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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William J. McEntee, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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.



|                        |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | /s/    WILLIAM J. MCENTEE,
JR.                   
|                        |  | William J. McEntee, Jr.                          
|                        |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Murphey *v.*The State.

*Larceny.*

(Decided January 22, 1914.

64 South. 520.)

1. *Larceny; Evidence.*— Where the evidence tended to show that shortly after an anvil was stolen, it was found in defendant’s possession in his shop, and defendant’s evidence tended to show that the only anvil in his shop at the time was one unlike the one stolen, evidence as to when and from whom defendant bought the anvil exhibited, was immaterial to any issue.

2. *Eame; Charge of Cowt; Applicability to Evidence.*— Under the siate of the evidence in this case the court properly denied an instruction that unless the jury believed that defendant was in possession of A’s anvil, alleged to have been stolen, and in determining whether defendant was in possession thereof, the jury could look to the evidence that the anvil introduced in evidence was the only anvil in defendant’s -shop during the time involved, and if they find that various witnesses did so testify, they must acquit.

Appeal from Shelby County Court.

Heard before Hon. E. S. Lyman.

James Murphey was convicted of stealing an anvil, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

The evidence sufficiently appears. The charge requested was as follows: “Unless the jury believe from *107tlie evidence defendant was in possssion of. Sam Abram’s anvil alleged to have been stolen in April, 1911, and in determining whether or not defendant was in possession of such anvil the jury can look to the evidence of the various witnesses, with all the other evidence in the case, who have testified that the anvil introduced in evidence was the only anvil in defendant’s shop during the month of April, 1911, if they find that such various witnesses did so testify, the jury must acquit.”

Riddle & Ellis, for appellant.

Counsel discuss the errors assigned, but without citation of authority.

B. C. Brickell,'Attorney General, and T. H. Seay,

Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Counsel discuss the errors assigned, but Avithout citation of authority.

WALKER, P. J.-

The charge in this case was of the larceny of an anvil, alleged to be the property of Sam Abram. There was evidence tending to prove that Abram’s anval was stolen from his shop, and that shortly after this occurred it Avas in the defendant’s possession in his shop. Testimony in behalf of the defendant tended to prove that the only anvil which was in his shop during the time in question was one Avhich was produced in court and Avas unlike the one stolen from Abram. Evidence as to Avhen and from Avhom the defendant bought this anvil, was properly excluded. Such evidence could have no tendency to rebut that offered by the prosecution or to shoAV that the defendant had not been in possession of the stolen anvil. It was in reference to a matter having no bearing upon any issue in the case.

*108Obviously, in view of the evidence in the case, the written charge requested by the defendant was not one which he was entitled to require the court to give.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

-------------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

 as representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al.

 Debtors.1

-------------------------------------------------------------x 

PROMESA 

Title III 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered) 

ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES 

 The Case Management Procedures applicable in these jointly administered Title III 

proceedings are hereby amended as follows: 

1. Section I.K is added to provide that counsel who have been admitted pursuant to a 

pro hac vice order in a Title III case shall be deemed admitted in all adversary 

proceedings in connection with that Title III case. 

2. Section II.G is modified to remove the provision regarding the seventeenth calendar 

day falling on a date other than a business day. 

3. Section III.Q is modified to provide that the party filing a Stay Relief Motion may 

file and serve a reply three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing. 

 

1

 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number 

listed as a bankruptcy case number due to software limitations and the last four (4) digits of 

each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

3481); and (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case 

No. 17 BK 3284) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:262 Filed:06/06/17 Entered:06/06/17 17:35:36 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

4. Section III.T is added to provide that if the date any Document would be due falls 

on a day other than a business day, such Document must be filed and served by the 

first business day preceding such date, except when the Document relates to a 

hearing scheduled for within one week, where the Document is due on the 

scheduled calendar day 

 The text of the First Amended Case Management Procedures, and a blackline 

against the prior version, are attached to this Order as Exhibit 1 and its Annex. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 6, 2017 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 United States District Judge 

 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:262 Filed:06/06/17 Entered:06/06/17 17:35:36 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD LEWIS DAVIS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

J. T. SHARTLE, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-16796 

D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00045-JGZ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Donald Lewis Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Ivy v. Pontesso, 

328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-16796

Davis contends that the prison violated his procedural due process rights by 

imposing disciplinary sanctions on him without having warned him upon his 

arrival to the prison about the Inmate Discipline Program or about the fact that 

certain prohibited behaviors carry a mandatory “loss of good-time credit” sanction.

