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



Citizens Financial Corp.

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley

Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



I, Thomas K. Derbyshire, Vice President, Treasurer and Principal Financial
Officer of Citizens Financial Corp. (the company) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:



|1. |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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:5/13/04 |  | /s/ Thomas K. Derbyshire   
|             |  | Thomas K. Derbyshire       
|             |  | Vice President, Treasurer  
|             |  | Principal Financial Officer
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 234 

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 131) amending rule 

XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives with regard to the 

procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

Mr. MOLLOHAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 131) 

amending rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives with regard to the procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. 

1 Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 

2 resolution the House shall without intervention of any 

3 point of order consider in the House the resolution (H. 

4 Res. 131) amending rule XI of the Rules of the House 

5 of Representatives with regard to the procedures of the 

6 Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The resolu7 tion shall be considered as read. The previous question 

8 shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final 
2 

HRES 234 IH 

1 adoption without intervening motion except one hour of 

2 debate on the resolution equally divided and controlled by 

3 the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, and an 

4 opponent. 

Æ
#### In the Matter of the Estate of George J. Rudnick, Deceased. Rose Rudnick et al., Appellants; Edythe Rudnick, as Administratrix of the Estate of George J. Rudnick, Deceased, Respondent.

In a proceeding by the administratrix (the decedent’s widow) for judicial settlement of her account, in which claims against three siblings of the decedent were made, the latter appeal from two orders of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated October 1, 1968 and October 23, 1968, respectively, the first referring the issues to a Referee for hearing and report and the second denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the claims pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], pars. 5, 7) and 3212. Appeal from order of October 1,1968 dismissed. An order of reference to hear and report is not appealable. Order dated October 23, 1968 reversed, on the law; appellants’ motion granted; and the administratrix’ claims, set forth in items 5, 7 and 8 of Schedule J of her account, dismissed. Appellants are allowed one bill of $30 costs and disbursements jointly, payable out of the estate, to cover the appeals from both orders. ■ The claims against appellants involve a loan, the proceeds from the sale of real property, and the withdrawal of money from a bank account. We disagree with the Surrogate that there are issues to be tried with respect to these three claims. The documentary proof supplied by appellants demonstrates the lack of merit to the claims. Further, the claims are stale and barred by the Statute of Limitations. In response to the strong proofs proffered by appellants, the administratrix offered no documentary proofs, no direct averments and no probative facts; instead she offered conelusory, vague, conjectural and indirect allegations that do not raise any questions of fact to be tried. The claims should have been dismissed summarily. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
1815.7003 Contract clause.       The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the one at 1852.215–84, Ombudsman, in all solicitations (including draft solicitations) and contracts.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1815.70—Ombudsman
(November 12, 1980)

#### Reinah Development Corp., Appellant, v G.A.P. Hotel Corp. et al., Respondents. (And One Other Action.)

Motion for reargument granted, without costs, and upon reargument, the court adheres to its original decision dated October 23, 1980, denying appellant’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The law of the case establishes that the subject actions have been brought pursuant to the Debtor and Creditor Law. Therefore, recovery therein is limited to the extent necessary to satisfy appellant’s claim *(Buckley Petroleum Prods, v Schwartz,*28 AD2d 640, 641) which, the court notes, has been reduced to judgment in the Supreme Court, New York County, for nominal damages only. Accordingly, appellant has failed to demonstrate sufficient merit on its pending appeal to warrant the granting of a stay. Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
§ 1013.6 Prerequisites for issuing a complaint. ( a ) The reviewing official may issue a complaint under § 1013.7 of this part only if— ( 1 ) The Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in a written statement described in 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1), and
( 2 ) In the case of allegations of liability under § 1013.3(a) of this part with respect to a claim, the reviewing official determines that, with respect to such claim or a group of related claims submitted at the same time such claim is submitted (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section), the amount of money or the value of property or services demanded or requested in violation of § 1013.3(a) of this part does not exceed $150,000.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, a related group of claims submitted at the same time shall include only those claims arising from the same transaction (*e.g.,* grant, loan, application, or contract) that are submitted simultaneously as part of a single request, demand, or submission.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the reviewing official's authority to join in a single complaint against a person claims that are unrelated or were not submitted simultaneously, regardless of the amount of money, or the value of property or services, demanded or requested.
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INDEX

INDEX TO ADJOINING SHEETS

74° <9
7 o
wasslnotl satTgeuty
nF eta' NJ 18-5
‘nie (nr ioe

2-21 £N

we
w 2
8
e-
\ an
o

BATHYMETRIC. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 METER S
WITH SUPPLEMENTARY 2 METER CONTOURS
DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER

RICHMOND, VA.

