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 the  Quarterly  Report of  Driftwood  Ventures,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  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 to his knowledge:

     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:  November 14, 2006


/s/ Keith Smith
---------------------------------------
Keith Smith, Principal Financial Officer
#### § 51.1818 U.S. No. 2 Russet.

The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 2 except that at least 10 percent of the fruit shall have more than one-half of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by any type of discoloration. For tolerances see § 51.1820.
#### NYCTL 1998-1 Trust et al., Respondents, v Aref Shahipour et al., Defendants, and Max Melamed, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 479]

In an action to foreclose a tax lien pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of NY § 11-335, the defendant Max Melamed appeals from a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), dated August 11, 2004, which, upon an order of the same court dated July 9, 2004, inter aha, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

“An appellant who perfects an appeal by using the appendix method must file an appendix that contains all the relevant portions of the record in order to enable the court to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal” *(Lucadamo v Bridge To Life, Inc.,*12 AD3d 422 [2004]). The appellant failed to provide this Court with an appendix containing copies of the motion papers, affidavits, and exhibits which are necessary to review the judgment appealed from. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the CPLR and the rules of this Court *(see*CPLR 5528 [a]; 22 NYCRR 670.10-b [c]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
159 So.2d 284

#### Mrs. Marlon W. GILLAN et al. v. Shirley T. JONES et al.

No. 47015.

Jan. 20, 1964.

In re: Shirley T. Jones et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Madison. 157 So.2d 598.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law.

McCALEB, J., is of the opinion that a writ should he granted but limited to the question whether the property in dispute has always constituted an island area and that the natural boundaries thereof relieved plaintiffs of fixing the limits or enclosure of their possession.
§ 51.1266 Application of tolerances. ( a ) The contents of individual packages in the lot, based on sample inspection, are subject to the following limitations, provided the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade: ( 1 ) For packages which contain more than 10 pounds, and a tolerance of 10 percent or more is provided individual packages in any lot shall have not more than one and one-half times the tolerance specified. For packages which contain more than 10 pounds and a tolerance of less than 10 percent is provided, individual packages in any lot shall have not more than double the tolerance specified, except that at least one pear which is seriously damaged by insects or affected by decay or internal breakdown may be permitted in any package.
( 2 ) For packages which contain 10 pounds or less, individual packages in any lot are not restricted as to the percentage of defects or off-size: *Provided,* That not more than four times the tolerance specified may be permitted in any package for pears which are seriously damaged by insects or affected by decay or internal breakdown except that at least one defective pear may be permitted in any package.
158 So.2d 612

#### Succession of Edward L. SHEPARD.

No. 46990.

Dec. 16, 1963.

In re: Louis C. LaCour, Executor, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 156 So.2d 287.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
Exhibit 10.26
 LOAN NUMBER
    
    LOAN NAME
    
    
    ACCT. NUMBER
    
    
    AGREEMENT DATE
    
    
    INITIALS1759
    
    Eldorado Artesian Springs, Inc.
    
    
    
    300117
    
    
    
    03/17/09
    
    
    RA
 NOTE AMOUNT
    

INDEX (w/Margin)
    
    
    RATE
    
    
    MATURITY DATE
    
    
    LOAN PURPOSE$300,000.00
    
    Not Applicable
    
    
    8.000%Creditor Use Only
    
    
    
    06/30/09
    
    
    Commercial




---



##### 








---



##### 



(1)
    
    You may inspect, audit, check, review and obtain copies from my books, records,
journals, orders, receipts, and any correspondence and other business related data.
 (2)
    
    You may discuss my affairs, finances and business with anyone who provides you
with evidence that they are a creditor of mine, the sufficiency of which will be subject
to your sole discretion.




