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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane Knowles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Diane S. Knowles   
|    |  | Diane S. Knowles       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | March 14, 2005         



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 29.339 Resultant limit maneuvering loads.

The loads resulting from the application of limit maneuvering load factors are assumed to act at the center of each rotor hub and at each auxiliary lifting surface, and to act in directions and with distributions of load among the rotors and auxiliary lifting surfaces, so as to represent each critical maneuvering condition, including power-on and power-off flight with the maximum design rotor tip speed ratio. The rotor tip speed ratio is the ratio of the rotorcraft flight velocity component in the plane of the rotor disc to the rotational tip speed of the rotor blades, and is expressed as follows:

[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC28SE91.087/EC28SE91.087_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC28SE91.087/EC28SE91.087_original_size.png)

where—

*V* = The airspeed along the flight path (f.p.s.);

*a* = The angle between the projection, in the plane of symmetry, of the axis of no feathering and a line perpendicular to the flight path (radians, positive when axis is pointing aft);

Ω = The angular velocity of rotor (radians per second); and

*R* = The rotor radius (ft.).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         1,247
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,039
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,050
<PP&E>                                         351
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (113)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,079
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,089
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,380
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,554
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9,892
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               166
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                773
<INCOME-TAX>                                   124
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            773
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   649
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.03



</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4155 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide or assist in providing an additional vehicle adapted 

for operation by disabled individuals to certain eligible persons. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 2, 2020 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. MANCHIN, and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide or assist in 

providing an additional vehicle adapted for operation by 

disabled individuals to certain eligible persons. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Advancing Uniform 

5 Transportation Opportunities for Veterans Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘AUTO for Veterans Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4155 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AF2 FAIRS TO PROVIDE OR ASSIST IN PROVIDING 

3 ADDITIONAL VEHICLES ADAPTED FOR OPER4 ATION BY DISABLED INDIVIDUALS TO CER5 TAIN ELIGIBLE PERSONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3903(a) of title 38, 

7 United States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘paragraph 

9 (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraphs (2) and (3)’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(3) The Secretary may provide or assist in providing 

13 an eligible person with an additional automobile or other 

14 conveyance under this chapter if 10 years have elapsed 

15 since the date on which the eligible person received the 

16 immediately previous such automobile, other conveyance, 

17 or assistance under this chapter.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Paragraph (3) of subsection 

19 (a) of section 3903 of title 38, United States Code, shall 

20 apply with respect to the provision of an additional auto21 mobile or other conveyance that occurs on or after October 

22 1, 2020. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Joseph Hull *et al.,*Appellants, v. A. E. Burr, Trustee, *Appellee.*

Under Section 2789 of the General Statutes the reasonable premium paid for a supersedeas bond may be taxed as costs only when such bond is given by a fiduciary.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Bisloee*& *Bedell*and *Wilson*& *Sivearmgen,*for Motion;

*Jas. F.*Glen, Contra.

Per Curiam.

— A motion to have taxed as costs in this case the amount paid a surety company for a supersedeas bond on the ground that it is authorized by Section 2789, of the General Statutes of 1906, was denied, and counsel *441for the motion request the court to give its reasons for the denial of the motion, so that it may be a guide in future litigation.

The statute under which the motion was made is Chapter 4716, Acts of 1S99, entitled “An 'Act Providing for the Payment of Premium on Bonds by Trustees and Others Out of Trust Fund, and Allowing the Same as Costs.

*Be it Enacted T)y the Legislature of the State of*Florida:

Section 1. Any receiver, assignee, trustee, committee, guardian, executor, or administrator, or other fiduciary required by law to give bond as such, may include as part of his lawful expenses such reasonable sum paid such a company for such suretyship not exceeding one per centum per annum on the amount of said bond, as the head of department, board, court, judge or officer by whom, or the court or body by which he was appointed allows; and in all actions or proceedings the party entitled to recover costs may include therein such reasonable sum as may have been paid such company executing or guaranteeing any bond or undertaking therein.”

This section is now Section 2789, of the General St<*^ utes of 1906, without change. The title to the original Act limits it to bonds given by fiduciaries, and there is nothing in its reproduction in the General Statutes to indicate that a broader effect was intended to bé given to the statute. On the contrary, the context of the section manifests an intention to make the entire section relate only to cases where fiduciaries are required by law to give a bond.

Rehearing denied.

All concur.
§ 27.175 Demonstration of static longitudinal stability. ( a ) *Climb.* Static longitudinal stability must be shown in the climb condition at speeds from Vy − 10 kt to Vy + 10 kt with— ( 1 ) Critical weight;
( 2 ) Critical center of gravity;
( 3 ) Maximum continuous power;
( 4 ) The landing gear retracted; and
( 5 ) The rotorcraft trimmed at *V* *Y.*
( b ) *Cruise.* Static longitudinal stability must be shown in the cruise condition at speeds from 0.8 VNE − 10 kt to 0.8 VNE + 10 kt or, if VH is less than 0.8 VNE, from VH −10 kt to VH + 10 kt, with— ( 1 ) Critical weight;
( 2 ) Critical center of gravity;
( 3 ) Power for level flight at 0.8 VNE or VH, whichever is less;
( 4 ) The landing gear retracted; and
( 5 ) The rotorcraft trimmed at 0.8 VNE or VH, whichever is less.
( c ) V NE. Static longitudinal stability must be shown at speeds from VNE − 20 kt to VNE with— ( 1 ) Critical weight;
( 2 ) Critical center of gravity;
( 3 ) Power required for level flight at VNE −10 kt or maximum continuous power, whichever is less;
( 4 ) The landing gear retracted; and
( 5 ) The rotorcraft trimmed at VNE − 10 kt.
( d ) *Autorotation.* Static longitudinal stability must be shown in autorotation at— ( 1 ) Airspeeds from the minimum rate of descent airspeed−10 kt to the minimum rate of descent airspeed + 10 kt, with— ( i ) Critical weight;
( ii ) Critical center of gravity;
( iii ) The landing gear extended; and
( iv ) The rotorcraft trimmed at the minimum rate of descent airspeed.
( 2 ) Airspeeds from best angle-of-glide airspeed−10 kt to the best angle-of-glide airspeed + 10 kt, with— ( i ) Critical weight;
( ii ) Critical center of gravity;
( iii ) The landing gear retracted; and
( iv ) The rotorcraft trimmed at the best angle-of-glide airspeed.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c) of the Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-2, 33 FR 963, Jan. 26, 1968; Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55468, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 27-14, 43 FR 2325, Jan. 16, 1978; Amdt. 27-21, 49 FR 44433, Nov. 6, 1984; Amdt. 27-34, 62 FR 46173, Aug. 29, 1997; Amdt. 27-44, 73 FR 10999, Feb. 29, 2008]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135612 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

10 & SCOTIA PLAZA, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135612 

 COA: 276787 

Oakland CC: 2006-008505-AV 

GRINDERZ OAK PARK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0421 

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. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          61,329
<SECURITIES>                                     4,834
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,010
<ALLOWANCES>                                       523
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,619
<PP&E>                                          12,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,093
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,923
<SALES>                                         67,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,948
<CGS>                                            3,470
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,308
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,299
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,009
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES v. UNIVERSAL BATTERY CO.

*[Ante,*p. 1;

291 U.S. 672]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court February 19, 1934.
#### § 251.2 Applicability.

This part applies to U.S. certificated air carriers, U.S. commuter air carriers, air taxis, and U.S. indirect carriers that operate passenger service to, from, or within the United States.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**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 aQuantive, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-Q***”), I, Michael Vernon, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: August 9, 2004
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7137** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TAVON ROBINSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00074

- WDQ

- 1; 1:09

- cv - 02305

- WDQ )

Submitted : October 13, 2011 Decided: October 17, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam op inion
. Seth Allen Neyhart, STARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kwame Jangha Manley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Tavon Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion and its margin order denying his motion to amend . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relie f on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that his § 2255 motion states a debatable claim of the denial o f a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with o ral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# FILED
January 4, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

NOT FOR PUBLICA

TION Filed: January 4, 1 999 MICHELLE CREIGHT ON TERRY, ) ) Appellee, ) ) ) DAVIDSON CIRCUIT Vs. ) ) No. 01-S-01-9709-CV-00180 ) GARY D. NIBLACK, M.D . and ) LABORATORY INVESTMENTS, ) INC., D/B/A GENE PROOF ) TECHNOLOGIES, ) ) Appellants. )

ORD ER O N PE TIT ION TO RE HEAR The appellants, Gary D. N iblack and Laboratory Inv estments, Inc., d/b/a Gene Proof Technologies, have filed a Petition to Reh ear issues raised in this Court’s opinion issued on November 16, 1998. We have review ed all of the arguments raised in the peti tion, and we find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED that the Petition to Rehear is denied.

PER CURIAM
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 

### 07572 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 

### x 07572\07572_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07572\07572_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### x 07572\07572_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07572\07572_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07572\07572_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07572\07572_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07572\07572_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 07572\Certification Statement Plant ID 07572.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 07572\Supplemental Documents\07572_Stanton Energy Center Water Balance Diagram- Unit B.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07572\Supplemental Documents\07572_Stanton Energy Center Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07572\Supplemental Documents\07572_Stanton Property Boundary Map for ICR.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.

3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
Exhibit 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 Annual Report of Lanbo Financial  Group,  Inc. (the
"Registrant")  on Form 10-KSB for the quarter period ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Yulong Wan,
Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Registrant,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as added by 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) 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
Registrant as of and for the period covered by the Report.

      Pursuant  to the rules and  regulations  of the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission, this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.



                                            /s/ Yulong Wan
                                            -----------------------
                                            Yulong Wan
March 31, 2005                              Chief Financial Officer
§ 141.21 Inspections. Each holder of a certificate issued under this part must allow the Administrator to inspect its personnel, facilities, equipment, and records to determine the certificate holder's: ( a ) Eligibility to hold its certificate;
( b ) Compliance with 49 U.S.C. 40101 *et seq.,* formerly the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended; and
( c ) Compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

P.B.B.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 378 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.