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

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Systemax Inc.,
hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge, Systemax Inc.s Form
10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78 (o)(d)) and that the information contained in such Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Systemax Inc.

Dated: April 15, 2005/s/ STEVEN M. GOLDSCHEIN
Steven M. Goldschein, Chief Financial Officer
_D_e_v8_n....y.,_D_e_n_n_is..<_O_S_T..) ~2005- ~p

From:

Sent: . to:

Subject:

Hello, _

Chris Gebhardt [chgeeb@yahoo.com]

Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:24 PM

Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST)

Plattsburgh Airport

I'm writing to as someone who is originally from Plattsburgh, lived there my entire life up until I was 22. I

now live in Boston (along with a few others from Plattsburgh), and used Cape Air to always get home.

I've used this airline for a few years now to get home, and always have had a great experience. I'm not

sure I understand, or see the positives of having Colgan Air do the Boston-Plattsburgh route ....

Less flights and more expensive? How is that benefitting the people who fly this route? It's just over an

hour flight...who cares about the bigger plane?

And what is the point of having a bigger plane when Cape Air's 9-seaters are not even over-booked! It's

ludicrous to think Colgan Air will attract the same quality and quantity of passengers that Cape Air did.

The entire point of taking Cape Air was that it was a direct flight, and because it was so affordable it made

more sense to fly than to drive home and take the ferry.

Now with the new prices (which they said could be $125 FOR ONE WAY), it makes more sense for us to sit

in the Boston traffic, and still pay for the ferry than to take this airline.

I'm extremely disappointed and hope the numbers in the coming years prove it to be the wrong decision.

Sincerely,

Chris Gebhardt

1
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40543 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. FRANCISCO JAVIER MENDOZA

- GOMEZ, also known as Alfredo Gomez

Morales, also known as Alberto Mendoza

- Gomez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:13

- CR

- 1902

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Javier Mendoza

- Gomez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mendoza

- Gomez has filed a response which asks for the appointment of new counsel . We have reviewed counsel’s

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 1 6 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40543 Document: 00513081259 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015No. 14

- 40543

2 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected there in , as well as Mendoza

- Gomez’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Mendoza

- G omez’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-40543 Document: 00513081259 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
Editorial Note on Part 189
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 189 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; and 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005.

§ 189.300 Hydrogenated 4,4′-isopropylidene-diphenolphosphite ester resins. ( a ) Hydrogenated 4,4′-isopropylidene-diphenolphosphite ester resins are the condensation product of 1 mole of triphenyl phosphite and 1.5 moles of hydrogenated 4,4′-isopropylidene-diphenol such that the finished resins have a molecular weight in the range of 2,400 to 3,000. They are synthetic chemicals not found in natural products and have been used as antioxidants and as stabilizers in vinyl chloride polymer resins when such polymer resins are used in the manufacture of rigid vinyl chloride polymer bottles.
( b ) Food containing any added or detectable levels of these substances is deemed to be adulterated and in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, based upon an order published in the Federal Register of September 9, 1987 (52 FR 33929).
[54 FR 7188, Feb. 17, 1989]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7192 

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

333 West Broadway in Anaheim, California, as the ‘‘Dr. William I. 

‘Bill’ Kott Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2024 

Mr. CORREA (for himself, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. AGUILAR, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mrs. 

KIM of California, Mr. LEVIN, Mrs. STEEL, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. SCHIFF, 

Ms. PORTER, Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mr. RUIZ, 

Mr. PANETTA, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. TAKANO, Mrs. TORRES of California, 

Mr. COSTA, Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. CHU, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. MIKE

GARCIA of California, Mr. PETERS, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. ISSA, Mr. 

LAMALFA, Mr. SWALWELL, Mr. VALADAO, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. 

CA ́RDENAS, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. HARDER of California, Mr. BERA, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. DUARTE, Mr. OBERNOLTE, Ms. 

MATSUI, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. DESAULNIER, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. LIEU, 

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE, Ms. WATERS, Ms. JACOBS, Mr. VARGAS, and Mr. 

KILEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 333 West Broadway in Anaheim, California, 

as the ‘‘Dr. William I. ‘Bill’ Kott Post Office Building’’. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7192 IH

1 SECTION 1. DR. WILLIAM I. ‘‘BILL’’ KOTT POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

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

4 Postal Service located at 333 West Broadway in Anaheim, 

5 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Dr. Wil6 liam I. ‘Bill’ Kott Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dr. William I. ‘Bill’ 

11 Kott Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### SPUR DISTRIBUTING CO., INC., RELATOR, v. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIDGETON ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Argued May 2, 1939

Decided May 12, 1939.

Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Donges and Porter.

For the relator, *Douglas G. Aitken.*

For the respondents, *Samuel Iredell*and *David L. Horuvitz.*

*461Per Curiam.

Relator applied for a permit to erect a gasoline service station on South Pearl street, in the city of Bridgeton. On May 3d, 1938, a hearing was held by the city council and the approval of the permit was denied. This was the third such application, all of which were denied.

On application, this alternative writ of *mandamus*was allowed.

There is no zoning ordinance. The pertinent provision of the city ordinance provides : “The granting of the application for permit will not be approved by the City Council wherever it appears that the granting of the same is or may be detrimental to public health or safety or detrimental to the welfare, growth or the constructive development of the City of Bridgeton.”

It is well established that there is no power in a municipality to limit or regulate the use to which property may be put unless that limitation be designed to promote public health, safety and general welfare. *State*v. *Nutley,*99 *N. J. L.*389; *Durkin Lumber Co.*v. *Fitzsimmons,*106 *Id.*183; *Gabrialson*v. *Glen Ridge,*13 *N. J. Mis. R.*142; *179 Duncan Avenue Corp.*v. *Jersey City,*122 *N. J. L.*292.