---



##### 








---



##### 



due




---



##### 



Eldorado Artesian Springs, Inc.By
    
    Douglas A. Larson, PresidentBy
    
    Kevin M. Sipple, Vice PresidentBy
    
    Jeremy S. Martin, Vice PresidentDouglas A. Larson IndividuallyKevin M. Sipple IndividuallyJeremy S. Martin Individually




---



##### 



LOAN NUMBER
    
    
    ACCT. NUMBER
    
    
    MODIFICATION DATE
    
    
    NOTE AMOUNT1759
    
    
    300117
    
    
    03/17/09
    
    
    $ 300,000.00
 AMENDEDOBLIGATIONINFORMATION
    
    MATURITY DATE
    
    
    INDEX lw/margin)
    
    
    INTEREST RATE
    
    
    INITIALS06/30/09
    
    
    Not Applicable
    
    
    8.000%
    
    
    RA
    
  
 
 
 
     
 the




---



##### 








---



##### 



Eldorado Artesian Springs, Inc.By
    
    Douglas A. Larson, PresidentBy
    
    Kevin M. Sipple, Vice PresidentBy
    
    Jeremy S. Martin, Vice PresidentDouglas A. Larson IndividuallyKevin M. Sipple IndividuallyJeremy S. Martin Individually
  American National BankByRoger Ayan, Market President
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2547 

To authorize a major medical facility project for the Department of Veterans 

Affairs at Denver, Colorado. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2006 

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize a major medical facility project for the 

Department of Veterans Affairs at Denver, Colorado. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY 

4 PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. 

5 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out a 

6 major medical facility project for a replacement facility for 

7 the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Den8 ver, Colorado, in an amount not to exceed $621,000,000. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2547 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR USE OF EXISTING FUNDS. 

2 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may obligate and 

3 expend any unobligated amount in the ‘‘Construction, 

4 Major Projects’’ appropriation for the Department of Vet5 erans Affairs to purchase a site for, and for the construc6 tion of, the Department of Veterans Affairs replacement 

7 facility authorized in section 1. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 173 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 6
Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 173 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 6
Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 173 Filed 04/08/22 Page 3 of 6
Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 173 Filed 04/08/22 Page 4 of 6
Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 173 Filed 04/08/22 Page 5 of 6
Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 173 Filed 04/08/22 Page 6 of 6
§ 371.8 International Services. ( a ) *General statement.* International Services (IS) protects U.S. agriculture and enhances agricultural trade with foreign countries.
( b ) *Deputy Administrator of IS.* The Deputy Administrator of IS is responsible for: ( 1 ) Participating with the Administrator of APHIS and other officials in the planning and formulation of international policies, programs, and activities of APHIS.
( 2 ) Maintaining and administering the foreign service personnel system for employees of APHIS in accordance with section 202(a)(2) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3922), E.O. 12363, dated May 21, 1982, and the provisions of § 2.51(a)(1) of this title.
( 3 ) Developing and maintaining systems for monitoring and reporting the presence and movement of plant and animal diseases and pests in foreign countries.
( 4 ) Developing and maintaining cooperative relationships and programs with other Federal agencies, foreign governments, industry, and international organizations, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, with regard to APHIS activities in foreign countries.
( 5 ) Developing and maintaining systems for observing the effects of plant and animal diseases in foreign countries and evaluating their effect on the agriculture industry.
( 6 ) Developing and directing programs to enhance the trade in U.S. plants, animals, and their products in compliance with established international sanitary and phytosanitary standards.
( 7 ) Providing recommendations for policy and program changes, and promulgating requirements, procedures, and guidelines for the conduct of field activities relating to IS programs.
§ 301.81-4 Interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas. ( a ) Any regulated article may be moved interstate from a quarantined area into or through an area that is not quarantined only if moved under the following conditions: ( 1 ) With a certificate or limited permit issued and attached in accordance with §§ 301.81-5 and 301.81-9;
( 2 ) Without a certificate or limited permit, provided that each of the following conditions is met: ( i ) The regulated article was moved into the quarantined area from an area that is not quarantined;
( ii ) The point of origin is indicated on a waybill accompanying the regulated article;
( iii ) The regulated article is moved through the quarantined area (without stopping except for refueling, or for traffic conditions, such as traffic lights or stop signs), or has been stored, packed, or parked in locations inaccessible to the imported fire ant, or in locations that have been treated in accordance with part 305 of this chapter, while in or moving through any quarantined area; and
( iv ) The article has not been combined or commingled with other articles so as to lose its individual identity; or
( 3 ) Without a certificate or limited permit provided the regulated article is a soil sample being moved to a laboratory approved by the Administrator[1] to process, test, or analyze soil samples.
( b ) Inspectors are authorized to stop any person or means of conveyance moving in interstate commerce they have probable cause to believe is moving regulated articles, and to inspect the articles being moved and the means of conveyance. Articles found to be infested by an inspector, and articles not in compliance with the regulations in this subpart, may be seized, quarantined, treated, subjected to other remedial measures, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of. Any treatments will be in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0102) [57 FR 57327, Dec. 4, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 67133, Dec. 29, 1994; 59 FR 67609, Dec. 30, 1994; 67 FR 8464, Feb. 25, 2002; 70 FR 33268, June 7, 2005; 75 FR 4240, Jan. 26, 2010; 87 FR 80013, Dec. 29, 2022] Footnotes -
301.81-4
[1] Provisions for laboratory approval may be obtained from your State's State Plant Health Director. Contact information can be found at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/ppq-program-overview/CT_SPHD*.
25.201 Policy.

(a) Except as provided in 25.202, use only domestic construction materials in construction contracts

performed in the United States.

(b) The Buy American statute restricts the purchase of construction materials that are not domestic

construction materials. For manufactured construction materials, the Buy American statute, E.O.

13881, and E.O. 14005 use a two-part test to define domestic construction materials.

(1) The article must be manufactured in the United States; and

(2)

(i) Except for construction material that consists wholly or predominantly of iron or steel or a

combination of both, the cost of domestic components must exceed 60 percent of the cost of all the

components, except that the percentage will be 65 percent for items delivered in calendar years

2024 through 2028 and 75 percent for items delivered starting in calendar year 2029, but see

paragraph (c) of this section. In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1907, this domestic content test of the

Buy American statute has been waived for acquisitions of COTS items (see 12.505(a)).

(ii) For construction material that consists wholly or predominantly of iron or steel or a combination

of both, the cost of foreign iron and steel must constitute less than 5 percent of the cost of all the

components used in such construction material (see the definition of "foreign iron and steel" at

25.003). The cost of foreign iron and steel includes but is not limited to the cost of foreign iron or

steel mill products (such as bar, billet, slab, wire, plate, or sheet), castings, or forgings utilized in the

manufacture of the construction material and a good faith estimate of the cost of all foreign iron or

steel components excluding COTS fasteners. This domestic content test of the Buy American statute

has not been waived for acquisitions of COTS items in this category, except for COTS fasteners.

(c)

(1) A contract with a period of performance that spans the schedule of domestic content threshold

increases specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section shall be required to comply with each

increased threshold for the items in the year of delivery, unless the senior procurement executive of

the contracting agency allows for application of an alternate domestic content test for that contract

under which the domestic content threshold in effect at time of contract award will apply to the

entire period of performance for the contract. This authority is not delegable. The senior

procurement executive shall consult the Office of Management and Budget's Made in America Office

before allowing the use of the alternate domestic content test.

(2) When a senior procurement executive allows for application of an alternate domestic content test

for a contract, see 25.1102(a)(3) or (c)(4) for use of the appropriate Alternate clause to reflect the

domestic content threshold that will apply to the entire period of performance for that contract.

Parent topic: Subpart 25.2 - Buy American-Construction Materials
§ 3431.18 Service agreement. ( a ) The service agreement shall be signed by the program participant and the Secretary after acceptance of the terms and conditions of the loan repayment program by the program participant.
( b ) The service agreement shall specify the period of obligated service.
( c ) The service agreement shall specify the amount of loan repayment to be paid for each year of obligated service.
( d ) The service agreement shall contain a provision defining when a breach of the agreement by the program participant has occurred.
( e ) The service agreement shall provide remedies for the breach of a service agreement by a program participant, including repayment or partial repayment of financial assistance received, with interest.
( f ) The service agreement shall include provisions addressing the granting of a waiver by the Secretary in case of hardship.
( g ) Payments under the service agreement do not exempt a program participant from the responsibility and/or liability for any loan(s) for which he or she is obligated, as the Secretary is not obligated to the lender/note holder for its commitment to the program participant.
( h ) During the term of the service agreement, the program participant shall agree that the Secretary or the designated VMLRP service provider is authorized to verify the status of each loan for which the Secretary will be reimbursing the participant.
( i ) The service agreement shall contain certifications, as determined by the Secretary.
( j ) The service agreement shall contain provisions addressing the income tax liability of the program participant and the availability of reimbursement of taxes incurred as a result of an individual's participation in the VMLRP.
( k ) *Renewal.* The service agreement will indicate whether the existing service agreement may be renewed. However, renewal applications are subject to peer review and approval, acceptance is not guaranteed, and the position must still be considered a veterinarian shortage situation at the time of application for renewal. The Secretary may request additional documentation in connection with the review and approval of a renewal application. The Secretary reserves the right not to offer renewals. Any requests for renewal applications will be solicited via the RFA.
( l ) The service agreement shall contain participant reporting requirements (e.g., quarterly, annual, and/or close-out) to allow for program monitoring and evaluation.
#### § 51.3057 Similar varietal characteristics.

