alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

      The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of First Keystone Financial, Inc.
(the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                                   /s/ Rose M. DiMarco
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Name: Rose M. DiMarco
                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 15, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to First Keystone Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by First Keystone Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### HJA Holdings, Inc., Appellant, v Esquire Deposition Services, LLC, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 29]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered April 18, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare in defendant’s favor that it owns the disputed assets free and clear of any right or interest therein on the part of plaintiff, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant purchased collateral, including the court reporting business formerly owned by plaintiff, from a senior secured lender that had acquired the collateral in foreclosure. Under the circumstances and the provisions of Illinois law applicable in this matter, defendant was a good faith purchaser and took the collateral free and clear of any rights and interests therein subordinate to those of the senior secured lender *(see*Ill Rev Stat, *1761991, ch 26, ¶ 9-504; *Continental Bank of Buffalo Grove, N.A. v Krebs,*184 Ill App 3d 693, 698, 540 NE2d 1023, 1026 [1989]). Whether defendant had, or somehow could have had knowledge of plaintiffs subordinate claim with respect to the collateral is not relevant to the dispositive issue of whether defendant acted in good faith, which it did *(see Northwest Equip. Sales Co. v Western Packers, Inc.,*623 F2d 92, 95 [1980]). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the court reporting business was expressly included in the assets sold to defendant pursuant to the foreclosure sale agreement. Nor, contrary to plaintiffs argument, is it of consequence in this litigation that no certificate was filed in New York reflecting the merger of the court reporting business with other entities, since the senior secured lender had a security interest in both the subject court reporting business and the entity into which it merged.

We modify the disposition of this action seeking declaratory relief only to declare in defendant’s favor *(see Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], *cert denied*371 US 901 [1962]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
To	whom	it	may	concern:

As	of	June	4,	2013	both	of	my	issues	with	American	Airlines	previously	discussed	in	

this	docket	have	been	resolved	to	my	full	and	complete	satisfaction.	

With	regard	to	the	apparent	unauthorized	credit	card	charges,	American	has	not	

only	rectified	the	situation	but	has	also	outlined	what	happened	and	the	steps	taken	

to	prevent	other	customers	from	experiencing	a	similar	error. As	to	the	taxes	vs.	fuel	

surcharges	issue,	my	discussion	with	American’s	legal	department	has	left	me	

confident	that	not	only	was	any	mischaracterization	incidental	and	accidental, but	

that	management	is	working with	reservations	staff	to	ensure that proper	and	

consistent	messaging is conveyed	to	customers	via	phone	as	it	is	online.

I	appreciate	the	Department’s	time	and	consideration	in this	matter,	as	well	as	the	

availability	of	a	forum	to	communicate	its	resolution to	all	concerned	parties.

Sincerely,

Daniel	Palay
§ 1.852-12 Non-RIC earnings and profits. ( a ) *Applicability of section 852(a)(2)(A)* — ( 1 ) *In general.* An investment company does not satisfy section 852(a)(2)(A) unless— ( i ) Part I of subchapter M applied to the company for all its taxable years ending on or after November 8, 1983; and
( ii ) For each corporation to whose earnings and profits the investment company succeeded by the operation of section 381, part I of subchapter M applied for all the corporation's taxable years ending on or after November 8, 1983.
( 2 ) *Special rule.* See section 1071(a)(5)(D) of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, Public Law 98-369 (98 Stat. 1051), for a special rule which treats part I of subchapter M as having applied to an investment company's first taxable year ending after November 8, 1983.
( b ) *Applicability of section 852(a)(2)(B)* — ( 1 ) *In general.* An investment company does not satisfy section 852(a)(2)(B) unless, as of the close of the taxable year, it has no earnings and profits other than earnings and profits that— ( i ) Were earned by a corporation in a year for which part I of subchapter M applied to the corporation and, at all times thereafter, were the earnings and profits of a corporation to which part I of subchapter M applied;
( ii ) By the operation of section 381 pursuant to a transaction that occurred before December 22, 1992, became the earnings and profits of a corporation to which part I of subchapter M applied and, at all times thereafter, were the earnings and profits of a corporation to which part I of subchapter M applied;
( iii ) Were accumulated in a taxable year ending before January 1, 1984, by a corporation to which part I of subchapter M applied for any taxable year ending before November 8, 1983; or
( iv ) Were accumulated in the first taxable year of an investment company that began business in 1983 and that was not a successor corporation.
( 2 ) *Prior law.* For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, a reference to part I of subchapter M includes a reference to the corresponding provisions of prior law.
( c ) *Effective date.* This regulation is effective for taxable years ending on or after December 22, 1992.
( d ) For treatment of net built-in gain assets of a C corporation that become assets of a RIC, see § 1.337(d)-5T.
[T.D. 8483, 58 FR 43798, Aug. 18, 1993; 58 FR 49352, Sept. 22, 1993; T.D. 8872, 65 FR 5777, Feb. 7, 2000]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of
ACG Holdings, Inc. and American Color Graphics, Inc., (collectively the
"Company") that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m) and that the
information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 2, 2004                          /s/ Stephen M. Dyott
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Stephen M. Dyott
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 2, 2004                          /s/ Patrick W. Kellick
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Patrick W. Kellick
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

