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 of Alaska Airlines, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bradley D. Tilden, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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, as amended; 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/ Bradley D. Tilden
|Bradley D. Tilden Chief Financial Officer August 13, 2007
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 Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 of AMERCO
(the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 3, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Jason A. Berg, Chief Accounting Officer of
the Company, certify, 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.





AMERCO,





a Nevada
corporation





/s/ Jason A.
Berg


Jason A.
Berg


Principal
Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer


Date:
February 3, 2010
# MESABAAIRUNES

^i^" = May 21 , 201 0

Tod dM

. Homan ^ Directo r EA S & Domesti c Analysi s Division , X-5 3 Office'o f Aviatio n Analysi s Department

o f Transportatio n Roo m6417 1

. • 40 0 7 * Street , S.W

. Washington , D C 20590

.
Re : Orde r

Requestin g Proposa l fo r Essentia l Ai r

Servic e a t

Greenville , Mississippi

. Docke t OST-2008-0209

. Dea r Mr

. Homan : I n respons e t o th e Department' s Order 2010-5-2 , Mesab aAviation , Inc. , doin g busines s a s Delt aConnection , i s enclosin g adetaile dsubsidy proposal fo r essentia l air

servic e a t Greenvill e (GLH) , Mississipp i a t aleve l o f 1 4 roundtri p flights pe r

wee k pe r marke t usin g 34

- sea t Saa b 34 0 aircraf

t fromDelta' s Memphi s (MEM ) hub

.

M E M -GL H 7 Weekl y Roun d Trip s 2x/(lay , T^Pays/Wee k MEM-GL H Statio n Tim s De p Ar rOe p Ar r ME M GL H 14:45 ' 15:4 1 ME M -GL H Statio n De p Ar r GL H ME M Tim e

De p Ar r 16:5 5 17:5 2 MEM-GL H

Statio n De p Ar r •ME M GL H Tim e

De p Ai r 19:2 0 20:1 1 ME M -GL H

Statio n Tim e De p Ar rDe p Ar r GL H ME M 6:4 0 7:4 2

Th e require dannual subsid y fo r th e GLH servic e woul db e $1,606,66 2 a s outline di n Attachment A.

. Delt aCoimectio n provide s schedule dservic e betwee n Delta' s hub s an dman y citie s throughou t

th e U.S

. Delta' s Memphi s hub provide s Greenvill e customer s wit h convenient , single-carrier

connection s t o hundred s o f flight s i n th e U.S./Canadian an dworldwide

. We loo k

loo o BLU E GENTIA N ROAD , SUIT E 200 , EAGAN , M N 55121-167 9forwar

dt o th e opportunity t o continu e providin g essential ai r servic e t o th e Greenvill e community

. , Respectfull y submitted ,

Joh n G

. Spanjer s ^'residen t
AttachmentAttachmen t A

EA S servic e proposa l fo r servic e t o Greenville , Mississipp i

EA S Statio n Docke t Numbe r Hu b « » Roun dtrip s pe

r week Completio n Facto r Tota l Passenger s Total Bloc k

Hour s Total Departure s Passenge r Revenu e •Othe r Revenu e Tota l Revenu e Pilot s Fue l Maintenanc e Aircraf t Total Direct s Total Indirect s Total Operatin g Inflatio n Rat e allowanc e Profi t Economi c Cos t Require dAnnua

