alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of National Mercantile Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Brown, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|                        | /s/  DAVID R.  BROWN |   |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                        | David R. Brown            |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer   |
|                        |
|                        |
| Date:  March  31, 2005 |

 

 

----
## Dain Gregory From Hamilton Gordon 

### Sent 

## To Tuesday December 

## 23 2014

# 226PM Dain Gregory 

### Subject 

# RE List ofwaters on Tribal lands 

### Greg

I 

### hope this helps 

## 4 PASSAMAQUODDY TRUST intersects Otter Brook which flows to 

### West Branch Seboeis Stream in

## T3R9NWP is a tributary to Seboeis Streams in SEBOEIS 

### PlT 

# 5 AlderStream runs th rough 

### PENOBSCOT Trust in

### AlDERSTREAM 

# TWP ME 

# 8 Mattamiscontis Stream runs through 

### PENOBSCOT TRUST land in

## T2R8NWP 

## ME 21 PASSAMAQUODDY RESERVATION is all the land north of

### Grand Falls Flowage 

### between RT1 and Black Cat Island Black Cat Island is part of

## PASSAMAQUODDY RESERVATION 

## From Dain Gregory 

### Sent Tuesday December 

## 23 2014 

# 1 22 

## PM 

## To Hamilton 

### Gordon Subject 

### RE list ofwaters 

### on Tribal lands 

### Do you recall which tribe's lands and trust versus reservation status those four water segments traversed 

## From Hamilton Gordon Sent Tuesday December 

## 23 2014 

## 1221 

## PM 

## To Dain Gregory Subject list ofwaters on Tribal lands
Hi 

### Greg
This is regarding the letter to David 

## P Littell Commissioner

### Maine DEP from the EPA that you sent

# me Ofthe 22 stream reclassifications in the letter only four intersected tribal lands The four reclassifications are 

### numbers4,5,8 and 

### 21 Also the email from Ellen Weitzier dated 

## 121914 containing additional waterbodies to check against tribal lands

### were
all negative 

### None ofthe waterbodies in that email intersected tribal lands
let 

## me know if you have any questions 

### Thanks Gordon Hamilton 

### Team 

## lead Senior GIS Analyst Contractor Vistronix 

### US EPA 

## New England 

### 5Post Office Square Boston 

## MA 02109 

## 617 9181159 1
----

| (1)   | The                Form 10-Q 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 78o(d));                and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         |                                                                                                      |                                    |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                                      |
|    |                                                                                                 |                               |
|         | By:                                                                                             | /s/ Gary              L. Rainwater |
|         | Gary              L. Rainwater                                                                            |
|         | Chairman,                President andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive                Officer) |
(September 17, 1964)

#### In the Matter of Arlene Shankman, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Annise Shankman, Respondent, et al., Claimant, v. New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

Order, entered on April 10, 1964, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, without costs, to deny application of infant claimant for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and the application is in all respects denied, without costs. Where, as here, the infant had counsel within the statutory 90-day period prescribed by subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law for the filing of a notice of claim and the failure to timely file a notice appears to be due to the inadvertence of counsel, it is settled in this Department that such failure does not occur “by reason of” the disability of infancy so as to permit an extension of the statutory period. *(Matter of Goglas*v. *New York City Housing Auth.,*13 A D 2d 939, affd. 11 N Y 2d 680; *Matter of Odom*v. *New York City Housing Auth.,*17 A D 2d 770.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of John R. King, Petitioner, v. William S. Hults, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Motor Vehicles which dismissed petitioner from his position as a motor vehicle license examiner, after a hearing upon charges of misconduct, consisting, in essence, of accepting bribes from operators of drivers’ schools to influence the results of tests given certain of their students. Petitioner attacks the charges as vague and indefinite; and, as originally constituted, they were. However, they were rendered more specific by a bill of particulars, whereupon petitioner proceeded to trial without objection. Under the circumstances, we find them sufficient, insofar as they relate to payments of money by Espinosa, Benitez and Marrero, as specified in the bill of particulars. There was proof of several transactions of Espinosa and Benitez with petitioner which, if credited, would warrant findings of misconduct. The difficulty is, however, that the determination contains no factual findings whatsoever and it is thus impossible to determine which of the acts testified to were considered to have been established. Such legal insufficiency is of particular moment *1008when, as here, we are required to review the measure of the punishment imposed. The report of the hearing officer, if relevant at all, since it is neither confirmed by, nor referred to in the final determination, is no more helpful since it is likewise devoid of factual findings, consisting of little more than a recital of the evidence offered against petitioner and aggravating the basic deficiencies alluded to by referring to the testimony of certain witnesses as unreliable, with no indication as to the specific charge or charges affected by such unreliability, and then concluding with a finding of guilt, couched in the generalities and alternatives of the original charges, but unaided by the particularizations to which we have referred. The Commissioner’s determination follows the same form and thus does no more than to find that petitioner improperly and illegally accepted moneys “ either directly or indirectly, from applicants for licenses * * * or from representatives of * * * driving schools, either for the purpose of influencing the results of road, written or other tests, or for preferential treatment given * * * by said John R. King or other Motor Vehicle License Examiners.” Less meaningful or specific findings would be difficult to devise. That petitioner was thus deprived of his right to findings sufficient to permit intelligent judicial review seems too obvious to require discussion *(Matter of Elite Dairy Prods,*v. *Ten Eyck,*271 N. Y. 488; *Matter of Piper*v. *Lubin,*4 A D 2d 812; 1 Benjamin, Administrative Adjudication, p. 251.) Determination annulled, with $50 costs, and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Coon, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
# HBCU Part B
EXHIBIT 99
                                                                      ----------



                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
            (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of Chattem, Inc., a Tennessee
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

            The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28,
2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act for 1934 and information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  April 14, 2003                /s/ Zan Guerry
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Zan Guerry,
                                     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



Dated: April 14, 2003                 /s/ Richard D. Moss
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Richard D. Moss
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

            The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed
as part of the Form 10-Q, or as a separate disclosure document.

            A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906
HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO CHATTEM, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CHATTEM, INC. AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### RUSSELL v. BARRON.

(Supreme court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 9, 1906.)

1. Libel and Slandeb—Actionable Words.

A publication that plaintiff in employing men for his employer charged them a commission or fee on their wages imputes no criminal offense, and the words are not defamatory in that sense.

2. Same—Pleading—Complaint—Innuendoes.

Where a publication was that plaintiff in employing men for his employer charged them a commission or fee on their wages, in a complaint for slander based thereon was insufficient, which did not allege that the meaning of the words was to impute to plaintiff dishonesty to his employer touching him in his position of employment.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent. Dig. Libel and Slander, §§ 205, 206.]

3. Same—Amendment—Cure of Defect.

The defect in the complaint was one that could be cured by amendment.

4. Appeal—Reservation in Lower Court of Grounds of Review—Pleading.

Where the question of the sufficiency'of the complaint is not raised in the trial court, and the defect is one that can be cured by amendment, it is not available on appeal.

Appeal from Dutchess County Court.

Action by William C. Rússell against Stephen Barron. From an order setting aside a verdict in favor of defendant and granting a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, RICH, MILLER, and GAY-NOR, JJ.

Joseph Morschauser (Charles Morschauser, on the brief), for appellant.

Frank G. Rikert (Elijah T. Russell, on the brief), for respondent.

GAYNOR, J.

The action is for damages for slander. The complaint does not state a cause of action. The words alleged are that the plaintiff in employing men for his employer- charged them a commission or fee on their wages. To do this is not a criminal offense, and therefore the words are not defamatory in that sense. It is said, however, that they impute to him dishonesty to his employer, and therefore touch him in his position of employment, which is a separate head of slander. But the complaint does not allege such a meaning, and where the words are equivocal; i. e., capable of an honest or a dishonest; i. e., a slander*1062ous or an" innocent, meaning, dependent on extrinsic facts, the complaint must allege the latter meaning in order to state a cause of action. Taylor v. Wallace, 31 Misc. Rep. 393, 64 N. Y. Supp. 271. Such an allegation makes the meaning a question of fact for the jury. It is common for employes to take commissions o.r tips from those dealing with, their employers through them, with the knowledge and consent of such-employers. Or the reduction in the present case may have been for the employer. The complaint here presents no question of fact for the jury .as" to the meaning of the words, arid therefore the innocent meaning must be taken as matter of law.

But as this point was not raised below, it is not available here to reverse the order granting a new trial; and it. can be cured by an amendment.

The order is affirmed. '

Order o£ the County Court of Dutchess county affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### 414.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award.

The authority to make the determinations under FAR 14.407-3(a), (b), and (d) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the head of the contracting activity. The authority to make the determination under FAR 14.407-3(c) is delegated to the contracting officer. Each determination pursuant to FAR 14.407-3 shall have the concurrence of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC).
#### 231.205 Selected costs.
#### 326.602 Applicability.
#### People of the State of Illinois ex rel. John S. Rusch, Appellee, v. Milton Festenstein and Barney Tract, Appellants.

Gen. No. 41,134.

opinion filed February 26, 1941.

Simon Herr and Mayer Goldberg, for appellants; Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for appellee; John F. Cashen, Jr., of counsel.

Opinion by

Justice Denis E. Sullivan.

“Not to be published in full.’’
## FY 2011

Number of continuation awards: 5
Average award: $500,000
Total award funding: $2,500,000

## FY 2010

Number of continuation awards: 5
Average award: $500,000
Total award funding: $2,500,000

## FY 2009

Number of new awards: 5
Average new award: $500,000
Total new award funding: $2,500,000

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) provides that, from the amount appropriated to carry out the PBI master’s program for any fiscal year, the first $2,500,000 (or any lesser amount appropriated) must be available for the purposes of making minimum grant awards to eligible institutions.  If the amount appropriated is not sufficient to pay the minimum grant awards to all the eligible institutions, the amount of the minimum award to each designated eligible institution must be ratably reduced.  For fiscal year 2009 and each of the five succeeding fiscal years, sufficient funds have been appropriated under Section 897 of the amended Higher Education Act to make available at least the minimum award amount if all eligible institutions submit an approvable application for a grant.  Note that under the provisions of the matching requirement, the Secretary is required to redistribute any funds an institution cannot match to other institutions meeting the matching requirement.

The HEOA requires that any amount in excess of $2,500,000 must be made available to each of the eligible institutions.  The award amounts must be based on using a formula developed by the Secretary.  The formula must use the following elements:

- the ability of the institution to match Federal funds with non-Federal funds;
- the number of students enrolled in the qualified master’s degree program at the eligible institution in the previous academic year;
- the average cost of attendance per student, for all full-time students enrolled in the qualified master’s degree program at such institution;
- the number of students in the previous year who received a degree in the qualified master’s degree program at such institution; and
- the contribution, on a percent basis, of the programs for which the institution is eligible to receive funds under this section to the total number of African-Americans receiving master’s degrees in the disciplines related to the programs for the previous year.

Institutional Service Home

|Last Modified: 11/15/2011
|-------------------------
31.205-44 Training and education costs. Costs of training and education that are related to the field in which the employee is working or may reasonably be expected to work are allowable, except as follows: ( a ) Overtime compensation for training and education is unallowable.
( b ) The cost of salaries for attending undergraduate level classes or part-time graduate level classes during working hours is unallowable, except when unusual circumstances do not permit attendance at such classes outside of regular working hours.
( c ) Costs of tuition, fees, training materials and textbooks, subsistence, salary, and any other payments in connection with full-time graduate level education are unallowable for any portion of the program that exceeds two school years or the length of the degree program, whichever is less.
( d ) Grants to educational or training institutions, including the donation of facilities or other properties, scholarships, and fellowships are considered contributions and are unallowable.
( e ) Training or education costs for other than bona fide employees are unallowable, except that the costs incurred for educating employee dependents (primary and secondary level studies) when the employee is working in a foreign country where suitable public education is not available may be included in overseas differential pay.
( f ) Contractor contributions to college savings plans for employee dependents are unallowable.
[70 FR 57472, Sept. 30, 2005]
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Programs
|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

## Key Staff

Shedita Alston, Program Specialistshedita.alston@ed.gov, (202) 453-7090TDD or TTY:  call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339

**Mailing Address:**U.S. Department of Education, OPE, Institutional ServiceTransition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Washington, DC 20202

Institutional Service Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | No Related Topics Found |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
323.7002 Actions required. *Contracting activities.* The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.223-70, Safety and Health, or a clause substantially the same, in solicitations and contracts that involve hazardous materials or hazardous operations for the following types of requirements: ( a ) Services or products.
( b ) Research, development, or test projects.
( c ) Transportation of hazardous materials.
( d ) Construction, including construction of facilities on the contractor's premises.
31.201-1 Composition of total cost. ( a ) The total cost, including standard costs properly adjusted for applicable variances, of a contract is the sum of the direct and indirect costs allocable to the contract, incurred or to be incurred, plus any allocable cost of money pursuant to 31.205-10, less any allocable credits. In ascertaining what constitutes a cost, any generally accepted method of determining or estimating costs that is equitable and is consistently applied may be used.
( b ) While the total cost of a contract includes all costs properly allocable to the contract, the allowable costs to the Government are limited to those allocable costs which are allowable pursuant to Part 31 and applicable agency supplements.
[69 FR 17767, Apr. 5, 2004]
Order entered December 29, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-16-01150-CR

EX PARTE DUSTIN CALHOUN

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. WX16-90021-V



### ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DIRECT the Clerk to issue the mandate in

this appeal INSTANTER

.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE