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

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Logan CountyBancShares, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterended March 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. 

 

 
| Date:  February 28, 2005 | /s/  Mark Mareske |                     |
|--------------------------|-------------------|--------------------------|
|                     | Name:             | Mark  Mareske            |
|                     | Title:            | Chief  Financial Officer |
|                          |                   |                          |  |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76418-76421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30727]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 10-65]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a copy of a letter to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 10-65 with 
attached transmittal, and policy justification.

    Dated: December 1, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[[Page 76419]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08DE10.013


[[Page 76420]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08DE10.014


[[Page 76421]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08DE10.015

[FR Doc. 2010-30727 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
52.216-24 Limitation of Government

Liability.

As prescribed in 16.603-4(b)(2), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when a

letter contract is contemplated:

Limitation of Government Liability (Apr 1984)

(a) In performing this contract, the Contractor is not authorized to make expenditures or incur

obligations exceeding __________ dollars.

(b) The maximum amount for which the Government shall be liable if this contract is terminated is

___________ dollars.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.216 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2577 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2577

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain golf club driver heads with 
                       plasma welded face plate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2006

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain golf club driver heads with 
                       plasma welded face plate.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN GOLF CLUB DRIVER HEADS WITH PLASMA WELDED FACE 
              PLATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.95.17      Golf club driver    Free         No Change        No Change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         heads of                                                           31/2009
                         titanium, each
                         with an aluminum
                         hosel insert and
                         a plasma welded
                         face plate, the
                         foregoing with
                         7.5, 8.5, or 11.5
                         degree loft
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         9506.39.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06

- 17

- 00091

- CV

Kenneth Craig Miller

v.

Gregg County, Texas

(No. 2017

- 703

- CCL2 IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF GREG G COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FE E

SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD

REPORTER'S RECORD

SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

INDIGENT

STATEWIDE EFILING FE E

FILING

SUPREME COURT CHAPTE R 51 FEE $10.00
$10.00 $10.00
$15.00 $1,100.00
$15.00
$319.00 $25.00
$30.00
$100.00 $50.00 E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID CAROL GOLEY

ANDREW R KORN

ANDREW R KORN

ANDREW KORN

KENNETH MILLER

ANDREW R KORN

ANDREW R KORN

ANDREW R KORN

ANDREW R KORN

ANDREW R KORN

ANDREW R KORN



### Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appe als, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and corr ect copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of

the COURT OF APPEALS for the Sixth District of Texas, this
June 5, 2018

.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___________________________
Deputy
• 

@) 

WtCOmiC<I 

111)11 <Of' 

SWf' FofHt 

Piusvi l! ~ 

..,. 

'0'8* 0 -ii 

-~· 

~ G le 

Appendix-E-5mile radius Ocean City, Maryland
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 800.158 Equipment testing work records.

The record for each official equipment testing service or activity consists of an official equipment testing report as prescribed in the instructions. Upon completion of each official equipment test, one or more copies of the completed testing report may, upon request, be issued to the owner or operator of the equipment. The testing report shall show the (a) date the test was performed, (b) name of the organization and personnel that performed the test, (c) names of the Service employees who monitored the testing, (d) identification of equipment that was tested, (e) results of the test, (f) names of any interested persons who were informed of the test results, (g) number or other identification of the approval tag or label affixed to the equipment, and (h) other information required by the instructions.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0011)
225.872-1 General.

(a) As a result of memoranda of understanding and other international agreements, DoD has

determined it inconsistent with the public interest to apply restrictions of the Buy American statute

or the Balance of Payments Program to the acquisition of qualifying country end products from the

following qualifying countries:

Australia

Belgium

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

Egypt

Estonia

Federal Republic of Germany

Finland

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Japan

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovenia

Spain
Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(b) Individual acquisitions of qualifying country end products from the following qualifying country

may, on a purchase-by-purchase basis (see 225.872-4 ), be exempted from application of the Buy

American statute and the Balance of Payments Program as inconsistent with the public interest:

Austria

(c) The determination in paragraph (a) of this subsection does not limit the authority of the

Secretary concerned to restrict acquisitions to domestic sources or reject an otherwise acceptable

offer from a qualifying country source when considered necessary for national defense reasons.

Parent topic: 225.872 Contracting with qualifying country sources.
52.214-19 Contract Award-Sealed BiddingConstruction.

As prescribed in 14.201-6(m), insert the following provision:

Contract Award-Sealed Bidding-Construction (Aug 1996)

(a) The Government will evaluate bids in response to this solicitation without discussions and will

award a contract to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the solicitation, will be most

advantageous to the Government, considering only price and the price-related factors specified

elsewhere in the solicitation.

(b) The Government may reject any or all bids, and waive informalities or minor irregularities in bids

received.

(c) The Government may accept any item or combination of items, unless doing so is precluded by a

restrictive limitation in the solicitation or the bid.

(d) The Government may reject a bid as nonresponsive if the prices bid are materially unbalanced

between line items or subline items. A bid is materially unbalanced when it is based on prices

significantly less than cost for some work and prices which are significantly overstated in relation to

cost for other work, and if there is a reasonable doubt that the bid will result in the lowest overall

cost to the Government even though it may be the low evaluated bid, or if it is so unbalanced as to

be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.214 [Reserved]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-169-WHA 

 )

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY )

GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR DETENTION HEARING

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Leura G. Canary, United States

Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(e) and (f) moves for

a detention hearing for the above-captioned defendant.

1. Eligibility of Cases

This case is eligible for a detention order because this case involves:

Crime of violence (18 U.S.C. 3156)

 X Maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death

 X 10 + year drug offense

Felony, with two prior convictions in the above categories

 X Serious risk the defendant will flee

 Serious risk of obstruction of justice

Felony involving a minor victim

Felony involving possession possession or use of a firearm or other destructive

device (as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921) or any other dangerous weapon

Failure to register a sex offender (18 U.S.C 2250)

2. Reason For Detention

The Court should detain defendant because there are no conditions of release which will

reasonably assure:

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 28 Filed 02/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
 X Defendant's appearance as required

 X Safety of any other person and the community

3. Rebuttable Presumption

The United States will invoke the rebuttable presumption against defendant under Section

3142(e). The presumption applies because:

X Probable cause to believe defendant committed 10 + year drug offense or an offense

in which a firearm was used or carried under Section 924(c)

 Previous conviction for "eligible" offense committed while on pretrial bond

A period of five years has not elapsed from defendant's conviction or release from

imprisonment for the offense described above

4. Time For Detention Hearing

The United States requests the Court conduct the detention hearing:

At the initial appearance

 X After continuance of 3 days

The Government requests leave of Court to file a supplemental motion with additional

grounds or presumption for detention should this be necessary.

Respectfully submitted this the 21st day of February, 2007.

LEURA G. CANARY 

United States Attorney

s/A. Clark Morris

A. CLARK MORRIS

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280

Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: clark. morris@usdoj.gov

ASB-1613-N77A

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 28 Filed 02/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

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 Outdoor Channel Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William A. Owen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, 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.

/s/ William A. Owen
-----------------------------------

Chief Financial Officer
April 30, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Outdoor
Channel Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
2005- 2134.

#### Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Power Eng. Group, Inc.

Summit App. Nos. 22475, 22476, 22477, 22478, 22485, 22486, 22487, 22488, 22489, 22497, 22499, 22506 and 22513, 163 Ohio App.3d 522, 2005-Ohio-5113. On motion for admission pro hac vice of Jill M. Wheaton and Edward A. Groobert by Tamara A. O’Brien. Motion granted.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3071 

To suspend temporarily the duty on fabric woven with certain continuous 

filament wholly nylon type-66 textured yarns. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on fabric woven with certain 

continuous filament wholly nylon type-66 textured yarns. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FABRIC WOVEN WITH CERTAIN CONTINUOUS 

4 FILAMENT WHOLLY NYLON TYPE-66 TEX5 TURED YARNS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


sroberts on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3071 IS 

‘‘ 9902.10.02 Fabric woven with continuous filament wholly nylon 

type-66 textured yarns, such 

fabric capable of stretching 

by at least 100 percent in 

the weft direction and having a tenacity of less than 

53 cN/tex (provided for in 

subheading 5407.41.00) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 13-2 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 13-2 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 13-2 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 13-2 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, )

INC., et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-633-MEF

)

DAN BENN, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs bring this action for copyright infringement under the copyright laws of the

United States, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on July 18, 2006, and

it was served on August 7, 2006; Defendant’s answer was due on August 28, 2006. On

September 12, 2006, Plaintiffs requested that the clerk enter a default against Defendant,

which the clerk entered on September 21, 2006 (Doc. # 6). On September 26, 2006,

Plaintiffs filed an Application for Entry of Default Judgment by the Court (Doc. # 8), which

was construed as a motion for default judgment. This matter is now pending before the

Court on that motion.

Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[w]hen a party against

whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as

provided by these rules . . . the clerk shall enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

Once this has occurred, “the party entitled to a judgment by default shall apply to the court

therefor.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). The clerk’s entry of default causes all well-pleaded

Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 9 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 2
allegations of facts to be deemed admitted. See Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361

(11th Cir. 1987). If the defendant’s liability is well-pleaded in the complaint, it is established

by the entry of default against him. Id.

If the Court determines that default judgment can be granted, the Court then turns to

the issue of damages. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1364 n.27

(11th Cir. 1997). “If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment . . . it is necessary to take

an account or to determine the amount of damages . . . the court may conduct such hearings

or order such references as it deems necessary and proper . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).

However, the Court may award damages without a hearing where the “amount claimed is a

liquidated sum or one capable of mathematical calculation,” and there is “a demonstration

by detailed affidavits establishing the necessary facts.” Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement

Against Racism & the Klan, 777 F.2d 1538, 1543 (11th Cir. 1985).

In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Application for Entry of Default Judgment by the Court (Doc. # 8), construed

as a motion for default judgment, is GRANTED.

2. Default judgment is hereby ENTERED against Defendant Dan Benn.

3. A hearing to determine damages will be set for November 14, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

DONE this the 16 day of October, 2006. th

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 9 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 58.732 Cooling the packaged cheese.

After the containers are filled they shall be stacked, or cased and stacked in such a manner as to prevent breaking of seals due to excessive bulging and to allow immediate progressive cooling of the individual containers of cheese. As a minimum the cheese should be cooled to a temperature of 100 °F. or lower within 24 hours after filling. The temperature of the cheese should be reduced further, before being shipped or if storage is intended.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSALIO LOPEZ FRANCISCO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73842 

Agency No. A096-045-578 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Rosalio Lopez Francisco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73842 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th 

Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm 

Lopez Francisco experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See DuranRodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel 

finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no 

violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial 

evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Lopez Francisco did not 

establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 

1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective 

evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, Lopez 

Francisco’s asylum claim fails. 

Because Lopez Francisco failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this 

case, he did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 

F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Lopez Francisco failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by 

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 
3 16-73842 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.