l Subsidy Rate 0.75 %

5.0 % GLH

DOT-OST-2001-1068 5

MEM 1 4 97 % 9,91 3 1,27 2 1,41 6 $743,50 5 $93,77 7 $837,28 2 $318,02 3 $318,42 6 $545,85 6 $289,04 4 $1,471,34 9 $839,70 9 $2,311,05 8 $17,33 3 $115,55 3 $2,443,94 4 $1,606,66 2
§ 221.3 Office of Inspector General. ( a ) *Establishment.* The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established as an independent law enforcement and oversight agency for the United States Postal Service under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 3), as amended in 1988 (Pub. L. 100-504, 102 Stat. 2515) and 1996 (Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009).
( b ) *Responsibilities.* The OIG was established to: ( 1 ) Provide an independent and objective unit to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the Postal Service.
( 2 ) Provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities designed to: ( i ) Promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of postal programs and operations.
( ii ) Prevent and detect fraud and abuse in postal programs and operations.
( 3 ) Provide a means of keeping the governors and Congress fully and currently informed about: ( i ) Problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of postal programs and operations.
( ii ) The necessity for corrective action.
( iii ) The progress of corrective action.
( 4 ) Provide oversight of all activities of the Postal Inspection Service.
( c ) *Inspector General* — ( 1 ) *Appointment.* The inspector general is appointed for a 7-year term by the nine governors.
( 2 ) *Responsibilities.* The inspector general is responsible for the operations of the OIG: ensuring independent and objective audits and investigations of postal operations and programs; overseeing the Postal Inspection Service; and apprising the governors and Congress of significant observations. The inspector general has no direct responsibility for designing, installing, and/or operating postal operations or programs.
( 3 ) *Extent of powers.* In addition to the authority otherwise provided by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, the inspector general is authorized to: ( i ) Have unrestricted access to all Postal Service operations, programs, records, and documents, whether in custody of the Postal Service or available by law, contract, or regulation.
( ii ) Have direct and prompt access to the governors when necessary for any purpose pertaining to the performance of the functions and responsibilities of the OIG.
( iii ) Administer oaths when necessary in performance of the functions assigned to the OIG.
( iv ) Require by subpoena the production of all information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence necessary in the performance of the functions of the OIG.
( v ) Select, appoint, and employ such officers and employees as may be necessary for carrying out the functions, powers, and duties of the OIG.
( vi ) Obtain the temporary or intermittent services of experts or consultants in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                 20
<SECURITIES>                            0    
<RECEIVABLES>                        2012
<ALLOWANCES>                          113
<INVENTORY>                           820
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     3026
<PP&E>                              10524
<DEPRECIATION>                       8128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       5443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                2707
<BONDS>                                 0
<COMMON>                             2010                
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                            700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         5443
<SALES>                              4653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     4659
<CGS>                                3664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        5569
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     54 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                           12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (922)  
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        (922)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.42)

        

</TABLE>
536 P.2d 1119

#### Lloyd PONSNESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 11573.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June 20, 1975.

Charles H. Kimball, Coeur d’Alene, for plaintiff-appellant.

Samuel Eismann, Coeur d’Alene, for defendant-respondent.

*770PER CURIAM.

Lloyd Ponsness, the appellant, instituted this action in magistrate’s court to recover moneys alleged to be owed to him under a contract of insurance between Ponsness and the New York Life Insurance Company, the respondent. By his complaint, Ponsness alleged that he had purchased a medical and hospitalization insurance policy from the respondent, that the respondent’s agent represented that the policy would cover the costs of treatment of pre-existing medical conditions without regard to the contractual limits of the policy, that he relied upon these representations when he purchased the coverage, that he had incurred expenses as a result of medical and hospital care for a pre-existing condition, and that the respondent had not compensated him for these costs. The respondent answered generally denying the allegations of the complaint and asserting that the company had compensated the appellant for costs of treatment for a preexisting condition according to the contractual limitations for coverage of a pre-existing condition.

Pursuant to I.R.C.P. 56, the respondent moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the record did not establish a genuine issue as to a material fact and that the respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The magistrate granted the motion. The order granting summary judgment was appealed to the district court where it was affirmed. Ponsness appealed to this court.

The only issue raised on appeal is whether the district court erred when that court affirmed the magistrate court’s order granting summary judgment. The essence of the lower courts’ ruling is that the appellant be compensated according to the insurance contract without regard to certain representations regarding coverage for pre-existing medical conditions alleged to have been made by the respondent’s agent.

