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 Annual Report of Main Street Trust,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-K  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2003 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
B. White, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/  David B. White
-----------------------
David B. White
Chief Financial Officer
March 12, 2004


                                       1
Order entered March 7, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00567
- CV DARLENE C. AMRHEIN, Appellant

V. ATTORNEY LENNIE F. B OLLINGER AND WORMINT ON & BOLLINGER LA W FIRM, Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 006
- 02654
- 2017



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s March 4, 2019 “Notice to Court on Filing in Forma Pauperis on Texas Forms with Court of Appeal s & Other Outstanding Issues in 2 Appeals.” Appellant appears to complain of the failure of appellees to file a response brief as well as the appellate record , which she deems incomplete and seeks to supplement

. To the extent appellant complains of appel lees’ brief, we note appellees ’ brief is not due until March 8, 2019. To the extent appellant complains of the appellate record, the documents and transcriptions she asse rts are missing and need to be included in a supplemental record concern other cases. We have denied a previous request to supplement the record withdocuments from other cases. See Greystar, LLC v. Adams , 426 S.W.3d 861, 865 (Tex. App.

—

Dallas 2014, no pet.). We DENY this request also

. See id.
/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
#### § 84.20 Approval.

The construction of lights and shapes and the installation of lights on board the vessel must satisfy the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.
Order entered April 22, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00280-CV

VIEWPOINT, INC. D/B/A VIEWPOINT CONSTRUCTION SOFTWARE, Appellant

V.

R&B ROOFING, L.L.C., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-03209-E

ORDER

In a letter dated April 19, 2016, counsel for appellant informed the Court that there is no 

reporter’s record in this appeal. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal be submitted without a 

reporter’s record.

Appellant’s brief is due MONDAY, MAY 23, 2016.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### § 102-83.140 Where may Federal agencies appeal GSA decisions and recommendations concerning the delineated area?

Agencies may appeal decisions and recommendations, in writing, to the GSA Regional Commissioner of Public Buildings in the region where the space acquisition is to take place or to the GSA Regional Commissioner's designee. The written request for review must include all relevant facts and other considerations and must justify the alternative delineated area identified by the requesting agency with regard to the location requirements set forth in all applicable statutes, E.O.s and regulations. Once submitted to the Regional Commissioner or the Regional Commissioner's designee, the requesting agency's appeal will proceed according to the process established internally by GSA.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 761

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in

gross income of Social Security benefits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 12, 1999

Mr. FORBES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Senior Citizens Tax

5 Elimination Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCLUSION IN GROSS INCOME OF SO7 CIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 86 of the Internal Reve9 nue Code of 1986 (relating to social security benefits) is
2

•HR 761 IH

1 amended by adding at the end the following new sub2 section:

3 ‘‘(g) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to

4 any taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment

5 of this subsection.’’

6 (b) SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS HELD HARM7 LESS.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are hereby appro9 priated (out of any money in the Treasury not other10 wise appropriated) for each fiscal year to each fund

11 under the Social Security Act or the Railroad Re12 tirement Act of 1974 an amount equal to the reduc13 tion in the transfers to such fund for such fiscal

14 year by reason of section 86(g) of the Internal Reve15 nue Code of 1986.

16 (2) NO TAX INCREASES.—It is the sense of the

17 Congress that tax increases will not be used to pro18 vide the revenue necessary to carry out paragraph

19 (1).

Æ
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 30, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51104

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH A. CARRASCO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CR-57-ALL

SA-01-M-540-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph A. Carrasco appeals his conviction following a bench

trial for driving while intoxicated in a public place located in

the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. He argues that

the evidence presented was not sufficient to show that his mental

and physical faculties were impaired at the time of his

apprehension. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
2

Government, and deferring to all reasonable inferences drawn by the

magistrate judge, the evidence reflected that Carrasco emitted a

noticeable odor of alcohol, exhibited poor coordination and

attention span prior to and during testing, and advised the

representative of the prosecutor’s office that he was not driving

contrary to his testimony presented at trial. There was

substantial evidence to support the determination that Carrasco’s

mental and physical faculties were impaired by alcohol at the time

that he drove a vehicle into the area located within the

jurisdiction of the United States. See United States v. Cardenas,

9 F.3d 1139, 1156 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Fesler, 781

F.2d 384, 386 n.1 (5th Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 13; TEX. PENAL CODE

§ 49.04.

