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




ICONIX
      BRAND GROUP, INC.




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 Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Warren
      Clamen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Warren ClamenWarren
                    Clamen
                  Chief
                    Financial Officer




Date:
      September 24, 2007







Powered
      by 10KWizard Technology Source:
      ICONIX BRAND GROUP, , 10-Q, August 08, 2007
www.gpo.gov

### §286k–1. Securities issued by Bank as exempt securities; reports filed with Security and Exchange Commission

(a) Any securities issued by International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (including any guaranty by the bank, whether or not limited in scope), and any securities guaranteed by the bank as to both principal and interest, shall be deemed to be exempted securities within the meaning of subsection (a)(2) of section 77c of title 15, and subsection (a)(12) of section 78c of title 15. The bank shall file with the Securities and Exchange Commission such annual and other reports with regard to such securities as the Commission shall determine to be appropriate in view of the special character of the bank and its operations and necessary in the public interest or for the protection of investors.

(b) Repealed. Pub. L. 101–240, title V, §541(d)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2518.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §15, as added June 29, 1949, ch. 276, §2, 63 Stat. 298; amended Pub. L. 101–240, title V, §541(d)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2518.)

#### Amendments

1989—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–240 struck out subsec. (b) which related to contents of National Advisory Council reports provided for in section 286b of this title.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 286k–2 of this title.
Exhibit32.1                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 this Quarterly Report of Worldport
     Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
     September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
     the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies,
     pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
     the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on their knowledge: i) the
     Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and ii) the information contained in the
     Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
     and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered
     in the Report.



  /s/ Michael E. Heisley, Sr.
-----------------------------
Michael E. Heisley, Sr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


November 14, 2003




  /s/ Jonathan Y. Hicks
-----------------------
Jonathan Y. Hicks
Chief Financial Officer


November 14, 2003
#### In the Matter of Marcia Pacheco, Respondent, v Russ A. Stearns, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 287]

Peters, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Washington County (Berke, J.), entered August 14, 2003, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, to find respondent in willful violation of a prior order of child support.

Petitioner and respondent are the divorced parents of four children (born in 1990, 1992, 1994 and 1999). Pursuant to an order of the Family Court of Washington County entered in October 2000, respondent is obligated to pay for half of the children’s day care and private school tuition expenses as well as make weekly child support payments to petitioner. Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, alleging willful violation of the child support order. After a hearing, a Support Magistrate found that respondent had willfully violated the order and granted petitioner’s application. Accordingly, Family Court ordered money judgments against re*712spondent and imposed a suspended 30-day jail sentence on him. Respondent now appeals.

We cannot agree with respondent’s argument that his statutory right to counsel was violated. The record reflects that respondent was advised of his rights with regard to legal representation when the parties appeared before the Support Magistrate in April 2003 and respondent was presented with petitioner’s application. At that time, respondent was denied assigned counsel based upon the financial information provided to Family Court and was granted an adjournment to obtain counsel. When the parties appeared before the Support Magistrate in June 2003, respondent had not obtained counsel and the Support Magistrate denied respondent’s request for a further adjournment. Given the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Family Court failed to fulfill its responsibilities pursuant to Family Ct Act §§ 261 and 262 *(see Matter of Cicardi v Cicardi,*267 AD2d 784, 785 [1999]; *cf. Matter of Williams-Foreman v Crandell, 306*AD2d 570, 571 [2003]; *Matter of Gaudette v Gaudette,*263 AD2d 620, 621 [1999]).

Nor are we persuaded by respondent’s contention that Family Court erred in finding that his failure to comply with the child support order was willful. According deference to the court’s credibility assessments, the record provides sufficient proof that respondent failed to make the required payments despite his ability to do so *(see Matter of Heyn v Burr,*19 AD3d 896, 897-898 [2005]).

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20395 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BOBBY JOE BURTON, JR, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CR-36-3

- - - - - - - - - - December 11, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Bobby Joe Burton, Jr., appeals his sentence on remand from a jury trial and conviction for various drug trafficking offenses. Burton argues that (1) the indictment failed to allege a drug quantity in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000); (2) 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) is unconstitutional; (3) the sentence enhancement based on a prior felony drug conviction violated Apprendi because the prior felony was not alleged in the indictment; and (4) the sentence under the guidelines violated Apprendi because the indictment did not allege a leadership role.No. 01-20395 -2- Although Burton’s indictment did not allege a drug quantity or leadership role, he was not sentenced in excess of the 30-year statutory maximum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Consequently, there was no Apprendi violation. United States v. Doggett , 230 F.3d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1152 (2001); United States v. Keith , 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1163 (2001). Apprendi does not invalidate a court’s factual findings for purposes of determining the applicable Sentencing Guidelines. Id. Likewise, the indictment need not allege a prior felony conviction under Apprendi

. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998); see also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000)(noting that the Supreme Court in Apprendi expressly declined to overrule Almendarez-Torres ), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). The constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) has been upheld by this court. See United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 2015 (2001). Accordingly, Burton’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
# L_2020162EN.01000501.xml

| 26.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 162/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/5

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2020/695

of 19 May 2020

on the acceptance of a third State’s contribution to the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/1/2020)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/610 of 19 April 2016 on a European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2016/610, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee to take the relevant decisions on the acceptance of the proposed contributions by third States to EUTM RCA. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2016/610, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee to take the relevant decisions on the acceptance of the proposed contributions by third States to EUTM RCA.

| (2) | Following the recommendations regarding a contribution from the Republic of North Macedonia by the EU Mission Commander and by the European Union Military Committee, the contribution from the Republic of North Macedonia should be accepted and considered to be significant. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the recommendations regarding a contribution from the Republic of North Macedonia by the EU Mission Commander and by the European Union Military Committee, the contribution from the Republic of North Macedonia should be accepted and considered to be significant.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   The contribution from the Republic of North Macedonia to the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) is accepted and considered to be significant.