Upon reviewing the record, we find that there is a genuine issue of a material fact as to whether the respondent’s agent made any representations regarding coverage prior to the appellant’s submission of his application for insurance. Affidavits submitted by the appellant and his wife establish that certain statements were made by the respondent’s agent to the appellant’s wife prior to the appellant’s submission of his application for insurance. Genuine issues are presented as to the content of these statements and as to whether he relied on such statements in making his application for coverage. Thus, genuine issues of material facts are presented which can only be resolved by a trial. I.R.C.P. 56(c). See, Fairchild v. Olsen, 96 Idaho 338, 528 P.2d 900 (1974); Straley v. Idaho Nuclear Corp., 94 Idaho 917, 500 P.2d 218 (1972). *Compare,*Layh v. Jonas, 96 Idaho 688, 535 P.2d 661 (1975).

Summary judgment reversed; costs to appellant.
-cr-06236-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2000 P
#### HERMAN H. EISNER, Respondent, *v.*NANET HAMEL and others, Appellants.

*Attorney*— when *cha/rged with costs of motion.*

Defendant’s attorney applied for an order dismissing the complaint herein, for want of prosecution, on the ground that the parties had, by a collusive agreement, settled the suit, in order to deprive him of his costs. The motion was denied, without leave to renew. Subsequently, defendant’s attorney applied for leave to renew the motion, which was refused. Held, that as the motion was made by the attorney for his own benefit, and not for that of his client, that the costs of the motion were properly imposed upon him.

Appeal from an order denying leave to renew a motion, and imposing costs on tbe attorney applying for such leave.

*Henry H. Morange,*for appellants. *8. 8. Swain,*for respondent.

Opinion

*per Ouriam.*

Present — Brady and Daniels, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs.
§ 334.865 Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, California, restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* The waters within an area beginning at 32°42′55.0′′ N, 117°11′30.5′′ W; thence running easterly to 32°42′57.0′′ N, 117°11′22.5′′ W; thence running easterly to 32°42′56.0′′ N, 117°11′19.0′′ W; thence running southeasterly to 32°42′49.0′′ N, 117°11′08.5′′ W; thence running southeasterly to 32°42′44.5′′ N, 117°11′06.5′′ W; thence running southerly to 32°42′40.0′′ N, 117°11′06.5′′ W.
( b ) *The regulation.* ( 1 ) The restricted area shall not be open to swimming, fishing, water-skiing, mooring or anchorage.
( 2 ) Dragging, seining, other fishing operations, and other activities not under the direction of the United States, which might foul underwater installations within the restricted area, are prohibited.
( 3 ) All tows entering the restricted area shall be streamed and shortened to the seaward of the area and towing appendages and catenaries shall not be dragged along the bottom while proceeding through the area.
( 4 ) All vessels entering the restricted area shall proceed across the area by the most direct route and without unnecessary delay.
( 5 ) No vessel or craft of any size shall lie-to or anchor in the restricted area at any time other than a vessel operated by or for components, or other vessels authorized by Commander, Navy Region Southwest, or his/her designee.
( 6 ) When security conditions dictate, Naval security forces may impose strict enforcement of stand-off distances within the restricted area. This enforcement will not prevent utilization of navigable channels, but will serve to control its use in order to protect vital National interests.
( c ) *Enforcement.* The regulation in this section, promulgated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, shall be enforced by the Commander, Navy Region Southwest, and such agencies or persons as he/she may designate.
[68 FR 37972, June 26, 2003]
••-/H!^.

- •/'• 7

> 1 

### '^'^' ^ • DIPTOFm'-STOFlWiO N RESPONDE D O NDECEMBE R 2 , 200 9 3:34 P M 

### Pau l YarossI , President , HNT B Holding s Lt d Secretar y LaHood' s federa l advisory committe e i s asoli dfirs t ste p towar doutlinin g a vision , whil e helpin g restor e and , i nsom e cases , repai r th e U.S . aviatio nindustry . A s th e committe e build s it s agenda , I recommen dfiv e critica l issue s mus t b e addressed : 1 . Implemen t

anationa l aviatio nplan . Th e developmen t o f anationa l aviatio n pla n i s critica l i

f w e ar e t o promot e commerce , bette r mov e peopl e an dgoods , an d facilitat e respons e o n anationa l basi s t o natura l an dmanmad e disasters . Enactin g a n overal l pla nis , i n fact , th e foundatio nupo nwhic hal l othe r improvement s shoul db e based . 2 . Increas e emphasi s o n safety . Th e publi c expect s an ddeserve s th e safes t possibl e experienc e whe n travelin g b y air . Mor e tha njus t additiona l guidelines , th e committe e need s t o explor e augmentin g enhance dregulator y solution s withavailabl e an daffordabl e technica l solutions , suc ha s expandin g th e FAA' s runwa y statu s light s program . 3 . Focu s o n congestio n rej[ief . Whe nairport s are'cohgested , nobod y wins . Implementatio n of