*Similar varietal characteristics* means that the avocados in any container are similar in shape, texture, and color of skin and flesh.
#### In the Matter of Jeremiah P. Johnson, Appellant, v Anna T. Ahern, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 801]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), entered June 29, 2005, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to find respondent in willful violation of a prior order.

In December 2004, Family Court awarded petitioner, an inmate, limited visitation with his child (born in 2002) and we recently affirmed that order *(Matter of Johnson v Ahern,*28 AD3d 823 [2006]). The order provided for one visit in each of the months of January, April, June and November, and transportation arrangements were to be made by petitioner’s mother or grandmother. When the child did not visit him in January 2005, petitioner filed a violation petition alleging that respondent willfully violated Family Court’s order. Following a hearing, Family Court dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals.

Petitioner argues that the evidence at the hearing established that respondent violated a clear mandate in a lawful order and, thus, should have been held in contempt *(see generally Matter of Wood v Wood,*8 AD3d 767, 768 [2004]; *Labanowski v Labanowski,*4 AD3d 690, 694 [2004]). We are unpersuaded by this argument. The record demonstrates that petitioner’s mother was the only person who attempted to contact respondent to effectuate petitioner’s visitation, and she acknowledged that her entire efforts included leaving one message on an answering machine where she thought respondent resided in January 2005 and speaking once with respondent’s mother in February 2005. Respondent testified that she did not receive the answering machine message, she did nothing to obstruct visitation and she *1102had no way of contacting petitioner’s mother because she had an unlisted number that respondent did not know. We discern no reason to reject Family Court’s credibility determinations *(see Kaczor v Kaczor,*12 AD3d 956, 957 [2004]), and this record fully supports that court’s decision to deny the petition. The remaining arguments have been considered and found merit-less.

Cardona, P.J., Her cure, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
#### Louis Fishman, appellee, v. William Meyering et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 37,566.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 19, 1934.

Irving Breakstone, for appellants. McKenna, Harris & Schneider and Gallagher, Rosenberg & Richter, for appellee; James J. McKenna, of counsel.

Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Citibank, N. A., Appellant, v Frank J. Pitassi, Sr., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 6, 1980, denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. The corporate defendant, Bussewitz and Company, borrowed a sum certain from plaintiff Citibank, as evidenced by a promissory note dated June 2, 1978. Defendant Stephen Bussewitz and defendant-respondent Pitassi signed this same note as comakers. The defendants defaulted and Citibank exercised its option, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the note, to declare the unpaid balance immediately due and payable. When defendants failed to pay, Citibank commenced this action for the unpaid balance. Pitassi answered maintaining that the note was incomplete because the date of the first installment payment was left blank, and is thus unenforceable. His answer also raised a cross claim asserting that he *617was an accommodation maker, thereby casting liability on his codefendants. Special Term erred in denying plaintiffs motion for summary judgment when it perceived that a factual question existed as to the capacity in which Pitassi signed the note. Pitassi is liable to the payee bank and the capacity in which he signed this note has no effect on his liability. Section 3-415 of the Uniform Commercial Code teaches: "When the instrument has been taken for value before it is due the accommodation party is liable in the capacity in which he has signed even though the taker knows of the accommodation”. Additionally, Pitassi’s claim that the failure to designate a date on which payment was to commence somehow rendered the note unenforceable is also infirm. If, as respondent alleges, this note was unenforceable, then defendant’s payment of five installments thereunder surely amounted to a waiver. Moreover, the failure to fill in a date does not vitiate Pitassi’s obligations under the note, for the note then is payable on demand. (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-108.) Thus, there are no questions of fact and Special Term erred in denying plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Markewich, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.