alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I, Thomas F. Wolfe, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officerof Affinity Group Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify as follows:

 

1.             This statement is providedpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,2008 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.             The Periodic Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.             The information contained inthe Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of dates and for theperiods indicated therein.

 

 

Date:  August 8, 2008

 

 
|   | /s/ Thomas F. Wolfe       |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Thomas F. Wolfe           |
|   | Senior Vice President and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity GroupHolding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Peter Giacalone, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 180 Connect Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 14, 2007              /s/ Peter Giacalone   Peter Giacalone   Chief Executive Officer
#### § 1781.21 Borrower accounting methods, management, reporting, and audits.

These activities will be handled in accordance with the provisions of § 1780.47 of this chapter.
Exhibit 99.2


                    Certification of Chief Operating Officer
  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                          Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of WARP Technology
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John Gnip, Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ John Gnip
----------------------------------
John Gnip, Chief Operating Officer


Date:  October 14, 2003
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of IR BioSciences Holdings, Inc.; and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 30, 2010                                                                                                                                                              |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                              |
| /s/  Michael K. Wilhelm                         |   |
| By: Michael K. Wilhelm                                                                                                                                                            |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                             |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                                                                     |
#### Marie C. BOATMAN, Plaintiff, v. Dann G. THOMAS, Defendant.

Civ-70-190.

United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

Jan. 8, 1971.

Patrick H. Fierro, Fierro & Miele, Williamsport, Pa., for plaintiff.

Alvan Baird, Williamsport, Pa., for defendant.

OPINION

MUIR, District Judge.

This case arises out of an automobile accident in Pennsylvania in which the Defendant, a New York resident, was involved. Suit was instituted against the Defendant under the name of Dann G. Thomas. His name actually is George Thomas Dann. The United States Marshall mailed the summons and complaint to the Secretary of the Commonwealth as agent for the Defendant, and to the Defendant under the misnomer. The postal receipt was executed by “Mrs. George M. Dann” on behalf of the Defendant.

Defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (5), Fed.R.Civ.Pro., on the ground that there has been improper service. Defendant contends that to allow an amendment under Rule 4(h), Fed.R.Civ.Pro., would prejudice him since the Statute of Limitations has run.

In Grandey v. Pacific Indemnity Co., 217 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1954), the complaint named the defendant as Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company and incorrectly described it as incorporated in the State of Massachusetts. The company whose liability was involved was Pacific Indemnity Company, a California corporation. The court held that the misnomer of defendant could be corrected by amendment even after the Statute of Limitations had run since defendant was not misled by the error and the defendant should not be permitted to take advantage of a mere misnomer that injured no one.

Faced with a similar set of facts in United States v. A. H. Fischer, 162 F.2d 872 (4th Cir. 1947), the late great Chief Judge Parker observed:

> “A suit at law is not a children’s game, but a serious effort on the part of adult human beings to administer justice; and the purpose of process is to bring parties into court. If it names them in such terms that every intelligent person understands who is meant, as is the case here, it has ful*1080filled its purpose; and courts should not put themselves in the position of failing to recognize what is apparent to everyone else.”

Professor Moore accurately stated the rule as follows:

> “The test should be whether on the basis of an objective standard, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff had in mind a particular entity or person, merely made a mistake as to the name, and actually served the entity or person intended; or whether plaintiff actually meant to serve and sue a different person.” 2 Moore, Federal Practice, § 4.44, p. 1295.52.

This test was adopted by this court in Longsdorf v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 148 F.Supp. 476 (M.D.Pa.1956). Applying it to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that Plaintiff should be entitled to amend. Defendant, regardless of the misnomer, was certainly put on notice that a lawsuit had been instituted against him. Accordingly, we find that he will not be prejudiced by allowing amendment.