Ric mond
MS IE-7
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 12 Filed 11/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION 

DONNA DORSEY DAVIS, ) 

as an individual and derivatively upon behalf of ) 

I-65 Properties, Inc., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No.: 2:06cv766-MHT 

 ) 

RICHARD M. DORSEY, ) 

as an individual, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRIAL BRIEFS 

 NOW COME, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, by and through their respective counsel of 

record, and respectfully request that the time for filing the trial briefs be extended from Friday, 

July 13, 2007 until Monday, July 16, 2007. While all parties worked expeditiously to schedule 

mediation in this cause, due to various conflicts, mediation was unable to be scheduled prior to 

Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. That both attorney for Plaintiff and Defendant need such 

time up until mediation to prepare for such. Counsel on both sides agree an extension to file the 

trial brief would be beneficial to their respective clients, and would not be prejudicial. 

 WHEREFORE, THE ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff and Defendant 

jointly request this Honorable Court issue an order extending the time to file the trial briefs until 

Monday, July 16, 2007. 

 //s// Lindsay B. Erwin

 Lindsay B. Erwin (ERW005) 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 60 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
 Meacham, Earley & Fowler, P.C. 

 5704 Veterans Parkway 

 Columbus, GA 31904 

 //s// Clifford W. Cleveland

 Clifford W. Cleveland 

 Counsel for Defendant 

 Cleveland & Colley, P.C. 

 744 East Main Street 

 Prattville, AL 36067 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the 9th day of July, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court using electronic filing system which will send information of such filing to 

the following: 

 

 James E. Roberts, Esquire 

 4908 Cahaba River Road, Ste 204 

 Birmingham, AL 35243 

 //s// Lindsay B. Erwin

OF COUNSEL 

 //s// Clifford W. Cleveland

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 60 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 9 of 9
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 207 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 207

    Recognizing the 100th anniversary of FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2005

 Mr. Hulshof submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
              the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Recognizing the 100th anniversary of FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc.

Whereas FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. was founded on April 15, 1905, by 7 students 
        from the College of Agriculture at the University of Missouri-Columbia;
Whereas FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. is widely known and respected on college 
        campuses throughout the United States and Canada as a fraternity that 
        encourages values-based leadership, has a strong academic focus, and is 
        dedicated to service;
Whereas FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. focuses on building the whole man--
        intellectually, spiritually, socially, morally, and physically;
Whereas more than 24,000 men have been members of FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc., 
        including governors, congressmen, top scientists, innovators in 
        agriculture, university presidents, Nobel Prize winners, Pulitzer Prize 
        winners, doctors, lawyers, and Hall of Fame athletes;
Whereas FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. members volunteer countless hours of service 
        each year to help improve the communities they serve; and
Whereas hundreds of FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. alumni and student members will 
        gather in Columbia, Missouri, from April 14 to April 17, 2005, for the 
        celebration of the 100th anniversary of the fraternity: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes the 100th 
anniversary of FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. and commends the fraternity 
and its members for a century of service.
                                 <all>
```
### MANDATE



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00059

- CV

River Oaks L

- M. Inc. d/b/a West Point Lincoln Mercury, Appellant

v.

Veronica Vinton

- Duarte, Appellee Appealed from the 269th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2010

- 54452). Opinion delivered by Justice McCally. Justices Frost and Boyce also participating.

TO THE 269TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS: Before our Court of Appeals on May 2 8 , 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment was determin ed. Our Court of Appeals made its order in these words: This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Veronica Vinton

- Duarte , signed November 25, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore REFORM the judgment of the court below as follows:

The amount awarded to plaintiff, Veronica Vinton

- Duarte against West Point is reduced from $739,623.88 to $ 625,197.87

. Veronica Vinton

Duarte is awarded actual damages from West Point in the amount of $ 625,197.87

. This amount consists of $ 560,814.00 of compensatory damages as awarded by the jury on the sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and prejudgment interest of $ 64,383.87 calculated from August 30, 2010 until November 24, 2013. The compensatory damages reflect a reduction of $3,186.00, the amount awarded to West Point by the jury on its counterclaims
, and a reduction of $125,000.00 due to the statutory damages cap provided by the Texas Labor Code

.2

We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified in this judgment. We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS , the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost , Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houst on, August 13, 2015

.
EXHIBIT 11

ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION

Computation of Loss per Share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(in thousands except per share data)


                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                  ------------------------
                                                   March 29,     March 30,
Basic                                                1998          1997
--------------------------------------            -----------   ----------

Net loss                                          $     (766)   $  (20,023)

Series B, D, E, F, G and H accumulated
   Preferred Stock Dividends                                        (6,860)
                                                  -----------   ----------
Net loss attributable to
   common shareholders                            $     (766)   $  (26,883)
                                                  ===========   ==========

Weighted average common
   shares outstanding                                 67,447        37,276
                                                  ===========   ==========


Basic loss per common share                       $    (0.01)   $    (0.72)
                                                  ===========   ==========

Diluted
--------------------------

Net loss                                          $    (766)    $  (20,023)
                                                  ===========   ==========

Weighted average common
   shares outstanding                                 67,447        37,276
Series A assumed converted                                           7,364
Series B assumed converted                                          23,392
Series D assumed converted                                          35,794
Series E assumed converted                                          36,587
Series F assumed converted                                          17,120
Series G assumed converted                                          18,370
Series H assumed converted                                          11,235
Series I assumed converted                                           1,659
Exercise of options reduced by the number
   of shares purchased with proceeds                                 2,786
                                                  -----------   ----------
Weighted average shares outstanding                    67,447      191,583
                                                  ===========   ==========

Diluted loss per common share:                    $    (0.01)   $    (0.72)
                                                  ===========   ==========

Basic and diluted loss per common share are the same for all periods presented
   because the effect of the common stock equivalents would be antidilutive.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.333 Authority of the presiding officer to regulate procedure in a hearing. To prevent unnecessary delays or an unnecessarily large record, the presiding officer: ( a ) May limit the number of witnesses whose testimony may be cumulative;
( b ) May strike argumentative, repetitious, cumulative, unreliable, immaterial, or irrelevant evidence;
( c ) Shall require each party or participant who requests permission to conduct cross-examination to file a cross-examination plan for each witness or panel of witnesses the party or participant proposes to cross-examine;
( d ) Must ensure that each party or participant permitted to conduct cross-examination conducts its cross-examination in conformance with the party's or participant's cross-examination plan filed with the presiding officer;
( e ) May take necessary and proper measures to prevent argumentative, repetitious, or cumulative cross-examination; and
( f ) May impose such time limitations on arguments as the presiding officer determines appropriate, having regard for the volume of the evidence and the importance and complexity of the issues involved.
120 STAT. 1770 PUBLIC LAW 109–330—OCT. 12, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5504:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

June 19, considered and passed House.

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–330

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6029

Broadmoor Street in Mission, Kansas, as the ‘‘Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LARRY WINN, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, Kansas, shall

be known and designated as the ‘‘Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office

Building’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Approved October 12, 2006.

Oct. 12, 2006

[H.R. 5504]
Case 2:06-mj-00084-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-mj-00084-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-mj-00084-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 3 of 3
Compliance Checks 

Examination, Audit or Compliance Check? 

Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division 

• What is an examination? What is an audit? 

An examination is a review of an organization’s books and records. In addition, an examination may involve 

the questioning of third parties to determine the organization’s tax liabilities. Another term for an 

examination is an audit. 

• What is a compliance check? 

A compliance check is a review conducted by the IRS to determine the following: 

 

• Whether an organization is adhering to recordkeeping and information reporting requirements. 

• Whether an organization’s activities are consistent with their stated tax-exempt purpose. 

It is a review of information and forms that we require organizations to file or maintain – for example, Forms 

990, 990-T, 940, 941, W-2, 1099, or W-4. The check is a tool to help educate organizations about their 

reporting requirements and to increase voluntary compliance. 

The 990 series of forms are used by tax-exempt organizations, including charities, private foundations and 

other nonprofit organizations, to provide information required by section 6033 of the Internal Revenue Code, 

which includes information about their programs and activities. Information on these returns is generally 

disclosable to the public as provided by law. 

It should be noted that a compliance check is not an examination; it does not directly relate to determining a 

tax liability for any particular period. 

• What occurs during a compliance check? 

At the beginning of a compliance check, we will inform the officer or director that the review is a compliance 

check and not an examination. We will not ask to examine any books and records or ask questions 

regarding tax liabilities. We may ask the organization whether they understand or have questions about 

filing obligations for required forms. We may also ask questions about an organization’s activities. If, 

during a compliance check, we decide an examination is appropriate, we will notify the organization that we 

are commencing an examination before asking questions related to tax liability. 

• Is there a penalty for refusing to submit to a compliance check? 

No. The officer or director may refuse to participate in a compliance check without penalty. However, we 

have the option of opening a formal examination, whether or not the organization agrees to participate in a 

compliance check. 

• How often can the IRS do compliance checks? 

Because a compliance check only reviews whether an organization is adhering to record keeping and 

information reporting requirements and/or whether an organization’s activities are consistent with its stated 

tax-exempt purpose and is not an examination, it is possible to have more than one compliance check for a 

tax year if facts and circumstances warrant. 

 Department of the Treasury Publication 4386 (Rev 4-2006) 

 Internal Revenue Service Catalog Number 38771G 

www.irs.gov
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 120 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 120 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 120 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 120 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 4 of 4