Carrasco’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
# Comments on: 22-1106: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.23

 DESCRIPTION OF BONUS PROGRAMS FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

Chief Executive Officer and President

     The bonus program approved for James Rudis, Chief Executive Officer and
President, would permit a bonus of $6,600 in the form of a 401(k) contribution
and a performance bonus payable in cash equal to approximately 20% of Mr. Rudis'
base salary based upon Overhill Farms' achievement of certain net income targets
and Mr. Rudis' contribution to the company's success during fiscal year 2006.
Mr. Rudis would receive additional cash bonus payments, each of which would be
equal to 2% of Mr. Rudis' base salary, for each specified increment by which the
company exceeds net income targets for fiscal year 2006.

Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

     The bonus program approved for John L. Steinbrun, Senior Vice President,
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, would permit a bonus of
$6,600 in the form of a 401(k) contribution and a performance bonus payable in
cash equal to approximately 16% of Mr. Steinbrun's base salary based upon
Overhill Farms' achievement of certain net income targets and Mr. Steinbrun's
contribution to the company's success during fiscal year 2006. Mr. Steinbrun
would receive additional cash bonus payments, each of which would be equal to 2%
of Mr. Steinbrun's base salary, for each specified increment by which the
company exceeds net income targets for fiscal year 2006.

Senior Vice President and Secretary

     The bonus program approved for Richard A. Horvath, Senior Vice President
and Secretary, would permit a discretionary bonus equal to 3% of Mr. Horvath's
gross W-2 earnings payable in the form of a 401(k) contribution and a
discretionary performance bonus payable in cash equal to approximately 14% of
Mr. Horvath's base salary based upon Overhill Farms' achievement of certain net
income targets and Mr. Horvath's contribution to the company's success during
fiscal year 2006.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5873

ERIC REYNARD HOSKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-95-52)

Submitted: September 24, 1996

Decided: October 15, 1996

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William C. Ingram, Jr., FLOYD, ALLEN & JACOBS, L.L.P.,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr.,

United States Attorney, Timika Shafeek, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Appellant, Eric Hoskins, pleaded guilty to possession with the

intent to distribute cocaine but appeals the district court's order denying his motion to suppress the cocaine found on his person during

drug interdiction activities at the Piedmont International Airport in

Greensboro, North Carolina. Hoskins contends that police detective

Kennedy's actions of questioning him after he deplaned from a flight

from Newark, New Jersey, and conducting a search of Hoskins's person after viewing a suspicious bulge under Hoskins's arm was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court found that

Hoskins voluntarily consented to speak to Kennedy and freely gave

permission to Kennedy to search his person. After a complete review

of the district court's decision to deny Hoskins's motion to suppress,1

we find no reversible error and affirm the district court's order.

Hoskins was not "seized" under the Fourth Amendment when Kennedy asked if Hoskins would speak with him and answer a few questions. The record supports the conclusion that from Hoskins's

perspective, and that of Kennedy's, Hoskins was free to refuse the initial request for questioning and the subsequent search of his person.

Hoskins's voluntary cooperation with such requests does not, absent

coercive circumstances not present here, implicate the Fourth

Amendment.2

Accordingly, we find that the search and seizure of the cocaine in

this matter was lawful and in accordance with the Constitution. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

1 United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537, 540 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 64

U.S.L.W. 3807 (U.S. June 3, 1996) (No. 95-8891).

2 Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497-98 (1983); United States v.

Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 555-56 (1980).

 2
Draft Proposal CB-44 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Repair Definition (CB-44) 

Objective:  Revise the definition of repair to be specific as to intent and meaning and can be readily

applied in compliance verification.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise the definition of REPAIR in Section C202 as follows:

REPAIR. The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing building to the condition it was when 

last permitted and approved.

Reason: The current definition does not specify a point in time that is needed to effectively apply the

code to repairs.  There needs to be a clearer distinction between an alteration, addition, renovation, and

repair.  The proposed language makes it clear by stating that the reconstruction or renewal is to the

condition it was in when last permitted (e.g., the way it was/has been before it needed the repair).  

Anything else would be a change from what it was to something else and therefore be an addition,

alteration, or renovation.

Cost Impact: There is a cost impact associated with this proposed change to the degree that repairs are

not clearly covered in the current code, and as a result repairs that should be subject to the energy code

are not now being required to meet the energy code OR in some cases repairs that should not be

required to meet the code may currently be required to meet the code.
#### § 102-75.5 What is the scope of this part?

The real property policies contained in this part apply to Federal agencies, including GSA's Public Buildings Service (PBS), operating under, or subject to, the authorities of the Administrator of General Services. Federal agencies with authority to dispose of real property under Subchapter III of Chapter 5 of Title 40 of the United States Code will be referred to as “disposal agencies” in this part. Except in rare instances where GSA delegates disposal authority to a Federal agency, the “disposal agency” as used in this part refers to GSA.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

703 

KA 09-01467 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

SAMUEL L. HODGES, ALSO KNOWN AS COUNTRY, 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

KEVIN J. BAUER, ALBANY, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (J. MICHAEL MARION OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L.

Michalski, A.J.), rendered June 25, 2009. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
#### § 102-118.535 Are there principles governing my agency's TSP debt collection procedures?

Yes, the principles governing your agency collection procedures for reporting debts to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the Department of Justice are found in 31 CFR chapter IX and in the GAO Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies (*https://www.gao.gov/products/149099*).

[87 FR 32326, May 31, 2022]
§ 109-50.204 Limitations. ( a ) Excess and/or surplus education-related and Federal research equipment at DOE Field Organizations and cognizant facilities is eligible for transfer as a gift under this program. However, safety, environmental, and health matters must be considered.
( b ) Title to the equipment will transfer upon the recipient's written acknowledgement of receipt.
( c ) The Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) may authorize gifts of excess and/or surplus education-related and Federal research equipment by signature on the appropriate gift instrument where the book value of an item of equipment exceeds $25,000 or the cumulative book value of the gifts under this program to any one institution exceeds $25,000. HCA or designee may authorize gifts of excess and/or surplus education-related and Federal research equipment of lesser individual and cumulative book value by signature on the appropriate gift instrument. Delegations by the HCA to authorize gifts of excess and/or surplus education-related and Federal research equipment shall be in writing to a specific individual, for a specified period of time, and for a specified (or unlimited) level of authority.
( d ) Gifts shall be serviceable and in working order. Disposal Condition Codes 1 and 4, as defined in 41 CFR 101-43.4801(e), meet this criteria. Serviceability of equipment should be verified before the gift is made to the eligible recipient.
#### § 102-3.10 What is the purpose of the Federal Advisory Committee Act?

FACA governs the establishment, operation, administration, and termination of advisory committees within the executive branch of the Federal Government. The Act defines what constitutes a Federal advisory committee and provides general procedures for the executive branch to follow for the operation of these advisory committees. In addition, the Act is designed to assure that the Congress and the public are kept informed with respect to the number, purpose, membership, activities, recommendations, outcomes, and cost of advisory committees through reporting requirements. These requirements form the basis for implementing the Act at both the agency and Government-wide levels.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-cv-24262-ALTMAN/Reid

RICCARDO SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOBILE BILLBOARDS, INC. et al.,

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/

ORDER IN CASES WITH MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS

To better manage the orderly progress of the case, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. The Plaintiff in this case shall file proof of service, as to each Defendant, within seven days of 

perfecting service on each Defendant. 

2. The Defendants shall file their responses and motions jointly. 

a. If conflicts of position exist, the co-Defendants shall file a motion for leave to file separate 

responses or motions, in which they must describe what those conflicts are. 

b. If the co-Defendants need more than twenty pages for their joint responses or 

motions, they shall file a motion for leave to file excess pages, which the Court will consider 

expeditiously. 

3. The co-Defendants may file separate answers to the complaint.1 The time for responsive 

pleadings—for all Defendants—begins to run when the last Defendant is served. 

1 If the Defendants file a joint response or motion, it must contain all bases for dismissal, stay, 

abstention, or other relief the Defendants intend to raise. Nothing in this Order precludes the 

Defendants from later raising (non-waivable) jurisdictional defenses. 

Case 1:22-cv-24262-RKA Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/03/2023 Page 1 of 2
4. Failure to comply with these procedures may result in sanctions, including the striking of the 

motion(s) or response(s).

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on January 3, 2023.

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-24262-RKA Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/03/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 102-74.505 What action must Federal agencies take after disapproving an application or canceling an issued permit? Upon disapproving an application or canceling a permit, Federal agencies must promptly— ( a ) Notify the applicant or permittee of the reasons for the action; and
( b ) Inform the applicant or permittee of his/her appeal rights under § 102-74.510.
EXHIBIT 23.1

        CONSENT OF MITCHELL & TITUS, LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


The Board of Directors of
DME Interactive Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries

We consent to the inclusion on form 10-KSB of our report dated May 17, 2001,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of DME Interactive Holdings,
Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity and cash
flows for the years ended December, 2000 and 1999, which report appears in the
report on form 10-KSB of DME Interactive Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2001.



/s/ MITCHELL & TITUS, LLP
----------------------------------

Mitchell & Titus, LLP


New York, New York
May 17, 2001
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

In connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Analogic Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael L.
Levitz, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his 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.

Date: December 10, 2010



/s/ Michael L. LevitzMichael L. LevitzVice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that the Annual Report of NextPhase Wireless, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and
that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents,
in all material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
the Company.


Dated:  July 14, 2006


                                                   /s/Robert Ford
                                                   -------------------
                                                   Robert Ford
                                                   Chief Executive Officer and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

                                                   Date July 14, 2006