An Order will therefore be entered denying the motion to dismiss.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer****Pursuant to****Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended **September 30, 2005**(the “Report”) of **Patriot Capital Funding, Inc.**(the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, **William E. Alvarez, Jr.,**the Executive VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best ofmy knowledge, that:(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of theRegistrant.     /s/     William E. Alvarez, Jr.     Name: William E. Alvarez, Jr.  Date: November 14, 2005
§ 1751.102 Modernization Plan Developer; eligibility. ( a ) Each PUC is eligible until February 13, 1996 to develop a proposed Modernization Plan and deliver it to RUS. RUS will review and consider for approval all PUC-developed Modernization Plans received by RUS within this one year period. The review and approval, if any, may occur after the one year period ends even though the PUC is no longer eligible to submit a proposed Modernization Plan.
( b ) The PUC must notify all Telecommunications Providers in the State and other interested parties of its intent to develop a proposed Modernization Plan. The PUC is encouraged to consider all Telecommunications Providers' and interested parties' views and incorporate these views into the Modernization Plan. In the event that the PUC does not intend to develop a proposed Modernization Plan, RUS requests that the PUC inform RUS of this decision as soon as possible.
( c ) ( 1 ) If the PUC is no longer eligible to develop a Modernization Plan or has informed RUS that it will not develop a Modernization Plan, as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, a majority of the Borrowers within the State may develop the Modernization Plan. If a majority of Borrowers develops the Modernization Plan, the following apply: ( i ) All Borrowers shall be given reasonable notice of and shall be encouraged to attend and contribute to all meetings and other proceedings relating to the development of the Modernization Plan; and
( ii ) Borrowers developing a Modernization Plan are encouraged to solicit the views of other providers of telecommunications services and interested parties in the State.
( 2 ) There is no time limit placed on Borrowers to develop a Modernization Plan. Borrowers should be aware that certain types of loans may be restricted until a Modernization Plan is approved. See § 1751.103.
§ 1773.3 Annual audit. ( a ) Each auditee must have its financial statements audited annually by an auditor selected by the auditee and approved by RUS as set forth in § 1773.4. All auditees, except those subject to the Single Audit Act, must submit audited financial statements on a comparative basis covering at least two consecutive 12-month periods, unless the entity has not been in existence for two consecutive 12-month audit periods. Financial statements should be prepared in accordance with GAAP, or if prepared using a special purpose framework, reconciling schedules should be included. Audits of consolidated financial statements of the parent are not an acceptable replacement for an audit of the auditee.
( b ) Each auditee must establish an annual audit date within 12 months of the date of the first advance and must prepare annual financial statements for the audit date established. Each auditee must notify RUS of the audit date at least 90 days prior to the selected audit date.
( c ) Auditees must furnish a reporting package to RUS within 120 days of the audit date. (See § 1773.21) Until all loans made or guaranteed by RUS are repaid and unliquidated obligations rescinded, auditees must continue to provide annual audited financial statements. Auditees with grant funding only must furnish annual audited financial statements in the year of the first advance and until all funds have been advanced or rescinded, and all financial compliance requirements have been fully satisfied.
( d ) An auditee that is identified as a non-Federal entity as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, which means a State, local government, Indian tribe, Institution of Higher Education (IHE), or nonprofit organization that carries out a Federal award as a recipient or subrecipient, must meet the audit requirements outlined in 2 CFR 200.501 and 200.502 and the Single Audit Act, and not this part. ( 1 ) For auditees expending less than the threshold for expenditure in Federal awards during the year, RUS reserves its right under 2 CFR 200.503 to arrange for an audit performed in accordance with this part.
( 2 ) Within 30 days after the audit date, auditees subject to 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, must notify RUS, in writing via email, of the total Federal awards expended during the year and must state whether the audit will be performed in accordance with the Single Audit Act or this part.
( e ) Subpart F of 2 CFR part 200 does not apply to audits of RUS electric and telecommunications cooperatives and for-profit telecommunications awardees unless the awardee has contractually agreed with another Federal agency (*e.g.,* Federal Emergency Management Agency) to provide a financial audit performed in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart F. In no circumstance will an auditee be required to submit separate audits performed in accordance with this part and 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.
[88 FR 7563, Feb. 6, 2023]
**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Maidenform Brands, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the three month period ended October 1, 2005, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Dorvin D. Lively, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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.








/s/
      Dorvin D. Lively


Dorvin
      D.
      Lively


Chief
      Financial Officer








November
      10, 2005




*This
      certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
      section, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except
      to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it by
      reference.*






-49-
#### §§ 1700.35-1700.49 [Reserved]
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18            USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS            ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Northern Ethanol, Inc. (the            “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed            with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the            “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated            below, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906            of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule                            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: August 29, 2007 | s/Richard                            Smith_____________________

Richard Smith, Chief Financial Officer |
|------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 99.1

                  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF FRANK AIELLO


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

     In connection with the Periodic Report of Cal Alta Auto Glass, Inc.,(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Frank Aiello, President of the Company, certify, 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) 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.

Date: April 14, 2006        By: /s/ Frank Aiello
                                                       -------------------
                                                        Frank Aiello
                                                        President
Exhibit 99.1


                          Report of Ernst & Young LLP


We have audited the balance sheets of IMC-Agrico Company (a Partnership) as of 
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and June 30, 1996 and the related statements of 
earnings, changes in partners' capital and cash flows for the six months ended 
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the year ended June 30, 1996 (not presented 
separately herein).  These financial statements are the responsibility of IMC-
Agrico Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on 
these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of 
material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence 
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit 
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant 
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial 
statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis 
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in 
all material respects, the financial position of IMC-Agrico Company as of 
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and June 30, 1996, and the results of its 
operations and its cash flows for the six-month periods ended December 31, 
1996 and 1995 and the year ended June 30, 1996 in accordance with generally 
accepted accounting principles.


                                             /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                           -------------------------
                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
January 15, 1997