report   pursuant  to  ss.906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 134, as amended.


A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement  required  by  ss.906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  has  been  provided  to the  Company,  and  will be
retained and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.


                                   Exhibit 32
Case: 1:12-cv-02660 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1

Case: 1:12-cv-02660 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2

Case: 1:12-cv-02660 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3

Case: 1:12-cv-02660 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4

Case: 1:12-cv-02660 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5

Case: 1:12-cv-02660 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6

Case: 1:12-cv-02660 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7

Case: 1:12-cv-02660 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8

Case: 1:12-cv-02660 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9
208.7402 General. ( a ) Departments and agencies shall fulfill requirements for commercial software and commercial software services, such as software maintenance, in accordance with the DoD Enterprise Software Initiative (ESI) (see *https://www.esi.mil/ ).* ESI promotes the use of enterprise software agreements (ESAs) with contractors that allow DoD to obtain favorable terms and pricing for commercial software and related services. ESI does not dictate the products or services to be acquired.
( b ) Include an evaluation factor regarding supply chain risk (see subpart 239.73) when acquiring information technology, whether as a service or as a supply, that is a covered system, is a part of a covered system, or is in support of a covered system, as defined in 239.7301.
[67 FR 65511, Oct. 25, 2002, as amended at 78 FR 69270, Nov. 18, 2013; 80 FR 67251, Oct. 30, 2015; 88 FR 6581, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### Callaway *et al. v.*Pearson.

Atkinson, J.

A partnership composed of C. and Y. sold their 'business and property to a partnership composed of C. and'P., the trade being effected by 'the partner who was the common member of both firms. In part the consideration of the sale was that the purchasing firm assumed all the debts of the selling firm, and that the purchasing firm was to give its note to partner Y., of the selling firm, for a stated amount. The transaction was consummated by the execution of a deed. Subsequently the purchasing firm paid certain items of indebtedness of the selling firm, which were not disclosed to P. at the time of the sale; and partner Y., of the selling firm, collected certain accounts Which had been sold to the purchasing firm, and appropriated the proceeds to his own use. The note contracted to be given to Y. by the firm of C. and P. was executed by C. in behalf of the film of O. and P., and was for a larger sum than that agreed on, and the note was transferred before due to an innocent holder, who sued upon it to judgment, which judgment was paid by P. Two years after the sale P. brought suit against 0. and Y., alleging the foregoing facts, and “that there are no debts owing by the said firm of [C. and P.] and no credits of said firm, and were none when this suit was filed,” praying for an accounting from C. and Y. as individuals, and for judgment for a stated sum representing the excess of the note given by C. and P. to Y. over that agreed upon, and one half of the other several amounts referred to above. *-Held:*

1. As the firm of C. and P. is not dissolved, and no agreement of settlement between the partners is alleged, and no case for an equitable accounting of the partnership or insolvency of the partner C. is alleged; whatever right of action may exist against Y., or 0. and Y., on account of the payment of indebtedness of the firm of 0. and Y. by tne firm of O. and P., is in the latter firm, and not in the partner P.

2. Accounts sold by the selling firm to the purchasing firm belong to the latter; and if after the sale one member of’ the selling firm collects *541items of indebtedness so transferred and appropriates the same to his own use, the right of action to recover the sums thus appropriated is in the purchasing firm, and not in one of the members thereof.

February 27, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Sheppard. Tattnall superior court. October *4,*1911.

*E. G. Qollins*and *Hines & Jordan,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Travis & Travis*and *J. V. Kelley,*contra.

3. The allegations respecting the execution of the note to Y. and C. in behalf of C. and P., in excess of the amount agreed on, with intent to defraud P., and the payment of the judgment on the note by P., sufficiently state a case of tort; and in the absence of special demurrers or objections as to multifariousness, there was no error in overruling a general demurrer to the petition.

*4.*The instructions of the court were not in accord with the foregoing-rulings, and the verdict is not supported by the evidence.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Secured Digital Storage
      Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the SEC (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date
      indicated below, hereby certifies, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





This
      written statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to such Report.
      A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      SEC or its staff upon request.





By:
              /s/
                  Patrick J. GainerChief
                  Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)October
                  23, 2008
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
QMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 


(in thousands, except per share amounts)        October 2,           October 3,        September 27,
                                                   1998                 1997               1996
                                                -----------          ----------        -------------
<S>                                             <C>                  <C>               <C>
Net Income (Loss)                                $  1,825            $(26,122)           $  4,253
                                                 ========            ========            ========
 
Shares used in this computation:
 Weighted average common shares
  outstanding (basic)                              10,697              10,696              10,681
 
 Shares applicable to stock options, net
  of shares assumed to be purchased
  from proceeds at average market                     190                   0                  41
                                                 --------            --------            --------
 
Total diluted shares                               10,887              10,696              10,722
                                                 ========            ========            ========
 
 
Earnings (loss) per common share,
 Basic and diluted:
  Net income (loss)                               $  0.17              ($2.44)            $  0.40
 
 Weighted average number of shares
 used in computing earnings per share:
  Basic                                            10,697              10,696              10,681
  Diluted                                          10,887              10,696              10,722
</TABLE>
204.1703 Reporting requirements. ( a ) *Thresholds.* Service contractor reporting of information is required in the System for Award Management (SAM) when a contract or order— ( i ) Has a total estimated value, including options, that exceeds $3 million; and
( ii ) Is for services in the following service acquisition portfolio groups (see PGI 204.1703 for a list of applicable product and service codes): ( A ) Logistics management services.
( B ) Equipment-related services.
( C ) Knowledge-based services.
( D ) Electronics and communications services.
( b ) *Agency reporting responsibilities.* In the event the agency believes that revisions to the contractor-reported information are warranted, the agency shall notify the contractor. (S-70) *Contractor reporting.* (1) The basic and the alternate of the clause at 252.204-7023, Reporting Requirements for Contracted Services, require contractors to report annually, by October 31, on the services performed under the contract or order, including any first-tier subcontracts, during the preceding Government fiscal year. (2) For indefinite-delivery contracts, basic ordering agreements, and blanket purchase agreements— ( i ) Contractor reporting is required for each order issued under the contract or agreement that meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section; and
( ii ) Service contract reporting is not required for the basic contract or agreement.
#### 215.370 Evaluation factor for employing or subcontracting with members of the Selected Reserve.