2.   The Republic of North Macedonia is exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUTM RCA.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 19 May 2020.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMESBERGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 104, 20.4.2016, p. 21.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.2
                                                                   ------------

              STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
              SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Deborah A. McLaughlin, is the Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Operating Officer of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. (the "Company"). This
statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of
the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2006 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

      1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
            78o(d)); and

      2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
            covered by the Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:  November 14, 2006               /s/ Deborah A. McLaughlin
       -----------------------         ------------------------------------
                                       Deborah A. McLaughlin
                                       Executive Vice President
                                       Chief Financial Officer and Chief
                                       Operations Officer

                                      49
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors andshareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the"Company"), a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loanoutsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial taxservice provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and forthe year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii)and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Companyperformed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activitiesperformed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Ourprocedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors thatmay have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the periodcovered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 forall loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which theCompany served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas TX 75201-2997*

*T: 214-746-6500, F:214-712-6660,*www.pwc.com
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 155 (Thursday, August 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40838-40839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19439]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLID100000-L10200000-PH0000]


Notice of Public Meeting, Idaho Falls District Resource Advisory 
Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Idaho Falls 
District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) Sub-Committee, will meet as 
indicated below.

DATES: The RAC Sub-Committee will be having a meeting on September 21, 
2009 from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Pocatello Field Office, 4350 
Cliffs Drive, Pocatello, Idaho 83204. All meetings are open to the 
public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Council advises the Secretary 
of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of 
planning and management issues associated with public land management 
in the BLM Idaho Falls District (IFD), which covers eastern Idaho.
    All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written 
comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have 
time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of 
persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual 
oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need 
special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour 
transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the 
BLM as provided below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Wilson, RAC Coordinator, Idaho 
Falls District, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401. Telephone: 
(208) 524-7550. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a50757b74747b454d73766975745a787677347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83c9ece2edede2dcd4eaeff0ecedc3e1efeeade4ecf5">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 40839]]


    Dated: August 4, 2009.
Joanna Wilson,
RAC Coordinator, Public Affairs Specialist.
[FR Doc. E9-19439 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of La’Asia Lanae S. and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Tamara Litisha S., Appellant; The Salvation Army, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 568]

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about October 24, 2002, which, upon fact-finding determinations of permanent neglect, terminated respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the subject children and committed their custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that despite the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, which reasonably accommodated respondent’s hearing impairment, respondent failed to successfully complete drug treatment, parenting skills and domestic violence programs within the statutorily relevant period, or secure suitable housing *(see Matter of Jamie M.,*63 NY2d 388, 393 [1984]; *Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368, 384-385 [1984]). Family Court correctly held that the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC § 12101*et seq.)*has no bearing on the proceeding *(see Matter of Chance Jahmel B.,*187 Misc 2d 626 [2001]). The finding that termination of parental rights is in the children’s best interests is supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that respondent cannot presently ameliorate the conditions that led to the children’s placement *(see Matter of Michael B.,*80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]; *Matter of Desmond Sinclair G.,*202 AD2d 156, 158 [1994]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
FILED

November 6, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

MAY 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) 

) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9604-CC-00151 

Appellee, )

) Dickson County

V. )

) Honorable Leonard W. Martin, Judge

)

DOROTHY SHELDON, ) (Forgery)

) 

Appellant. )

OPINION CONCURRING IN RESULTS

I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately however

because I have reached the conclusion that venue is proper in this case through a

somewhat different rationale than that expressed in the majority opinion.

The indictment in the instant case provides:

The Grand Jurors for the State of Tennessee, duly elected, impaneled,

sworn, and charged to inquire in and for the body of the County of

Dickson, in the State aforesaid, upon their oaths, present: Than

DOROTHY SHELTON, A/K/A VIRGINIA SHELDON, A/K/A DOROTHY

SPANN, A/K/A VICTORIA SPANN, heretofore, to-wit; on or about the 10th

day of August, 1993, and prior to the finding of this Indictment, in the

County of Dickson aforesaid, then and there unlawfully, and with intent to

defraud Tennessee Credit Corporation, Renee Reeves, Agent and

Victoria D. Spann of the sum of nine hundred seventy ($970.00) dollars,

did forge and make, without the authorization of the said Tennessee

Credit Corporation, Renee Reeves, Agent and Victoria D. Spann, a

certain paper writing, to-wit: a Retail Installment Contract and Security

Agreement, so that the said paper writing purported to bear the signature

of the said Victoria D. Spann as drawer, in violation of T.C.A. 39-14-114, 

all of which is against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

Thus, Appellant was charged with “making” forged documents to wit: a retail

sales contract and a security agreement. The proof showed that those document

were prepared in Dickson County based on false information submitted by Appellant
-2-

who later signed the documents in Humphreys County. The majority concludes that

the clerk at Leader Furniture Company who filled out the credit application became

the unwitting agent of Appellant, and that it was through this agent that the mental

element of forgery was committed in Dickson County. In my view however, the

making of the documents in Dickson County by an innocent agent based on the

false information submitted by Appellant constituted part of the actus reus of the

offense as charged in the indictment, and this action is sufficient to establish venue

in Dickson County.

For these reasons I concur in the result reached by the Court.

____________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE