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 for the period ended September 30, 2009 (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
      ClamenExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
      November 6, 2009
Order entered May 1, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01130-CV

CARLOS A.L. VAUGHN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-13686-C

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s April 17, 2013 motion for a copy of the clerk’s record and 

the reporter’s record. On February 12, 2013, the Court received notice from Antionette Reagor, 

Official Court Reporter for the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, that no 

hearings were recorded in this case. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent 

that we DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send appellant a paper copy of the clerk’s record.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 256.54 What happens if Fiscal Service denies a request for payment?

Fiscal Service must deny any request for payment that fails to satisfy the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 1304. The submitting agency may request reconsideration of a payment denial. The submitting agency must provide an explanation of how the request for payment meets the four tests contained in section 256.1 of this part. If applicable, requests for reconsideration must contain a reference to the agency's program authority and include specific funding provisions that pertain to the program activity that resulted in the claim. If, upon reconsideration, Fiscal Service determines that payment from the Judgment Fund is appropriate, and the agency has already made payment to the plaintiff or claimant, Fiscal Service will reimburse the agency from the Judgment Fund.
#### § 23.16 Affirmative action by recipient.

Even in the absence of a finding of discrimination, a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation in the recipient's program or activity on the basis of age.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1728** 

TYRONE D. MURRY , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC.; AT&T GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00771

- NCT

- JEP )

Submitted : April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tyrone D. Murry, Appellant Pro Se. James Marion Powell, Jillian McConnell White, WOMBLE, CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, Greensboro, North Carolina; William Randolph Loftis, Jr., William J. McMahon, IV, Kristine Marie Sims, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLC, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tyrone D. Murry appeals the district court ’s judgment entered after a jury trial on an employment discrimination claim
. Murry also challenges the district court’s order denying his motions to compel and requesting additional discovery. We have reviewed the record , including the transcripts, and find no abu se of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
. Murry v. Jacobs Tech., Inc. , No. 1:10

- cv - 00771

- NCT

- JEP (M.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2012; May 8, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### John Russell SEWALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PYATT & SILVESTRI, CHTD.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-15851.

D.C. No. CV-00-02733-BZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 13, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM***

John Russell Sewald appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against defendant Pyatt and Silvestri alleging tortious interference with his attempts to discover who sent a piece of certified mail to defendant law firm.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and affirm the district court’s dismissal of Sewald’s action for failure to state a claim. *See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,*901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1988).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. The United States Postal Service’s motion for summary affirmance was granted on November 8, 2001.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 14 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 14

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Congress should pass any 
health care reform initiative that has overwhelming bipartisan support.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 1995

 Mr. Stearns submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Congress should pass any 
health care reform initiative that has overwhelming bipartisan support.

Whereas 31 to 37 million Americans do not have adequate health care coverage;
Whereas, every day, Americans who have health care coverage fear they might lose 
        such coverage due to a sudden catastrophic illness or change in 
        employment;
Whereas the skyrocketing costs of health care jeopardize the current and future 
        accessibility of health care for millions of Americans;
Whereas physicians must practice medicine in constant fear of excessive 
        malpractice lawsuits being brought against them for providing treatment 
        to patients;
Whereas fraud and abuse in the health care system are running rampant and 
        American taxpayers are losing billions of dollars from such fraud and 
        abuse;
Whereas the American public is demanding action on health care reform and cannot 
        wait any longer for the Congress to act; and
Whereas partisanship must not stand in the way of progress in health care 
        reform: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the leaderships of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
should work together in a bipartisan manner to pass any health care 
reform initiative that has overwhelming bipartisan support.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 205.11 What requirements apply to funding techniques? ( a ) A State and a Federal Program Agency must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury and the State's payout of funds for Federal assistance program purposes, whether the transfer occurs before or after the payout of funds.
( b ) A State and a Federal Program Agency must limit the amount of funds transferred to the minimum required to meet a State's actual and immediate cash needs.
( c ) A State must not draw down funds from its account in the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) or from a Federal account in the UTF in advance of actual immediate cash needs for any purpose including maintaining a compensating balance.
( d ) A Federal Program Agency must allow a State to submit requests for funds daily. This requirement should not be construed as a change to Federal Program Agency guidelines defining a properly completed request for funds.
( e ) In accordance with the electronic funds transfer provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3332), a Federal Program Agency must use electronic funds transfer methods to transfer funds to States unless a waiver is available.
#### In the Matter of the Assignment of Clinton H. Smith to John G. Smith for the Benefit of Creditors.

[Special Term.]

(Decided May 27th, 1882.)

That an assignee for the benefit of creditors has disposed of the assigned estate in bulk is not ground for his removal, where it is a fair question whether the price received is not a good one. All questions arising as to the propriety of the sale may he inquired into upon the accounting of the assignee.

Application for the removal of an assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

J. F. Daly, J.

The chief ground for the removal of the assignee, and the only one that need be considered on the proofs before me, is his action in selling the assigned stock in bulk to B. O. Huntington ; and that sale is attacked for inadequacy of price and on the ground that it was not an actual sale, but a mere device to save the property from execution creditors.

On the question of adequacy of price there is much uncertainty, and the affidavits make it a fair question whether for a sale in bulk of the whole stock it was not a good sale, and whether the result will not be better for the estate than a sale at auction after paying auctioneer’s fees and the expenses, or a sale over the counter with the large expenses attendant thereon.