He relies on the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)’s program statements, and his 

contention that his signature was forged on an orientation attendance form, to 

support this claim. Even if the program statements were to demonstrate a prison 

policy of providing an overview of the Inmate Discipline Program’s mandatory 

sanctions to incoming prisoners, a “habeas claim cannot be sustained based solely 

upon the BOP’s purported violation of its own program statement because 

noncompliance with a BOP program statement is not a violation of federal law.” 

Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, Davis cannot 

establish a due process violation.

Davis concedes that all disciplinary proceedings against him comported with 

the minimal procedural due process requirements outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell, 

418 U.S. 539, 563-68 (1974). Therefore, the district court did not err by 

dismissing Davis’s petition.

AFFIRMED.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24185-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 16:27:17 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24185-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 16:27:17 Desc:

Exhibit Page 2 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24185-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 16:27:17 Desc:

Exhibit Page 3 of 3
§ 145.223 FAA inspections. ( a ) A certificated repair station must allow the FAA to inspect that repair station at any time to determine compliance with this chapter.
( b ) A certificated repair station may not contract for the performance of a maintenance function on an article with a noncertificated person unless it provides in its contract with the noncertificated person that the FAA may make an inspection and observe the performance of the noncertificated person's work on the article.
( c ) A certificated repair station may not return to service any article on which a maintenance function was performed by a noncertificated person if the noncertificated person does not permit the FAA to make the inspection described in paragraph (b) of this section.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                        5
<CIK>                                   0000798168
<NAME>                                 Joule, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<CASH>                                         214
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                   441
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,005
<PP&E>                                        8693
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,546
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        38
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,386
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,117
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              3098
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                353
<INCOME-TAX>                                   136
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            217
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   217
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .06


</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A1              10129709.86      112626781.8                0        200704218.2
A2              12107760.52                0                0          313331000
B                1152943.28                0                0           25810000
M1               2481902.58                0                0           62173000
M2               1239141.86                0                0           29454000
OC                        0                0                0        15033765.84
R1                        0                0                0                  0
R2                        0                0                0                  0
R3                        0                0                0                  0
R4                        0                0                0                  0
X               17247142.21                0                0                  0


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 745
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 745 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 745.1 Definitions. ( a ) The terms *account* or *accounts* as used in this part mean share, share certificate or share draft accounts (or their equivalent under state law, as determined by the Board in the case of insured state-chartered credit unions) of a member (which includes other credit unions, public units and nonmembers where permitted under the Act) in a credit union of a type approved by the Board which evidences money or its equivalent received or held by a credit union in the usual course of business and for which it has given or is obligated to give credit to the account of the member.
( b ) The terms *member* or *members* as used in this part mean those persons enumerated in the credit union's field of membership who have been elected to membership in accordance with the Act or state law in the case of state-chartered credit unions. It also includes those nonmembers permitted under the Act to maintain accounts in an insured credit union, including nonmember credit unions and nonmember public units and political subdivisions.
( c ) The term *public unit* means the United States, any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, any territory or possession of the United States, any county, municipality, or political subdivision thereof, or any Indian tribe as defined in section 3(c) of the Indian Financing Act of 1974.
( d ) The term *political subdivision* includes any subdivision of a public unit, as defined in paragraph (c) of this section, or any principal department of such public unit, ( 1 ) the creation of which subdivision or department has been expressly authorized by state statute,
( 2 ) to which some functions of government have been delegated by state statute, and
( 3 ) to which funds have been allocated by statute or ordinance for its exclusive use and control. It also includes drainage, irrigation, navigation improvement, levee, sanitary, school or power districts and bridge or port authorities, and other special districts created by state statute or compacts between the states. Excluded from the term are subordinate or nonautonomous divisions, agencies, or boards within principal departments.
( e ) The term “standard maximum share insurance amount,” referred to as the “SMSIA” hereafter, means $250,000 adjusted pursuant to subparagraph (F) of section 11(a)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)(F)).
[51 FR 37560, Oct. 23, 1986, as amended at 71 FR 14635, Mar. 23, 2006; 73 FR 62858, Oct. 22, 2008; 74 FR 55749, Oct. 29, 2009; 75 FR 53843, Sept. 2, 2010; 76 FR 30253, May 25, 2011; 78 FR 32545, May 31, 2013]
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
Cardinal Financial Corporation:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement No. 333-106694 on Form S-8 dated July 1, 2003, registration
statement No. 333-111672 on Form S-8 dated December 31, 2003, registration statement No. 333-111673 on Form S-8 dated
December 31, 2003, registration statement No. 333-127395 on Form S-8 dated August 10, 2005, registration statement No. 333-134923
on Form S-8 dated June 9, 2006, and registration statement No. 333-134934 on Form S-8 dated June 9, 2006 of Cardinal Financial
Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) of our report dated March 17, 2008, with respect to the consolidated statements of condition of the Company as of December 31, 2007 and 2006,
and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2007, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which appear in the December 31, 2007, annual report on
Form 10-K of the Company.

KPMG
LLP

McLean,
Virginia
March 17, 2008

---



QuickLinks
###### Editorial Note on Part 702

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 702 appear at 84 FR 1606, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 702.112 Reserves.

Each credit union shall establish and maintain such reserves as may be required by the FCUA, by state law, by regulation, or in special cases by the NCUA Board or appropriate state official.
§ 133.19 Rotorcraft. ( a ) The applicant must have the exclusive use of at least one rotorcraft that— ( 1 ) Was type certificated under, and meets the requirements of, part 27 or 29 of this chapter (but not necessarily with external-load-carrying attaching means installed) or of § 21.25 of this chapter for the special purpose of rotorcraft external-load operations;
( 2 ) Complies with the certification provisions in subpart D of this part that apply to the rotorcraft-load combinations for which authorization is requested; and
( 3 ) Has a valid standard or restricted category airworthiness certificate.
( b ) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, a person has exclusive use of a rotorcraft if he has the sole possession, control, and use of it for flight, as owner, or has a written agreement (including arrangements for the performance of required maintenance) giving him that possession, control, and use for at least six consecutive months.
[Doc. No. 15176, 42 FR 24198, May 12, 1977]
#### Sec. 19-8 Passenger Origin—Destination
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Electroglas, Inc. of our report dated January 21, 1997 (except for Note 11,
as to which the date is March 12, 1997), included in the 1996 Annual Report to
Stockholders of Electroglas, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Electroglas, Inc.
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-69668) pertaining to the 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1993
Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-95052) pertaining to the 1993 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan of Electroglas,
Inc. of our report dated January 21, 1997 (except for Note 11, as to which the
date is March 12, 1997), with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Electroglas, Inc.


                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


San Jose, California
March 19, 1997



                                       40
§ 121.667 Flight plan: VFR and IFR: Supplemental operations. ( a ) No person may take off an aircraft unless the pilot in command has filed a flight plan, containing the appropriate information required by part 91, with the nearest FAA communication station or appropriate military station or, when operating outside the United States, with other appropriate authority. However, if communications facilities are not readily available, the pilot in command shall file the flight plan as soon as practicable after the aircraft is airborne. A flight plan must continue in effect for all parts of the flight.
( b ) When flights are operated into military airports, the arrival or completion notice required by §§ 91.153 and 91.169 may be filed with the appropriate airport control tower or aeronautical communication facility used for that airport.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19222, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-206, 54 FR 34331, Aug. 18, 1989]
DENIED and Opinion Filed May 10 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 23
- 00421
- CV IN RE 1 COVENTRY COU RT, LLC, MOSHE FELDH ENDLER , AND

LEAH FELDHENDLER , Relators Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 21
- 01541 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Miskel In their May 5, 2023 petition for wri t of mandamus, relators seek relief from the trial court’s contempt order.
Entitlem ent to mandamus relief requires relators to demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal.
In re Prudential Ins. Co

. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record
to show they are entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).– 2

–

Rel ators’ record does not comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.7(a)(2). Specifically, the petition and
record indicate that there were two hearings in connection with the contempt order
from which relato rs seek mandamus relief. Relators did not include a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from such contempt hearings or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the contempt order

. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.7(a)(2). Without a sufficient record, relators have failed to carry
their burden. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

230421f.p05 /Emily A. Miskel// EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 10.23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated April 16, 2001, except for Note 3, which is
dated April 15, 2003, accompanying the consolidated financial statements
included in the Annual Report of CTI Industries Corporation and Subsidiaries on
Form 10-KSB for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000. We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
CTI Industries Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (Nos.333-76006 and
333-76008) and SB-2 (No. 333-31969).

/s/ Grant Thornton, LLP


Chicago, Illinois
April 29, 2003
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000
18 12 06 00 06/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL