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

                                                                    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

         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 filing of the Form
10-K of The Lamson & Sessions Co. (the "Company") for the period ended January
3, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
February 20, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company
certifies that, to such officer's 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 as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.

         A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever.

February 20, 2004

                                        /s/ James J. Abel
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        James J. Abel
                                        Executive Vice President, Secretary,
                                        Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)
###### Editorial Note on Part 1926

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.10 Scope of subpart.

(a) This subpart contains the general rules of the Secretary of Labor interpreting and applying the construction safety and health provisions of section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (83 Stat. 96). Section 107 requires as a condition of each contract which is entered into under legislation subject to Reorganization Plan Number 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267), and which is for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating, that no contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the contract work shall require any laborer or mechanic employed in the performance of the contract to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to his health or safety, as determined under construction safety and health standards promulgated by the Secretary by regulation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                      88,419,842
<SECURITIES>                                28,244,677
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,184,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,309,797
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           136,430,324
<PP&E>                                       5,497,252
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,912,370
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             166,315,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,010,137
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,207
<OTHER-SE>                                 127,990,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               166,315,022
<SALES>                                     25,866,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            46,364,169
<CGS>                                          904,876
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,430,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             18,786,555
<INCOME-TAX>                                 8,160,783
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,625,772
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,625,772
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
# AGENCY:

 Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

 Cancellation notice.

# SUMMARY:

                         On February 28, 1996, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Olympic Cross Cascade Pipeline Project, a new 230-mile pipeline from western Washington to southeastern Washington, was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         (61 FR 7467). The proponent has withdrawn the proposal. When this project is again considered for implementation a new NOI will be filed. The 1996 NOI is hereby rescinded.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Floyd J. Rogalski, Wenatchee National Forest, Cle Elum Ranger District, 803 West Second Street, Cle Elum, Washington 98922, telephone 509-674-4411.

Dated: December 20, 1999.

John Phipps,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 00-1288 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### WINTERS CO v GROSS etc.

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No 894.

Decided July 31, 1929

McMahon, Corwin, Landis & Markham,. Dayton, for Cleeg.

E. H. & W. B. Turner and "Estabrook, Finn & McKee, all of Dayton, for Receiver.

KUNKLE, J.

We have carefully considered the unusually helpful briefs which have been filed by counsel upon both sides, and which present several very interesting legal questions.

Without attempting to discuss the authorities cited therein in detail, we will merely announce the conclusion at which we have arrived after a consideration of the facts as stipulated and the authorities cited. We think the same judgment should be rendered in this court as was rendered in the court below with the exception that the claim of Harrie P. Clegg should be .allowed. It should be allowed not as a preferred claim but as a general claim.. Had Mr. Clegg treated his lease as an equitable lien upon the chattel property in question, and perfected such lien by entering upon the leased premises and reducing such chattels to his possession, before the Receiver was appointed, then a different question would be presented. He did not attempt so to do.

Upon ,a consideration of the stipulated facts and the authorities, we think as above stated, that the same decree should be rendered in this Court as was rendered in the Court below, with the exception that the claim of Mr. Clegg should be allowed as a general claim.

• Allread and. Hornbeck, JJ., concur.
Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Gary D. Woerz, CFO of American
International Industries Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following
certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with
respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2006.

The undersigned certifies that the above annual
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and information contained in the above report fairly presents, in all
respects, the financial condition of American International Industries Inc. and results of
its operations.

Date: November 10, 2006
Gary D. Woerz
CFO/s/ Gary D. Woerz
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARLON GLENN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 105 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of August, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED , and the Application for Relief is DENIED

.
#### In the Matter of John W. Abramson, Respondent, against Charles Gold, as Mayor of the City of Long Beach, et al., Appellants.

Argued May 17, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Charles C. Clark*and *Morris Alfred Vogel*for motion.

*David B. Tolins, Corporation Counsel,*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
#### IVY v MISCHKA

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Lorain Co

No 530.

Decided Oct. 21, 1930

Baird & Vandemark, Elyria, for Ivy.

Walter H. Watts, Elyria, for Mischka.

FUNK, PJ.

Under the universal and fundamental rule that it is the province of the jury to make such reasonable deductions from the evidence as they may deem proper, and may believe or disbelieve any part or all of the testimony of any witness, it is perhaps a close question whether or not this instruction should be construed as evidence- tending to show that Metzler was not driving the car as agent for defendant, as it will *732be observed that defendant did not instruct him not to drive the car, that he left the key for the car with Metzler or at least did not ask him to return it, and that it might easily be inferred that the reason defendant instructed Metzler to leave the car stand until the day’s work was done was because defendant did not have time to help start the car until that time and was not an instruction that if Metzler could get the car started in the meantime, he would not be authorized to at least drive it to the office, because if defendant would take his Studebaker car down to- give the Ford car a pull to start it, we cannot say that it could not be inferred that Metzler was to drive the car when they did get it started, as defendant having his Studebaker car there, would perhaps drive that while Metzler would drive the Ford. Furthermore, the jury might infer from all the circumstances that said Metzler may have gone home for lunch or for some other reason after defendant went to the bankruptcy court, and in some w,ay got the sar started and was driving it to the office of defendant as he was originally instructed to do.

However, be that as it may, this is not all the testimony -in the record concerning the authority of Walter Metzler to drive the car. On page 29 of the record it appears in the testimony of the plaintiff that at the trial of the City v. Walter Metzler in the Juvenile Court, the defendant in the presence of plaintiff, made a statement to the court with reference to this accident that “Walter Metzler was in his employ at the time.”

It will be observed that this testimony is undisputed and has the defendant saying to the juvenile judge in a case against said Walter Metzler that Walter Meztler was in his employ at the very time of the accident.

We believe that, taking this undisputed testimony together with that of the defendant and the record as a whole, there was some evidence, though it may be slight, tending to. show that Walter Metzler was driving the Ford car as the agent of the defendant at the time of the accident.

We are therefore of the opinion that it was error for the court to direct a verdict and that it should have overruled the motion for a directed verdict.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Pardee, J, and Washburn, J, concur.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the 2nd day of April, 2015 between Westwood Holdings Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Brian O. Casey (“Executive”) as approved by the Compensation Committee at
its meeting on March 28, 2015. Reference is made to the Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of May 1, 2010, between the Company and Executive. 

 

	1.	The first sentence of Section 1 of the Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 


Term. Subject to earlier termination as provided herein, the Company agrees to continue Executive in its employ, and Executive
agrees to remain in the employ of the Company, commencing on the Effective Date and ending on December 31, 2015. The term of the Executive’s employment as provided in this Section 1 shall be hereinafter referred to as the
“Term.” 
  

	2.	Miscellaneous. Except as herein modified, the Employment Agreement shall be and remain unchanged and in full force and effect according to its terms as they are currently applied. 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been entered into on the day and year first herein
written. 
  

			
	WESTWOOD HOLDINGS GROUP, INC.
		
	By:		 /s/ Tiffany B. Kice

			Tiffany B. Kice
			Senior Vice President,
			Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer


 EXECUTIVE: 
  

			
	By:		 /s/ Brian O. Casey

	Name:		Brian O. Casey
	Title:		President & Chief Executive Officer

 Signature Page to First Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement
§ 1918.82 Building drafts. ( a ) Drafts shall be built or means shall be taken to prevent cargo from falling from them.
( b ) Buckets and tubs used in handling bulk or frozen cargo shall not be loaded above their rims.
Order entered October 1 6 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 01165 - CV SYLVIA ORTIZ, Appellant

V. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION AND PLA NO INDEPENDENT SCHOO L DISTRICT, Appellee s On Appeal from the 429th Judicial Dis trict Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429 - 00459 - 2014



### O RDER W e GRANT court reporter Shawn R. Gant’s request for a thirty

- day extension to file the record and ORDER the reporter’s record be filed no later than November 13, 2014

. /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### MISSIRLIAN v ZIMMERMAN and PERLMUTTER

Case No. 86-129 AP (County Court Case No. 85-18654 CC05)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

May 28, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Mallory H. Horton for appellant.

Harvey S. Swickle and Reed Somberg for appellees.

