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 In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Maxtor Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 25, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Duston M. Williams, Executive Vice President,
Finance and Chief 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 (Section 906), that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/  Duston M. WilliamsDuston M. WilliamsExecutive Vice President, Finance
and Chief Financial Officer Date: May 12, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version 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 Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 23 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 23

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR CEREMONY TO PRESENT THE 
              CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO THE FILIPINO VETERANS OF 
              WORLD WAR II.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used on October 25, 2017 for a ceremony to present 
the Congressional Gold Medal collectively to the Filipino Veterans of 
World War II in recognition of their dedicated military service.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.

            Passed the Senate September 6, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 23

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the Filipino 
                       Veterans of World War II.
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

BNSF Railway Company

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BNSF Railway (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Matthew K. Rose, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas N. Hund, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date
hereof:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: October 24, 2006



|                                                |  |                                                     
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Matthew K. Rose                             |  | /s/ Thomas N. Hund                                  
|Matthew K. Rose                                 |  | Thomas N. Hund                                      
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BNSF
Railway Company and will be retained by BNSF Railway Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 1422.1003-4 Administrative limitations, variations, tolerances and exemptions.

The CO shall submit requests for determination regarding application of the Service Contract Act and exemptions directly to DOL, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division.
EXHIBIT F 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-6 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:193
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-6 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:194
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-6 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:195
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-6 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:196
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-6 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:197
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-6 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:198
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-6 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:199
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-6 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:200
#### In re MELODY, Sheriff.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

Certiorari—Requiring Further Return.

Where the return to a writ oí certiorari to review the action of the civil service commission in placing certain positions in the competitive class, denies that they have been so placed, and on the hearing it is conceded that they have been, a further return will be ordered, under Code Civ. Proc. § 2135, providing therefor where a return is defective.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Certiorari, § 141.]

Action by William E. Melody, sheriff of Kings county, for writ of certiorari to Cuthbert W. Pound and others, composing the state civil service commission. Further return ordered.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and JENKS, HOOKER, J and MILLER, JJ.

Charles H. Hyde, for relator.

Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

*701JENKS, J.

This is a writ of certiorari to review the proceedings of the state civil service commission, granted on the petition of the sheriff of Kings county, informing the court that the commission had placed the positions of assistant deputy sheriffs, keepers of jail, van drivers, and matrons in the classified or competitive class of the state civil service. The commissioners return that they “deny that they at anytime placed the positions involved herein, namely, those of assistant deputy sheriff, keeper of the jail, van driver, and matron in the office of sheriff of Kings county in the competitive class.” Section 2134 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that there must be made “a return, with .a transcript annexed, and certified * * * of the record of proceedings, and a statement of the other matters, specified in and required by the writ.” We cannot look back of such a return into "the petition and the accompanying papers. People ex rel. Miller v. Wurster, 149 N. Y. 549, 44 N. E. 298. The learned and able Attorney General says that the return was made by his predecessor, and, in effect, as it seems as matter of fact that the positions are in the competitive class, he must conjecture that the return is based upon one of two technical points, though he ventures no further. We are urged by him to accept his "concession that, in effect, the return is not in accord with the facts. Although his spirit of concession is entirely commendable, yet I think the court should not proceed, when it must do so upon the concession that the return is not true, in that it is not consistent with matters of fact. I think, under the circumstances, we should order a further return, under the authority of section 2135 of the Code of Civil Procedure as construed in People ex rel. P. P. Co. v. Martin, 142 N. Y. 228, 36 N. E. 885, 40 Am. St. Rep. 592, and People ex rel. Miller v. Wurster, supra. All concur.
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 2 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:38
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Angeles Income Properties, Ltd. II (the"Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSE LUIS OTERO

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2608

[ June 9, 2022 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Sherri L. Collins , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502019CT015161AXXXMB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and MaryEllen M.

Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, K LINGENSMITH and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          31,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,379
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,255
<INVENTORY>                                     80,878
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               206,554
<PP&E>                                         250,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                 158,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          412,893
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        582
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (328,045)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,539
<SALES>                                        798,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               798,884
<CGS>                                          888,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  888,858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               148,453<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,075
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (255,502)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       824
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (256,326)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (256,326)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other SE includes Additional Paid in Capital of $335,017 and Accumulated
Deficit of $663,062
<F2>Other expenses include Research & Development expenses of $87,752 and
Selling, General and Administrative expenses of $60,701
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### BERG v. SPITZ.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

1. Statute of Frauds—Agreement to Answer for Another’s Debt—Consideration.

A parol promise to pay the debt of another in consideration of the cancellation thereof so far as the original debtor is concerned is not within the statute of frauds.

8. Same.

An oral promise to pay the debt for which a judgment debtor is imprisoned in consideration of his release from jail in order that he may return to the service of the promisor is not within the statute of frauds.

¶ 1. See Frauds, Statute of, vol. 23, Cent. Dig. § 47.

*5338. Same.

An oral promise by a third person to complete the payment for goods purchased on the installment plan in consideration of the goods being transferred to him is not within the statute of frauds, whether title to the goods is in the buyer or seller.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, First District.

Action by Sol Berg against Samuel Spitz. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and BARTLETT, JENKS, WOODWARD, and HOOKER, JJ.

William Hauser, for appellant.

Alex. B. Greenberg, for respondent.

JENKS, J.

I see no reason to disturb the decision upon the facts, and I think that the defense of the statute of frauds cannot prevail. Plaintiff’s assignor, Stromberg, recovered a judgment against Faisler for conversion of jewelry sold on the installment plan, and jailed him. Faisler was a servant of the defendant. The evidence warrants these findings of fact: The defendant promised Stromberg that, if he would release Faisler for a return to service, he (the defendant) would pay the claim. Stromberg did so, and paid the judgment against Faisler. The defendant thereupon paid Stromberg $20 on account, and agreed to pay off the balance in regular installments. At that time, with the assent of Stromberg, Faisler, who had pawned the jewelry, gave the pawn tickets to the defendant, so that he might redeem the jewelry for his own use. Defendant’s parol promise to pay Faisler’s antecedent debt upon consideration of the cancellation thereof wps not within the statute, and is valid. Meriden Britannia Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N. Y. 247, 8 Am. Rep. 549. Again, the promise could be held original, as arising out11 of the consideration of the release of Faisler from jail in order that he might return to the service of the defendant. Barney v. Forbes, 44 Hun, 446, affirmed in 118 N. Y. 580, 23 N. E. 890. Either Stromberg or Faisler owned the jewels, which were but the subject of bailment to the pawnbroker. If Stromberg owned them, then his assent to the transfer of the same tp the defendant upon the promise of the defendant to discharge Stromberg’s claim, based upon his conditional sale to Faisler, is sufficient to make the promise original. Even if Faisler owned the jewels, then his transfer to the defendant of his property rights upon defendant’s promise to pay Faisler's debt to Stromberg made the promise original. F. N. Bank v. Chalmers, 144 N. Y. 432, 39 N. E. 331.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 14 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 14

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security 
   Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement 
                        Amendments Act of 2007.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2017

   Mr. Grassley (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Lee, Mr. 
 Cornyn, Mr. Paul, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Graham, Mr. Lankford, 
Mrs. Ernst, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gardner, 
Mr. Isakson, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Sasse) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security 
   Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement 
                        Amendments Act of 2007.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to 
Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 
(published at 81 Fed. Reg. 91702 (December 19, 2016)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Appeal No. 74-245.

#### Nelson Construction Co., Inc. *v.*Rose Cottage Nursing Home, Inc.

*Thomas W. Pearlman,*for plaintiff-appellee. *Moses Kando,*for defendant-appellant.

Motion of appellee to dismiss appeal is denied.
#### Ada Kugler, Respondent, v. Edward A. Brown, Appellant.

In an action to recover moneys payable to plaintiff for the support of two children, pursuant to a separation agreement executed by the parties prior to the time that they were divorced, the defendant, as limited by his brief, appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 19, 1961 upon the decision of the court, after a nonjury trial, as was in favor of plaintiff on her cause of action. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, afSrmed, with costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 1427.202 Royalties.
#### Herman Room et al. v. Gertrude Gerstler.

Motion for leave to withdraw appeal granted and the appeal taken by defendant-appellant from the judgment entered on December 29, 1960 is withdrawn on consent. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
#### Burrow *v.*Southern Railway Company *et al.*

April 18, 1913.

Action for damages. Befoie Judge Edwards. Paulding superior court. July 13, 1912.

*A. L. Bartlett,*for plaintiff. *Maddox, McOamy' & Shumate, A. J. Camp,*and *G. D. McGregor,*for defendants.

Fish, C. J.

1. On the trial of an action for alleged unlawful search of the plaintiff’s dwelling, illegal arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery, after instructing the jury to the effect that if the plaintiff did not consent for his house to be searched, and both the defendants participated in the search—there being no contention that they had a search warrant, the jury would be authorized to find for the plaintiff such a sum as would compensate him for an unlawful search, it was reversible error for the judge to add to such instruction the following: “that is, provided you find that the imprisonment was false.” Plaintiff’s right to recover for an unlawful search was not dependent upon a subsequent false imprisonment.

2. The court did not err, on the trial of an action of the character referred to in the preceding note, in instructing the jury to the effect that while a magistrate of one county of this State may lawfully issue a warrant against a person charged with committing a crime in another county thereof, he has no authority in such a case to hold a court of inquiry to determine whether or not the accused shall be committed,—this authority being vested only in a magistrate of the county wherein the crime is charged to have been perpetrated. Penal Code, §§ 909, 919, 920.

3. Nor were the other instructions complained of erroneous for any reason assigned.

4. The assignment of error upon the refusal to strike a designated part of the answer of the defendant corporation, not being referred to in the brief for plaintiff in error, is considered as abandoned.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

United States of America, )

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 12 CR 50027-1

 ) 

 vs. )

)

Rita A. Crundwell, ) Judge Philip G. Reinhard

Defendant. )

ORDER

For the reasons stated below, judgment is entered in favor of the United States and against thirdparty citation respondents Shawn and Angela Ortgiesen, jointly and severally, in the sum of $182,580.33.

STATEMENT-OPINION

On December 10, 2014, the government filed a petition for relief [198] against third-party

citation respondents Shawn and Angela Ortgiesen. The Ortgiesens in response to a citation to discover

assets served on them stipulated they had borrowed a substantial sum of money from defendant, Rita

Crundwell. The money was received by them from defendant in a series of loans totaling $182,862 with

an interest rate of 4%. These loans are all in default. After deducting payments and other credits, the

total due as of December 9, 2014 was $181,690 with per diem interest accruing from that date at the rate

of $18.17. Pursuant to the judgment in a criminal case [70], entered on February 14, 2013, the court

ordered defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $53,740,394. 

On December 19, 2014, the Ortgiesens appeared before the court on the government’s petition

for relief. The court granted them 30 days to answer or otherwise plead and stated that if no filings were

received from them, the court would enter an order granting the government’s petition. The 30 days have

expired and the Ortgiesens have not answered or otherwise pled.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds: 1) the Ortgiesens are indebted to defendant (by virtue of

a series of loans made by defendant to them) in the sum of $182,580.33 representing the balance due on

December 9, 2014 of $181,690 and interest of $18.17 per day through today; 2) the loans from which this

indebtedness arose are in default; 3) this indebtedness is an asset of defendant which the government is

entitled to enforce in order to apply the amounts received to the outstanding restitution judgment against

defendant; 4) the government is entitled to a judgment against the Ortgiesens in the amount of the

outstanding principal and accrued interest on these defaulted loans.

Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of the United States and against third-party citation

respondents Shawn and Angela Ortgiesen, jointly and severally, in the sum of $182,580.33.

Date: 1/27/2015 ENTER:

 

United States District Court Judge

 Electronic Notices. (LC)