alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 10-Q of Triad Hospitals, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Stephen Love, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ W. STEPHEN LOVE    
|W. Stephen Love        
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 9, 2007            

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Pick-Ups Plus, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof we hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to 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.

Dated:  August 19, 2003

                                        /s/ Merritt Jesson
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Merritt Jesson
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48162-48163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20183]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 12:58 p.m. on 
Thursday, August 4, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related 
to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director 
Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), seconded by Director John G. Walsh 
(Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Acting 
Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation

[[Page 48163]]

business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the 
subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; 
that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public 
interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open 
to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a 
closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), 
(c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the ``Government in 
the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), 
(c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: August 4, 2011.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20183 Filed 8-4-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
#### § 779.347 Exemption limited to “recognized retail establishment”; factories not exempt.

The section 13(a)(4) exemption requires the establishment to be recognized as a retail establishment in the particular industry. This test limits the exemption to retail establishments only, and excludes factories as such and establishments to which the retail concept does not apply. In other words this test requires that the establishment as a whole be recognized as a retail establishment although it makes or processes at the establishment the goods it sells. Typical of the establishment which may be recognized as retail establishments under the exemption are custom tailor shops, candy shops, ice cream parlors, bakeries, drug stores, optometrist establishments, retail ice plants and other local retail establishments which make or process the goods they sell and meet the other tests for exemption. Clearly factories as such are not “recognized retail establishments” and would not be eligible for this exemption. (See 95 Cong. Rec. pp. 11001, 11200, 11216, and 14942.)
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 7, 2010

s0331 

# Order

April 7, 2010

139817

ARTINA TINSLEY HARDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139817 COA: 284252 Wayne CC: 07-711915-NI CITY OF DETROIT, DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE OFFICER ADRIEN CANNON, and POLICE OFFICER URSULA MILLER, Defendants-Appellees,

and

POLICE OFFICER CHARO TURNER and GEORGE WRIGHT, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 3, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY

, C.J., and H ATHAWAY

, J., would grant leave to appeal.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4853 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4853

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, as the ``Tom Reid Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 23 (legislative day, October 19), 2020

 Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Mr. Cruz) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, as the ``Tom Reid Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TOM REID POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Tom Reid Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tom Reid 
Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[115th Congress Public Law 262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT.3670]]

Public Law 115-262
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit Medicare 
  part D plans from restricting pharmacies from informing individuals 
regarding the prices for certain drugs and biologicals. <<NOTE: Oct. 10, 
                          2018 -  [S. 2553]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Know the Lowest 
Price Act of 2018.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 42 USC 1305 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Know the Lowest Price Act of 2018''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIMITING CERTAIN INFORMATION ON DRUG 
                    PRICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-4 of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-104) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(m) Prohibition on Limiting Certain Information on Drug Prices.--A 
PDP sponsor and a Medicare Advantage organization shall ensure that each 
prescription drug plan or MA-PD plan offered by the sponsor or 
organization does not restrict a pharmacy that dispenses a prescription 
drug or biological from informing, nor penalize such pharmacy for 
informing, an enrollee in such plan of any differential between the 
negotiated price of, or copayment or coinsurance for, the drug or 
biological to the enrollee under the plan and a lower price the 
individual would pay for the drug or biological if the enrollee obtained 
the drug without using any health insurance coverage.''.

[[Page 132 STAT. 3671]]

    (b) <<NOTE: 42 USC 1395w-104 note.>> Effective Date.--The amendment 
made by subsection (a) shall apply to plan years beginning on or after 
January 1, 2020.

    Approved October 10, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2553:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Sept. 4, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 25, considered and passed House.
DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2018):
            Oct. 10, Presidential remarks.

                                  <all>
```
#### *Gosling and wife *vs.*Acker.

Where the plaintiff in error assigns for error *infancy*and *appearance*by attorney, instead of guardian, in the court below, a *plea*that at the time of the *rendition, of the judgment*the party was of full age, is had, as tendering an *immaterial issue.*

Demurrer to plea in error. Gosling and wife sued Acker in the common pleas of the city of New-York, in an action of *replevin.*The suit was brought in September, 1838, and the cause was tried in July, 1839, when the plaintiffs were nonsuited, and the damages of the defendant were assessed at $132 ; for which Sum and the costs of the defence, judgment was rendered. The plaintiffs sued out a writ of error, and on the coming in of the *487record in January term, 1840, assigned for error the *infancy*of Gosling, the husband. The assignment of error stated that there was error in the record and proceedings aforesaid, and also in giving the judgment aforesaid, in this, to wit: That Gosling *appeared*in the suit by E. R. P. his *attorney,*and afterwards by S. B. II. J. his *attorney,*although at the time of his *appearance,*at the time of *trial,*and at the time of giving *judgment,*he was under the age of 21 years, to wit, of the age of 20 years and 9 months, and no more ; that he ought to have been admitted to prosecute his suit by *guardian,*and not by attorney, concluding with a verification, and prayer of reversal. The defendant in error *pleaded*that there was no error, &c. because Gosling, *at the time of the giving of the judgment,*was not under the age of 21, concluding to the country. To this plea the plaintiffs demurred.

*J. L. Wendell,*for the plaintiffs.

*S. Stevens,*for the defendant.

*By the*court,

Nelson, 0. J;

The case of *Arnold*v. *Sandford,*14 *Johns. R.*417, I think is decisive of this one. The assignment in error there was, that D., one of the defendants, appeared and pleaded by attorney, while under twenty-one years ; and the defendant demurred to the *assignment. One ground of objection taken was, a defect [ *640 ] in the assignment, because it only averred the infancy at the time óf *appearance*and *plea*pleaded, whereas it should have been, that he was an infant at the time of the rendition of judgment. Thompson, C. J. was inclined to the opinion that appearing and defending the cause at the trial after age, might possibly be regarded as a waiver of the error, but not the entering up of judgment. The assignment here seems to have been drawn in reference to the above intimation of the chief justice, for it contains an averment of infancy *at the time of the trial.*It is certainly difficult to see how the entry of judgment against the party after he has attained his age, should operate as a waiver of the error, as the act is one in which he does not participate^ and is wholly independent of him.

The issue presented by the plea to the assignment seems to be an *immaterial*one, and the demurrer therefore is well taken.

Judgment for plaintiff.
# AGENCY:

 Office of Personnel Management. 

# ACTION:

 Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

 In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for review of a revised information collection. RI 20-63, Survivor Annuity Election for a Spouse, is used by annuitants to elect a reduced annuity with a survivor annuity for their spouse. RI 20-116 is a cover letter for RI 20-63 giving information about the cost to elect less than the maximum survivor annuity. This letter may be used to decline to elect. RI 20-117 is a cover letter for RI 20-63 giving information about the cost to elect the maximum survivor annuity. This letter may be used to ask for more information or to decline to elect. 

RI 20-117 is accompanied by RI 20-63A, Information on Electing a Survivor Annuity for Your Spouse, or RI 20-63B, Information on Electing a Survivor Annuity for Your Spouse When You Are Providing a Former Spouse Annuity. Both books explain the election. RI 20-63A is for annuitants who do not have a former spouse who is entitled to a survivor annuity benefit; RI 20-63B is for those who do have a former spouse who is entitled to a benefit. These books do not require OMB clearance. They have been included because they provide the annuitant additional information. 

Approximately 2,200 RI 20-63 forms and 200 cover letters are completed per year. It is estimated to take approximately 45 minutes to complete the form with a burden of 1,800 hours and 10 minutes to complete the letter, which gives a burden of 34 hours. The total burden for RI 20-63 is 1,834 hours. 

                        For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, or E-mail to mbtoomey@opm.gov.                         Start Printed Page 3498

# DATES:

 Comments on this proposal should be received, on or before February 22, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

 Send or deliver comments to— 

Ronald W. Melton, Chief, Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415, 

  and 

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. 

# FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT: 

Phyllis R. Pinkney, Management Analyst, Budget & Administrative Services Division, (202) 606-0623. 

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. 00-1336 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLIING CODE 6325-01-U
Exhibit 32


                    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 Wizzard Software Corporation
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, Christopher J. Spencer, President, CEO and Treasurer
of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Date: 5/16/05                             /s/Christopher J. Spencer
                                         --------------------------
                                         Christopher J. Spencer
                                         President, CEO, Treasurer and
                                         director
(75 South. 629)

(6 Div. 303.)

#### DE BARDELEBEN v. STATE.

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 15, 1917.)

Criminal Daw <&wkey;1104(3) — Appeal and Error — Review—Transcript.

Under Acts 1915, p. 815, providing that the refusal of a charge shall not be cause for reversal on appeal, if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially given in a general charge or in requested charges, and providing the manner in which charges must be set out in 'the- transcript on appeal, where the transcript fails to set out the general charge or the written charges given at the request of the defendant, the appellate court will not consider the refused charges.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal' Daw, Cent. Dig. §§ 2776, 2886.]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County ; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.

Emma DelBardeleben was convicted of grand larceny, and she appeals.

Affirmed.

R. D. Williams, of Birmingham, for appellant. W. D. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J.

The defendant was triedl on an indictment in two counts, one count charging grand larceny ¡and the other charging receiving stolen property, was convicted of grand larceny, and from the judgment appeals.

The transcript fails to set out the general1 charge of the court or the written charges given at the request of defendant; and in their absence this court will not consider the refused charges. Acts 1915, p. 815.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### § 779.400 Purpose of subpart.

The 1966 amendments to the Act changed certain existing provisions and added other provisions pertaining to exemptions from the requirements of sections 6 and 7 with respect to certain employees. This subpart deals with those exemptions provisions of interest to retail or service enterprises or establishments.
. I 

### SERVED:AUGUST 28,2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF 

### ADDISONJETMANAGEMENT, INC. FAADOCKETNo. [TOBEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Case) FDMS No. FAA-2012-0205 lOIZ



# . .



### ORDER GRANTING MOTIONFOR DECISION IN PART AND LIMITING PROCEEDING TO ISSUE OF PENALTY '10 

### A 0 ' 

### 0 I ,; I - J• 1. ·



# ...

..

.,

The Federal Aviation Aall}inistration ("Complainant") fi!ed a Motion fot'-'Decision ("Motion") dated July 

### 13, 2012, which, following the undersigned's Orderto Show Cause of August 10, 

### 2012 was addressed by Respondent Addison JetManagement, Inc. ("Respondent"). Respondent's answer ofAugust 

### 23,2012 acknowledges that it'committed each ofthe violations with which 

### it has been charged. Respondent does, however, take issue with Complainant's additional request that its proposed civil penalty of$8,149 be adopted. Complainant's Motion for Decision is granted inpart. I find that it is eittitied fo a' decision as to the substantive allegations. I find, however, that genuine issues·ofmaterial fact exist respecting the appropriate civil penalty amount and, as such,judgment on that question as a matter oflawmay not be granted. · · · WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED as follows:

. 

### - . •.

# .. I 2 )**~** 1- Complainant's Motion for Decision is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED as to the substantive allegations ofthe Complaint, and DENIED as to the issue ofcivil penalty; 2 -The Order to Sho'Y**C~use** is VACATED; 3 -The proceeding will be limitedfrom this point forward to the issue ofcivilpenalty.

Attachment
- Service List



# ..

: .**~** 

# ..

, • .• 4



# .. 

# .

. '

··.\


# -**~**

# ..

. 

## ..

### SERVJ[CE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence A venue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY Gerald P. Shaw, Director ofOperations Addison Jet Management, Inc., Respondent 

### 7515 Lemmon A venue Dallas, TX 75209 Autumn Killingham, Complainant's Counsel 

### Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence A venue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: 202-267-7728 FAX: 202-267-5106 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S.Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S:E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0205 (Civil Penalty Action).



# ..

1 

### Service was byU.S. Mail. 

### For service inpersonor by 

### ex:pedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, 

### Washington, DC 20591, Attention:· Hearing Docket Cleric,AGC-430.
#### § 780.606 Interpretation of term “agriculture.”

Section 3(f) of the Act, which defines “agriculture,” has been extensively interpreted by the Department of Labor and the courts. Subpart B of this part 780 contains those interpretations which have full application in construing the term “agriculture” as used in the 13(b)(13) exemption.
#### § 780.602 General explanatory statement.

Ordinarily, as discussed in subparts D and E of this part 780, an employee who in the same workweek engages in work which is exempt as agriculture under section 13(a)(6) or 13(b)(12) of the Act and also performs nonexempt work to which the Act applies is not exempt in that week (§ 780.11). Employees of a farmer are not employed in work exempt as “agriculture” while engaged in livestock auction operations in which the livestock offered at auction includes livestock raised by other farmers (*Mitchell* v. *Hunt,* 263 F. 2d 913) (C.A. 5); *Hearnsberger* v. *Gillespie,* 435 F. 2d 926 (C.A. 8). However, under section 13(b)(13) an employee who is employed by a farmer in agriculture as well as in livestock auction operations in the same workweek will not lose the overtime exemption for that workweek, if certain conditions are met. These conditions and their meaning and application are discussed in this subpart.
#### § 541.705 Trainees.

The executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employee exemptions do not apply to employees training for employment in an executive, administrative, professional, outside sales or computer employee capacity who are not actually performing the duties of an executive, administrative, professional, outside sales or computer employee.