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



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Mercury General Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                            
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 23, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    THEODORE STALICK                                    
|                        |  |  |  | Theodore Stalick, Vice President andChief Financial Officer



The foregoing certifications are being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) FY 2015 Estimated Allocation for 

Awards to States/Territories

Disclaimer: Once Congress enacts an appropriation for FY 2015, and 

after ACL has updated the data used in the formula for determining 

award amounts, the allotments will be adjusted accordingly. The 

final State allotments will be provided to the grantee after a final 

appropriations bill is passed by Congress.

State/Territory Help America 

Vote Act (HAVA)

Alabama $70,000

Alaska $70,000

Arizona $70,000

Arkansas $70,000

California $348,401

Colorado $70,000

Connecticut $70,000

Delaware $70,000

District of Columbia $70,000

Florida $176,919

Georgia $90,851

Hawaii $70,000

Idaho $70,000

Illinois $117,917

Indiana $70,000

Iowa $70,000

Kansas $70,000

Kentucky $70,000

Louisiana $70,000

Maine $70,000

Maryland $70,000

Massachusetts $70,000

Michigan $90,516

Minnesota $70,000

Mississippi $70,000

Missouri $70,000

Montana $70,000

Nebraska $70,000

Nevada $70,000

New Hampshire $70,000

New Jersey $81,186

New Mexico $70,000

New York $179,233

North Carolina $89,314

North Dakota $70,000

Ohio $105,727

Oklahoma $70,000

Oregon $70,000
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) FY 2015 Estimated Allocation for 

Awards to States/Territories

State/Territory Help America 

Vote Act (HAVA)

Pennsylvania $116,894

Rhode Island $70,000

South Carolina $70,000

South Dakota $70,000

Tennessee $70,000

Texas $238,662

Utah $70,000

Vermont $70,000

Virginia $74,970

Washington $70,000

West Virginia $70,000

Wisconsin $70,000

Wyoming $70,000

American Samoa $35,000

Guam $35,000

Puerto Rico $70,000

Virgin Islands $35,000

TOTAL $4,615,590
#### § 778.503 Pseudo “percentage bonuses.”

As explained in § 778.210 of this part, a true bonus based on a percentage of total wages—both straight time and overtime wages—satisfies the Act's overtime requirements, if it is paid unconditionally. Such a bonus increases both straight time and overtime wages by the same percentage, and thereby includes proper overtime compensation as an arithmetic fact. Some bonuses, however, although expressed as a percentage of both straight time and overtime wages, are in fact a sham. Such bonuses, like the bonuses described in § 778.502 of this part, are generally separated out of a fixed weekly wage and usually decrease in amount in direct proportion to increases in the number of hours worked in a week in excess of 40. The hourly rate purportedly paid under such a scheme is artificially low, and the difference between the wages paid at the hourly rate and the fixed weekly compensation is labeled a percentage of wage “bonus.”

# Example:

An employer's wage records show an hourly rate of $5.62 per hour, and an overtime rate of one and one-half times that amount, or $8.43 per hour. In addition, the employer pays an alleged percentage of wage bonus on which no additional overtime compensation is paid:

| Week 1—40 hours worked: | |
| --- | --- |
| 40 hours at $5.62 per hour | $224.80 |
| Percentage of total earnings bonus at 33.45% of $224.80 | 75.20 |
| Total | 300.00 |
| Week 2—43 hours worked: | |
| 40 hours at $5.62 per hour | 224.80 |
| 3 hours at $8.43 per hour | 25.29 |
| Subtotal | 250.09 |
| Percentage of total earnings bonus at 19.96% of $250.09 | 49.91 |
| Total | 300.00 |
| Week 3—48 hours worked: | |
| 40 hours at $5.62 per hour | 224.80 |
| 8 hours at $8.43 per hour | 67.44 |
| Subtotal | 292.24 |
| Percentage of total earnings bonus at 2.66% of $292.24 | 7.76 |
| Total | 300.00 |

This employee is in fact being paid no overtime compensation at all. The records in fact reveal that the employer pays exactly $300 per week, no matter how many hours the employee works. The employee's regular rate is $300 divided by the number of hours worked in the particular week, and his overtime compensation due must be computed as shown in § 778.114.

[46 FR 7319, Jan. 23, 1981]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: TERRI FINNEGAN, LEE 

CHAGRA, JR., AND JOANNA 

KRANCHER,

 RELATORS.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00162-CV

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus 

against the Honorable Eduardo Gamboa, Judge of the Probate Court No. 2 of El Paso County, 

Texas, and concludes Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore 

deny the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60359 Conference Calendar

DARIES F. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LEE HOLCOMB; RICHIE MARTIN, Chief, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CV-113-CR

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mississippi prisoner Daries Mitchell, No. 46938-A, appeals the district court’s denial of his F ED . R. C IV . P. 59(e) motion challenging the dismissal of Mitchell’s “Motion to Remove” a state-court suit filed by Mitchell and then pending on appeal before the Mississippi Supreme Court. Having reviewed the record, we hold that the appeal from the district court’s dismissal of the motion is frivolous. See Mitchell v. Holcomb ,No. 96-60359 - 2 - No. 1:95-cv113GR (S.D. Ms. Oct. 13, 1995). We warn Mitchell that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions Mitchell is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
NORTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN 

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 

210 McClellan Street, Suite210, Wausau, Wisconsin 54403 

Telephone: (715) 849-5510 Fax: (715) 849-5110 

SERVING ADAMS, FOREST, JUNEAU, LANGLADE, LINCOLN, MARATHON, ONEIDA, PORTAGE, VILAS AND WOOD COUNTIES 

August 7, 2012 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Essential Air S~:rYice Division 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: " Docket OST ~ 20ll~Ol09 Rhinelander, Wisconsin 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Ui 

On behalf of the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (NCWRPC), I ask 

you to favorably consider the proposal of SkyWest Airlines to provide essential air 

transportation services to Rhinelander, WI. SkyWest Airlines has a strong history of providing 

reliable essential air service which is so critical to regions like northern Wisconsin and the U.P. 

of Michigan. 

NCWRPC is a voluntary association of governments serving the counties of north central 

Wisconsin. As identified in numerous planning efforts, commercial air service is vital to the 

region's economy. Without air service our many corporations will be faced with traveling long 

distances to far away airports which increases their costs and in turn makes our region less 

competitive in today's world economy. Job growth in our region relies on maintaining ~ ~~,,~Commercial air service in Rhinelander. -

We strongly urge your support of the SkyW est Airlines application to provide essential air 

services to Rhinelander/Oneida County Airport. 

N:IBERNIEIXREGIONIDENNIS LAWRENCEIDEVANY CORRESPONDENCE. DOC 

PROVIDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION, 

LAND USE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE SINCE 1973.
Opinion issued October 30, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 14

- 00778

- CV

——————————— MATT SINK , Appellant

v. INROCK DRILLING SYSTEMS, INC. and INROCK ACQUISITIONS, INC.

D/B/A INROCK MANUFACTURING , Appell ee s

On Appeal from the 215 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2014

- 40091

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. No opinion has issued.
M ore than 10 days have passed and no party has responded to the motion. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a).2

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown , and H uddle
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000757

28-MAR-2016

08:37 AM
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2000 (unaudited) and The Interim
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the six months ended June 30, 2000 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>
<NAME> RAZORFISH, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          89,610
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,088
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,450
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,940
<PP&E>                                          29,800
<ACCUMULATED-DEPRECIATION>                      10,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 374,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,575
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           945
<OTHER-SE>                                     324,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   374,385
<SALES>                                        140,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,676
<CGS>                                           66,254
<TOTAL-COST>                                    57,842
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,236)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,816
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,188
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   9,628
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-EFFECT-CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,628
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1


                  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF CHINA BROADBAND CORP.

The following figure sets forth our corporate structure.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


 <S>                      <C>                       <C>                   <C>

                 ____________________________________

                              China Broadband Corp.
                              a Nevada corporation
                      ____________________________________
                                       |
                                       |
                                      100%
                                       |
                                       |
                      ____________________________________

                           Big Sky Network Canada Ltd.
                      a British Virgin Islands corporation
            ----------____________________________________-------------------------
            |                          |                      |                   |
            |                          |                      |                   |
         50%|                      50% |                  50% |              100% |
            |                          |                      |                   |
            |                          |                      |                   |
_____________________     _____________________     _________________     _____________________
Shenzhen China            Sichuan Huayu             Deyang Guangshi       Big Sky Network
Merchants Big             Big Sky                   Big Sky Ltd.,         Technology
Sky Network Ltd.,         Network Ltd.,             a Chinese limited     Services Ltd.,
a Chinese limited         a Chinese limited         liability             a Chinese limited
liability corporation     liability corporation     corporation           liability corporation
_____________________     _____________________     _________________     _____________________
<FN>

(1)      Big Sky Network Canada has a 50% interest in the joint venture and a profit interest of 60% from 2000
         through 2004; 50% from 2005 through 2009; and 40% from 2010 through 2014.
(2)      Big Sky Network Canada has a 50% interest in the joint venture and a profit interest of 65% from 2001
         through 2007; 50% from 2008 through 2014; and 35% from 2015 through 2020.
(3)      Big Sky Network Canada will have a 50% interest in the joint venture and a profit interest of 80% from
         2001 through 2005; 60% from 2006 through 2010; 50% from 2011 to 2015 and 40% from 2015 through 2020.
         (subject to final government approval).

</FN>
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Nathaniel Sims, Appellant, v Wayne Barkley, as Superintendent of the Riverview Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 24, 1996;

decided July 9, 1996

Appeal transferred, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*to the Appellate Division, Third Department, upon the ground that a direct appeal does not lie when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved (NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [2]; § 5 [b]; CPLR 5601 [b] [2]).
§ 118.55 Periods of operation. ( a ) Lights shall be displayed from sunset to sunrise and at other times when the visibility is less than one mile.
( b ) Operators shall not be required to exhibit the prescribed lights during seasons when vessels are unable to navigate in the vicinity of the bridge.
( c ) The operation of signals other than lights shall be as prescribed by the District Commander. Each case shall be considered individually.
#### § 780.516 “Prior to the stemming process.”

The exemption provided by section 13(a)(14) applies only to employees whose processing operations on shade-grown tobacco are performed “prior to the stemming process.” (See H. Rept. No. 75, 87th Cong., first sess., p. 26). This means that an employee engaged in stemming, the removal of the midrib from the tobacco leaf (*McComb* v. *Puerto Rico Tobacco Marketing Co-op. Ass'n.,* 80 F. Supp. 953, affirmed 181 F. 2d 697), or in any operations on the tobacco which are performed after stemming has begun will not come within the exemption. Stemming and all subsequent operations are nonexempt work.
#### § 570.39 Effect of this subpart on other laws.

No provision of this subpart shall under any circumstances justify or be construed to permit noncompliance with the wage and hour provisions of the act or with the provisions of any other Federal law or of any State law or municipal ordinance establishing higher standards than those established under this subpart.

[16 FR 7008, July 20, 1951. Redesignated at 27 FR 4165, May 2, 1962, and 28 FR 1634, Feb. 21, 1963. Redesignated and amended at 36 FR 25156, Dec. 29, 1971. Redesignated at 75 FR 28452, May 20, 2010]
§ 825.123 Unable to perform the functions of the position. ( a ) *Definition.* An employee is unable to perform the functions of the position where the health care provider finds that the employee is unable to work at all or is unable to perform any one of the essential functions of the employee's position within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12101 *et seq.,* and the regulations at 29 CFR 1630.2(n). An employee who must be absent from work to receive medical treatment for a serious health condition is considered to be unable to perform the essential functions of the position during the absence for treatment.
( b ) *Statement of functions.* An employer has the option, in requiring certification from a health care provider, to provide a statement of the essential functions of the employee's position for the health care provider to review. A sufficient medical certification must specify what functions of the employee's position the employee is unable to perform so that the employer can then determine whether the employee is unable to perform one or more essential functions of the employee's position. For purposes of FMLA, the essential functions of the employee's position are to be determined with reference to the position the employee held at the time notice is given or leave commenced, whichever is earlier. *See* § 825.306.
#### § 503.0 Introduction.

The regulations in this part cover the enforcement of all statutory and regulatory obligations, including requirements under 8 U.S.C. 1184(c), section 214(c) of the INA and 20 CFR part 655, subpart A, applicable to the employment of H-2B workers in nonimmigrant status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the INA, and workers in corresponding employment, including obligations to offer employment to eligible United States (U.S.) workers and to not lay off or displace U.S. workers in a manner prohibited by the regulations in this part or 20 CFR part 655, subpart A.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50681 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
TERRY DWAYNE ROBINSON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:13

- CR

- 111

- 1

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Terry Dwayne Robinson appeals the 120

- month sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base . In his sole argument, he asserts that his sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of the Attorney General’s institution of a new policy shortly a fter the date of his sentencing; this policy advises prosecutors not to allege facts triggering a

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 2, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50681 Document: 00512616934 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2014No. 13

- 50681

m andatory minimum sentence in drug cases unless there exist aggravating circumstances. Because Robinson was sentenced before the date of the Attorney General’s memor andum, he is not entitled to relief under it. See United States v. Barnes , 730 F.3d 456, 4 59

- 60 (5th Cir. 2013). Moreover, the policy specifically pr ovides that it does not intend to confer any rights or benefits in any proceeding. Id. As a result, Robinson is unable to show that the district court committed a clear or obvious error in its imposition of a
within

- guidelines sentence. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50681 Document: 00512616934 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2014
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES**

 

LexaLite International Corporation, a Delaware corporation

 

Aquarius Brands, Inc., a California corporation

 

KVP Falcon Plastic Belting, Inc., a California corporation

 

Central Valley Manufacturing, Inc., a California corporation

 

Plastron Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

Plastic Specialties, Inc., a Mississippi corporation

 

Fullerton Holdings, Inc., a California corporation

 

KVP Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

Genesta, Inc., an Ontario, Canada corporation

 

----