                                       35
§ 44.4411-1 Imposition of tax. ( a ) *In general.* A special tax of $50 per year is required to be paid by each person: ( 1 ) Who is liable for the tax imposed by section 4401, or
( 2 ) Who is engaged in receiving wagers for or on behalf of any person who is liable for the tax imposed by section 4401.
( b ) *Examples.* The application of paragraph (a) of this section may be illustrated by the following examples: Example 1. A, who is engaged in the business of accepting horse race bets, employs ten persons to receive on his behalf wagers which are transmitted by telephone. A also employs a secretary and a bookkeeper. A and each of the ten persons who receives wagers by telephone on behalf of A are liable for the special tax. The secretary and bookkeeper are not liable for the special tax unless they also receive wagers for A.
Example 2. B operates a numbers game and has an arrangement with ten persons, who are employed in various capacities, such as bootblacks, elevator operators, news dealers, etc., to receive wagers from the public on his behalf. B also employs C to collect from the ten persons referred to, the wagers received by them on B's behalf and to deliver such wagers to B. C performs no other services for B. B and the ten persons who receive wagers on his behalf are liable for the special tax. C is not liable for the special tax since he is not engaged in receiving wagers for B.
( c ) *Cross references.* For provisions relating to the payment of the special tax (computation, manner of payment, etc.), see Subpart D of this part.
----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Making European citizenship visible and effective

(2006/C 318/28)

On 19 January 2006 the European Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up opinion on Making European citizenship visible and effective.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the EESC's work on the matter, adopted its opinion on 13 July 2006 (rapporteur: Mr Vever).

At its 429th plenary session of 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted this opinion by 111 votes for, 22 votes against and 13 abstentions.

1.   Summary

2.   Introduction

3.   Lack of appreciation of European citizenship

4.   Putting right particularly unjustified inadequacies in Europe

5.   Developing a more citizen-based governance for the Union

6.   Promoting joint initiatives with a strong identity content

7.   Conclusions

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  EESC opinion: Contribution to the European Council of 15 and 16 June 2006 — Period of reflection (rapporteur: Mr Malosse).

(2)  EESC opinion of 26.10.2005 on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the programme ‘Citizens for Europe’ to promote active European citizenship, rapporteur: Mr Le Scornet (OJ C 28 of 3.2.2006).

(3)  EESC opinion of 21 March 2002 on a European Company Statute for SMEs, rapporteur: Mr Malosse (OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002, p. 100).

(4)  EESC opinion of 20.4.2006 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the portability of supplementary pension rights, rapporteur: Ms Engelen-Kefer.

(5)  See the information report on the Current state of co-regulation and self-regulation in the Single Market adopted on 11 January 2005 by the Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, rapporteur: Mr Vever.