Before TENDRICH, KAYE, MASTOS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal results from a judgment for attorneys’ fees in excess of $20,000 rendered in the County Court after the parties settled the rental security return for $1,525.00.

What started out as a simple matter soon got completely out of hand. The file consists of nine volumes of depositions, motions, notices, pleadings and documents difficult to understand or which have any *186meaning. There was a great deal of animosity, name-calling and insults by the attorneys. Bottom line, though, is that this case, after a year was settled for $1,525.00.

The appellant raises several points on appeal. We feel it is necessary only to address the issue of the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded. We find and conclude that the award of $20,000, where there was a settled recovery of $1,525.00, is so grossly excessive and disproportionate to the amount of recovery that it shocks the conscience of this court and requires a reversal. The appellant, during oral argument, submitted that a fee of $5,000.00 would be reasonable. We agree.

Under *Ruwitch v. First National Bank of Miami,*291 So.2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), the court held as follows:

> “While counsel performed extensive and valuable services to the bank, *the fee awarded by the trial court does not bear a reasonable relation to the result obtained.*We are of the opinion, based on the record and circumstance in this case, that an attorney’s fee in the sum of $8,000, based on a $22,356.46 judgment is reasonable and proper. See *Baruch v. Giblin,*164 So. 831 (Fla. 1935). The cases are clear that while the opinion of an expert witness testifying on attorney’s fees is persuasive, it is not binding on the court in determination of a reasonable fee. *Dade County v. Oolite Rock Co.,*311 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). (Emphasis supplied.)

In view of the above, we reverse the judgment of attorneys’ fees and remand to the trial court to enter judgment in the sum of $5,000.00 plus cost of the expert of witness of $1,100.00.

Appellees’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on Appeal is denied.

Reversed and remanded with directions.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

     I, James J. Bazata, certify that: 

l.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

	a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

	b)	[Reserved.]

	c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

	d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

	a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

	b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: November 10, 2004.

/S/ James J. Bazata
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.855 Manual removal of floors. ( a ) Openings cut in a floor shall extend the full span of the arch between supports.
( b ) Before demolishing any floor arch, debris and other material shall be removed from such arch and other adjacent floor area. Planks not less than 2 inches by 10 inches in cross section, full size undressed, shall be provided for, and shall be used by employees to stand on while breaking down floor arches between beams. Such planks shall be so located as to provide a safe support for the workmen should the arch between the beams collapse. The open space between planks shall not exceed 16 inches.
( c ) Safe walkways, not less than 18 inches wide, formed of planks not less than 2 inches thick if wood, or of equivalent strength if metal, shall be provided and used by workmen when necessary to enable them to reach any point without walking upon exposed beams.
( d ) Stringers of ample strength shall be installed to support the flooring planks, and the ends of such stringers shall be supported by floor beams or girders, and not by floor arches alone.
( e ) Planks shall be laid together over solid bearings with the ends overlapping at least 1 foot.
( f ) When floor arches are being removed, employees shall not be allowed in the area directly underneath, and such an area shall be barricaded to prevent access to it.
( g ) Demolition of floor arches shall not be started until they, and the surrounding floor area for a distance of 20 feet, have been cleared of debris and any other unnecessary materials.
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.110 Referral to IRS for tax refund offset. ( a ) By the date and in the manner prescribed by the IRS the Department will refer for tax refund offset the following information on past-due legally enforceable debts: ( 1 ) Whether the debtor is an individual or a business entity;
( 2 ) Name and taxpayer identification number (SSN or EIN) of the debtor who is responsible for the debt;
( 3 ) The amount of the debt;
( 4 ) The date on which the debt became past-due;
( 5 ) Department-level, sub-Department-level and (as appropriate) account identifiers.
( b ) As necessary to reflect changes in the status of debts/debtors referred for tax refund offset, the Department will submit updated information at the times and in the manner prescribed by IRS. The original submission described in paragraph (a) of this section will not be changed to increase the amount of the debt or to refer additional debtors.
( c ) Amounts erroneously offset will be refunded by the Department or IRS in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3395 — SAMPO / IF SKADEFÖRSÄKRING)

(2004/C 174/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 April 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

----