On the question of bona tides it is sufficient to say that if the price be a good one the estate will lose nothing, because the assignee is bound to account for such price in cash, and it is only a question of his solvency and that of his sureties. Circumstances going to show that he made this sale hurriedly in order to save the stock from executions issued by creditors who sought to seize it in disregard of the assignment, will not *107be considered if the sale were a good one, *i. e.,*for a good price, as that disposition of the property results in benefit to the assigned estate although tlie execution creditors may be baulked. In administering the estate under the assignment we are not to regard the complaints of execution creditors who are seeking to wrest the estate from the general creditors under the assignment and appropriate it under their own executions.

The questions arising on this application as to the propriety of the assignee’s acts are such as may be fully inquired into upon his accounting. He is now and will be then chargeable at least with the price at which he sold to Huntington. If he sold the stock in bad faith below its real value he will be liable for its real value and will be charged accordingly.

The assignee has given his own undertaking to save the stock from attaching creditors and thus manifested a desire to protect the property for the purposes of the assignment.

Under the state of proofs presented on this application I think it should be denied, but without costs.

Application denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen D. Bush, Jr., Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 492]

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John T. Ward, Jr., J.), rendered February 11, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [3]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly refused to suppress his written statement that he gave to the police. The record of the suppression hearing does not support the contention of defendant that he made an unequivocal request for counsel during questioning *(see People v Lynch,*13 AD3d 1142 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 800 [2005]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                           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 Blackhawk Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Richard Bastian, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 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) 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/ R. Richard Bastian, III
--------------------------
R. Richard Bastian, III
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         368,058
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  369,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (34,906)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      17,394,979
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,083,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,231,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          744,143
<BONDS>                                     10,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,487,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,231,409
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,796,023
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,183,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,478
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             517,631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,265
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,265
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,265
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
- Office Home
- About Us
- Key Topics

HomeOffice of Regional Security and Arms Transfers...About Us – Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers

# 									About Us – Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers							

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

The Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers (RSAT) advances U.S. foreign policy and national security interests through its management of bilateral/ multi-lateral political-military and regional security relations and the sale/transfer of U.S.-origin defense articles and services to foreign governments. PM/RSAT is the Department of State’s principal entry point for bilateral and regional political-military questions from the U.S. Government interagency and foreign governments. It is also a key link between the Departments of State and Defense, interfacing with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and the Combatant Commands on regional security issues.

PM/RSAT is led by Office Director Laura Cressey. The office consists of three teams: the Regional Security Teams, the Third Party Transfers Team, and the Foreign Military Sales Team.

**Mailing Address:**Department of StateBureau of Political-Military AffairsOffice of Regional Security and Arms Transfers2401 E Street N.W.Room H1012Washington, DC 20037

**Main Switchboard:**(202) 663-3030

**PM/RSAT FAX:**(202) 663-2883

Tags

Bureau of Political-Military AffairsPolitical-Military Cooperation

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
§ 29.335 Refunded service. ( a ) Periods of civilian service that were subject to retirement deductions but for which the deductions were refunded to the employee are creditable for Federal Benefit Payments if the redeposit for the service was paid in full to the District government as of June 30, 1997.
( b ) No credit is allowed for Federal Benefit Payments for any period of civilian service that was subject to retirement deductions but for which the deductions were refunded to the employee if the redeposit for the service was not paid in full to the District government as of June 30, 1997.
( c ) If the redeposit for the service was paid in installments, but was not paid in full as of June 30, 1997, Treasury shall transfer to the District an amount equal to the portion of the redeposit completed prior to June 30, 1997.
Calculation of the Amount of Federal Benefit Payments
§ 48.4041-15 Sales to States or political subdivisions thereof. ( a ) *Application of exemption.* The taxes imposed by section 4041 do not apply in the case of a sale of any liquid by any person for the exclusive use of any State or any political subdivision thereof, the District of Columbia, or in the case of the use of any liquid by any State or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, as a fuel in a motor vehicle, motorboat, or aircraft.
( b ) *Evidence required to establish exemption.* Any vendor claiming exemption under this section shall be prepared to produce evidence that will establish the right to exemption from the tax imposed by section 4041. Generally, orders or contracts of a State or a political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, when signed by an authorized officer thereof will be accepted in support of the exemption. However, in the absence of such orders or contracts, a certificate signed by such an authorized officer that the liquid sold was purchased for the exclusive use of a State or political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, will be acceptable. The certificate shall be in substantially the following form:
Exemption Certificate (For use by States and local governments. (section 4041(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code).) Date ____________________, 19____. I hereby certify that I am ______________ of ______________ (State or local government) that I am authorized to execute this certificate; and that (Check applicable type of certificate) ______the liquid or liquids specified in the accompanying order, or on the reverse side hereof, (or) ______all orders placed by the purchaser for the period commencing __________ (Date) and ending __________ (Date) (period not to exceed 12 calendar quarters) are, or will be, purchased from __________ (Name of vendor) for the exclusive use of __________ (Governmental unit) of ____________________ (State or local government). I understand that the exemption from tax in the case of sales of liquids under this exemption certificate is limited to the sale of articles purchased for the exclusive use of a State, etc. I understand that the fraudulent use of this certificate for the purpose of securing this exemption will subject me and all parties making such fraudulent use of this certificate to a fine of not more than $10,000, or to imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, together with costs of prosecution. Signature ____________________ Address ____________________
[T.D. 7536, 43 FR 13516, Mar. 31, 1978. Redesignated by T.D. 8066, 51 FR 14, Jan. 2, 1986]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-09-003]

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

United States International Trade Commission.

# Time and Date:

February 5, 2009 at 11 a.m.

# Place:

Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# Status:

Open to the public.

# Matters To Be Considered:

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Inv. No. 731-TA-1143 (Final) (Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before February 18, 2009.)

5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

Issued: January 26, 2009.

By order of the Commission.

William R. Bishop,

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.

[FR Doc. E9-1944 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P