(6)  EESC opinion of 26.10.2005 on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the programme ‘Citizens for Europe’ to promote active European citizenship, rapporteur: Mr Le Scornet (OJ C 28 of 3.2.2006).

----
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND FOR THE
THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      22,085,881
<SECURITIES>                                24,061,228
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,624,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,395,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,610,078
<PP&E>                                      16,236,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,459,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,756,757
<BONDS>                                      1,637,002
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       329,729
<OTHER-SE>                                  63,736,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,459,949
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,646,937
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  161,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,579,053
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,748,542)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,748,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,748,542)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6046
In Re: ANTHONY LEE THAMES, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-122) Submitted: March 21, 2003 Decided: May 2, 2003 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lee Thames, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Lee Thames petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. As the district court recently took significant action in the case by issuing an order to show cause on March 17, 2003, and Thames filed his response to the motion on April 9, 2003, we deny Thames’ petition as moot. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51265

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISAI BARRON-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-615-ALL-PRM

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Isai Barron-Lopez has requested

leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). BarronLopez has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has

not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
No. 02-51265

-2-

excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
#### § 141.4975-13 Definition of “amount involved” and “correction”.

Until superseded by permanent regulations under sections 4975(f) (4) and (5), § 53.4941(e)-1 of this chapter (Foundation Excise Tax Regulations) will be controlling to the extent such regulations describe terms appearing both in section 4941(e) and section 4975(f). Because of the need for immediate guidance with respect to the provisions contained in this Treasury decision, it is found impracticable to issue it with notice and public procedure thereon under subsection (b) of section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code or subject to the effective date limitation of subsection (d) of that section.

(Sec. 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (68A Stat. 917; 26 U.S.C. 7805))

[T.D. 7425, 41 FR 32890, Aug. 6, 1976, as amended by T.D. 8084, 51 FR 16305, May 2, 1986]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 17, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132149 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132149 

 COA: 271746 

Genesee CC: 05-016891-FH 

JONATHAN HILL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of January 29, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 

2006 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People 

v Johnston (Docket No. 130526). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on 

June 15, 2007, 478 Mich 903 (2007), the application is again considered, and it is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would remand the case for resentencing. 

l1010 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 17, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

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 Covalent Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth M. Borow, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Kenneth M. Borow, M.D.           
|Kenneth M. Borow, M.D.               
|President and Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as
part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 73

Recognizing and commending American airmen held as prisoners of war

at the Buchenwald concentration camp during World War II for their

service, bravery, and fortitude.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1995

Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. MONTGOMERY, and Mr. EDWARDS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing and commending American airmen held as prisoners of war at the Buchenwald concentration camp during World War II for their service, bravery, and fortitude.

Whereas during World War II 173 Allied airmen were captured by the enemy and held as prisoners of war at the

Buchenwald concentration camp in Weimar, Germany;

Whereas the captured airmen included 81 Americans, 27 Canadians, and 65 Britons, Australians, and New Zealanders;

Whereas the facts and circumstances of their confinement are

amply documented in the official records maintained by

the National Archives and Records Administration;
2

•HCON 73 IH

Whereas a report from the International Red Cross concerning Stalag Luft III in Sagan, Germany, mentioned six

American airmen held at Buchenwald, including one

whose name does not appear on the lists maintained by

the National Archives;

Whereas since the liberation of Buchenwald in 1945 numerous personal memoirs, scholarly books, and articles have

been published describing the conditions at the concentration camp;

Whereas this extensive documentation records the extraordinarily inhuman treatment, deprivations, and personal

suffering inflicted on prisoners of war and other inmates

at Buchenwald; and

Whereas Allied Governments and veterans organizations outside the United States have granted special recognition to

their citizens and servicemembers who were held as prisoners of war in World War II concentration camps: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) recognizes and commends the American air4 men held as prisoners of war at the Buchenwald

5 concentration camp during World War II for their

6 faithful service, personal bravery, and exceptional

7 fortitude; and

8 (2) requests that the President issue a procla9 mation recognizing and commending the service,

10 bravery, and fortitude of those airmen.

Æ