*Á*careful review of the testimony in this ease persuades us that the proposed use of the premises by relator will not endanger public health, safety or the general welfare, or development of the municipality. It is proposed to erect a drive-in station in a railroad yard. There is no sidewalk on that side of the street. Within a short distance on the opposite side of the street are two gasoline service stations. Nothing appears to justify a finding that any of the conditions assigned by the city council will result from the building of the proposed structure.

The relator is lessee of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines. It is argued by respondent that there does not appear from the lease in evidence such interest in the lands as will warrant *mandamus.*We are of opinion that the relator has such an interest as entitles it to have its rights enforced by *mandamus.*

A peremptory writ of *mandamus*will be allowed.
§ 182.6760 Sodium hexametaphosphate. ( a ) *Product.* Sodium hexametaphosphate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing practice.
[No. 15905-1-III.

Division Three.

January 6, 1998.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jason L. Dury, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 96-8-00324-3, Richard J. Schroeder, J., entered June 14,1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, C.J., concurred in by Sweeney and Brown, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 57654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22143]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending August 23, 2014

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 302.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2014-0139.
    Date Filed: August 18, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 8, 2014.
    Description: Application of London Executive Aviation Limited 
(``LEA'') requesting a foreign air carrier permit and an exemption 
authorizing LEA to engage in: (i) Foreign charter air transportation of 
persons, property, and mail from any point or points behind any Member 
State of the European Union, via any point or points in any EU Member 
State and via intermediate points, to any point or points in the United 
States and beyond; (ii) foreign charter air transportation of persons, 
property, and mail between any point or points in the United States and 
any point or points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area; 
(iii) foreign charter air transportation of cargo between any point or 
points in the United States and any other point or points; (iv) other 
charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements; and (v) charter 
transportation authorized by any additional route rights made available 
to European Union carriers in the future.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register 
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014-22143 Filed 9-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
**Exhibit 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of ourreports dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of IndependenceCommunity Bank Corp., Independence Community Bank Corp. management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Independence Community Bank Corp., included in the Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005:Form S-8 No. 333-50987, pertaining to the Independence Community Bank 401(k) Savings Plan inRSI Retirement TrustForm S-8 No. 333-74055, pertaining to the 1998 Stock Option PlanForm S-8 No. 333-85981, pertaining to the Stock Options Assumed in Acquisition of BroadNational BancorporationForm S-8 No. 333-95767, pertaining to the Stock Options Assumed in Acquisition of StatewideFinancial Corp.Form S-8 No. 333-60204, pertaining to the Director’s Fiscal 2002 Stock Retainer PlanForm S-8 No. 333-83330, pertaining to the Director’s Fee PlanForm S-8 No. 333-106193, pertaining to the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, as amendedForm S-3 No. 333-100897, pertaining to the common stock available for resale by MeridianCapital Group, LLCForm S-8 No. 333-111562, pertaining to the stock options assumed in the acquisition of StatenIsland Bancorp, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6529

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ROBERT FERDINAND ANNEHEIM, a/k/a Bobby, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00020-RLV-2) 

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 26, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert Ferdinand Anneheim, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack 

Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Robert Anneheim seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant must 

file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of 

judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. 

Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 

proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period 

applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable 

neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension 

of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

1985). 

 The district court entered its order denying the 

motion for reduction of sentence on March 4, 2009. Anneheim 

filed the notice of appeal on March 21, at the earliest,* after 

the ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable 

neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within 

the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district 

court for the court to determine whether Anneheim has shown 

 *

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988). 

2 
3 

excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 

ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then 

be returned to this court for further consideration. 

REMANDED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HADDRICK BYRD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 290 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### § 332.1 Scope.

An over-the-counter antiflatulent product in a form suitable for oral administration is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each of the following conditions and each of the general conditions established in § 330.1 of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1583 Pancreatin. ( a ) Pancreatin (CAS Reg. No. 8049-47-6) is an enzyme preparation obtained from porcine or bovine pancreatic tissue. It is a white to tan powder. Its characterizing enzyme activity that of a peptide hydrolase (EC 3.4.21.36).
( b ) The ingredient meets the general requirements and additional requirements in the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d ed. (1981), p. 110, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or may be examined at the Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-200), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1200, and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice. The affirmation of this ingredient as GRAS as a direct food ingredient is based upon the following current good manufacturing practice conditions of use: ( 1 ) The ingredient is used as an enzyme as defined in § 170.3(o)(9) of this chapter to hydrolyze proteins or polypeptides.
( 2 ) The ingredient is used in food at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice.
[60 FR 32911, June 26, 1995, as amended at 78 FR 14666, Mar. 7, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 172
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 172.399 Zinc methionine sulfate. Zinc methionine sulfate, CAS Reg. No. 56329-42-1, may be safely used in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive is the product of the reaction between equimolar amounts of zinc sulfate and DL-methionine in purified water.
( b ) The additive meets the following specifications: Zinc content—19 to 22 percent. C5H11NO2S “DL-methionine”—46 to 50 percent. Cadmium—not more than 0.05 part per million.
( c ) The additive is used in tablet form as a source of dietary zinc.
[46 FR 58297, Dec. 1, 1981]
H. Res. 985 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 11, 2018. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 50) to provide for additional safeguards with respect 

to imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes. The 

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 

order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered 

as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
2 

•HRES 985 EH 

waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 

be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 

the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 

the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 

the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 

by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 

Whole. All points of order against such further amendments 

are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 

amended, to the House with such further amendments as 

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and any further 

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3281) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the transfer 

to non-Federal ownership of appropriate reclamation projects 

or facilities, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
3 

•HRES 985 EH 

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered 

as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 

debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources; 

and (2) one motion to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.