NextGe n an dmor e realisti c schedulin g ar e oft-discusse d- an d importan t

- step s i n th e righ t

direction . But , let' s als o kee p i nmin dth e large r consume r experience . Let' s mov e towar dlandsid e andairsidedesig no f airport s tha t

reduc e congestio n an dfrustratio n a t al l point s alon g th e way fo r travelers . 4 . Addres s critica l environmenta l issues . Goo denvironmenta l stewardshi p can' t b e along-ter mgoal for

airports ; Sustainability , o r a t leas t step s towar d sustainability , i s expecte db y today' s citizenry . A s airport s gro w an devolve , th e greenin g o f facilitie s an dairsid e procedure s mus t pla y arole . 5 . Mov e towar dmarke t pricing . It' s tim e t o recogniz e ou r nation' s airport s ar e i n abattl e fo r

economi c survival . Let' s le t airport s se t

thei r pricin g structur e base do n marke t conditions . Suc hafre e marke t approac hcoul dreduc e th e relianc e o nfedera l fund s an dhel p strengthe nth e financia l positio nof airports , larg e an dsmall . Th e federa l advisor y committe e i s th e perfec t condui t for establishin g th e forwar d momentu mthat' s critica l for meetin g th e challenge s an dopportunitie s i nfron t of u s a s a n industry . • ' • ••" ^ ) • i ?
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                     36448
<RECEIVABLES>                                   176636
<ALLOWANCES>                                      8179
<INVENTORY>                                     176741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                561151
<PP&E>                                          506159
<DEPRECIATION>                                  292367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1366805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           507790
<BONDS>                                         584632
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      49832
<COMMON>                                          2599
<OTHER-SE>                                      133949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1366805
<SALES>                                         648682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                694613
<CGS>                                           616002
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   638816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 62410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               14011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15870)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4584)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11286)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        28956
<NET-INCOME>                                     17670
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 221.5 Headquarters organization. ( a ) *Postmaster General* — ( 1 ) *Appointment.* The postmaster general (PMG), the chief executive officer of the Postal Service, is appointed by and can be removed by a majority of the governors in office.
( 2 ) *Responsibilities.* The postmaster general is responsible for the overall operation of the Postal Service. The postmaster general determines appeals from the actions of staff and corporate officers, except in cases where he or she has delegated authority to make a decision to a subordinate; such subordinate may also determine appeals within the authority delegated.
( 3 ) *Extent of powers.* The postmaster general, as directed by the Board of Governors, exercises the powers of the Postal Service to the extent that such exercise does not conflict with power reserved to the Board by law. The postmaster general is authorized to direct any officer, employee, or agent of the Postal Service to exercise such of the postmaster general's powers as the postmaster general deems appropriate.
( b ) *Deputy Postmaster General.* The deputy postmaster general is appointed and can be removed by the postmaster general and the governors in office. The deputy postmaster general reports directly to the postmaster general.
( c ) *Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President.* The chief operating officer and executive vice president is appointed by the postmaster general and directs all processing, distribution, and customer service functions.
( d ) *Officers in charge of Headquarters organizational units.* The officers in charge of Headquarters organizational units are appointed by the postmaster general. They report directly to the postmaster general, the deputy postmaster general, an executive vice president, a senior vice president, or another officer, as the postmaster general may direct.
( e ) *Responsibilities.* The corporate officers head the organizational units into which Headquarters and the field are divided. They are responsible for the following: ( 1 ) Program planning, direction, and review.
( 2 ) Establishment of policies, procedures, and standards.
( 3 ) Operational determinations not delegated to district officials.