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


                                                                EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Angelica Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James W. Shaffer, Vice President, Treasurer and 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:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: September 9, 2004

                                  /s/ James W. Shaffer
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                  James W. Shaffer
                                  Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                  Officer of Angelica Corporation
Hillsborough

No. 81-109

#### Arthur R. Surprenant v. Sharon M. (Surprenant) Laporte

April 7, 1982

*348
      *George J. Basbanes*and *Francis A. Gaimari,*of Lowell, Massachusetts *(Mr. Basbanes*on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*Joseph C. Krolikowski,*of Nashua, by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Batchelder, J.

This case presents the question whether the Master *(Henry P. Sullivan,*Esq.) applied the standard required by *Perreault v. Cook,*114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974), for determining whether there should be a change of child custody. We affirm.

The parties were divorced on February 3, 1974, and the defendant-mother was given custody of their children. Both parties have since remarried. On January 14, 1980, an ex-parte order awarded temporary custody of the children to the plaintiff-father, who alleged that the children had been abused by their stepbrothers, who then resided in the defendant’s home. After a January 21, 1980, contested hearing, the temporary order was continued. The plaintiff’s motion for a modification of the original decree was granted after a final hearing on September 28, 1980, and he was given permanent custody of the children on October 9, 1980. The defendant filed a motion on October 10, 1980, to inform the court of a change in circumstances, but her motion for a rehearing was denied. She then appealed to this court, which remanded the case for another hearing.

Pursuant to that remand, a hearing was held by the master on February 12, 1981, to reopen the September hearing and to consider newly discovered evidence, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the modification of the divorce decree. The Superior Court *(Cann,*J.), on recommendation of the master, denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.

The standard to be used in a change of custody proceeding is set forth in *Perreault v. Cook,*114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974). “[A] custody award should not be disturbed unless the moving party demonstrates that the circumstances affecting the welfare of the child have been so greatly altered that there is a strong possibility the child will be harmed if he continues to live under the present arrangement.” *Id.*at 443, 322 A.2d at 612. The master’s recommendation concluded that a retention of custody by the *349mother would not be in the best interests of the children and further, that the “harm” to which they had been exposed had not been sufficiently eliminated by the change in the defendant’s circumstances. Because the narrative of the master’s report found facts that were consistent with the *Perreault*standard, *see Heinze v. Heinze,*122 N.H. 358, 362, 444 A.2d 559, 562 (1982); *R. J. Berke & Co. v. J. P. Griffin, Inc.,*116 N.H. 760, 767, 367 A.2d 583, 588 (1976), we affirm. *See Morel v. Marable,*120 N.H. 192, 194, 412 A.2d 747, 748 (1980).

*Affirmed.*

All concurred.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1710: JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wf3BgO1hYW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-20-2023-22-1710-jager-pro-inc-v-w-w-manufacturing-co-inc-opinion-22-1710-opinion-11-20-2023_2224694\/\">22-1710: JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-20-2023-22-1710-jager-pro-inc-v-w-w-manufacturing-co-inc-opinion-22-1710-opinion-11-20-2023_2224694\/embed\/#?secret=wf3BgO1hYW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1710: JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"wf3BgO1hYW\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1710 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10722

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Gonzalo Briseno Ramirez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:23-CR-4-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Gonzalo Briseno Ramirez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 12, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10722 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2024
No. 23-10722

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 23-10722 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2024
No. 11-12.

#### Lokuta, Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Eleventh Judicial District, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania *v.*Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: February 9, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0207 

WORLD LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS, LLC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014-GL?0-0263 

Respondent 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On February 3, 2016, an Order Setting Deadline for Respondent's Supplemental 

Statement was filed. 

On February 9, 2016, the Respondent filed a Notice of Settlement and Withdrawal of 

Request for Hearing. 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The February 18,2016 deadline for the Respondent to file a Supplemental Statement is 

cancelled. 

2. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, the Respondent has withdrawn its Request for Hearing, 

and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

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 2W1 0001 

Mr. Brian Khan 

Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Midwest Team 

FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

2300 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7652 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

Mr. David M. Hernandez 

Respondent's Counsel 

Vedder, Price, P.C. 

1401 I Street, N.W., Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005 

TEL: 202-312-3340 

FAX: 202-312-3322 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0207 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



                         Report of Independent Accounts


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of GA Financial, Inc.:

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income, of shareholders' equity and of cash flows present fairly,
in all material respects, the results of operations and cash flows of GA
Financial, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management; our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
January 27, 1999
except as to the information
presented in Note 19, for which
the date is February 26, 1999
No. 11-5489.

#### Jean-Marie *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge Manuel Adam George Nerez, III Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) I 947A 

### e
# JPME Cyber Colloquium 2022

/ Published March 11, 2022
March 11th, 2022, 
College of information and Cyberspace hosted this virtual event to collaborate with other services and federal organization’s faculty on the identification of gaps, opportunities, and obstacles in current PME structure (with regard to cyber) and cyber offerings. Following the welcome from Chancellor Cassandra Lewis and Associate Dean Gary Brown, a variety of different organization’s faculty presented their programs and current obstacles. Followed by a roundtable discussion on similar reoccurring topics and collaboration.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7118
BURN'ARD HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-401) Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 17, 1997 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Burn'ard Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hunter v. Virginia , No. CA-97-401 (E.D. Va. July 22, 1997). We dispense withoral 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  balance  sheets  and  consolidated  statements  of  income  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997  
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1997 
<CASH>                                         4,676,747
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    393,407 
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0 
<PP&E>                                        46,488,309 
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                56,161,440 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                    36,806,561 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  56,161,440 
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              11,907,740
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 10,952,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 329,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,254,984
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  955,418
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              955,418 
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     955,418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       2.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       2.82
        


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALEXANDER LEO BROWN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 1457

[ November 1 4 , 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Ernest A. Kollra, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No. 10

- 5094CF10A

.

Alexander Leo Brown, Bonifay, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine

Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirm ed.

T

AYLOR

, M AY and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 73.1400 Transmission system monitoring and control. The licensee of an AM, FM, TV or Class A TV station is responsible for assuring that at all times the station operates within tolerances specified by applicable technical rules contained in this part and in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. Any method of complying with applicable tolerances is permissible. The following are typical methods of transmission system operation: ( a ) *Attended operation.* ( 1 ) Attended operation consists of ongoing supervision of the transmission facilities by a station employee or other person designated by the licensee. Such supervision may be accomplished by either: ( i ) Direct supervision and control of transmission system parameters by a person at the transmitter site; or
( ii ) Remote control of the transmission system by a person at a studio or other location. The remote control system must provide sufficient transmission system monitoring and control capability so as to ensure compliance with § 73.1350.
( 2 ) A station may also be monitored and controlled by an automatic transmission system (ATS) that is configured to contact a person designated by the licensee in the event of a technical malfunction. An automatic transmission system consists of monitoring devices, control and alarm circuitry, arranged so that they interact automatically to operate the station's transmitter and maintain technical parameters within licensed values.
( 3 ) A hybrid system containing some remote control and some ATS features is also permissible.
( 4 ) In the case of remote control or ATS operation, not every station parameter need be monitored or controlled if the licensee has good reason to believe that its stability is so great that its monitoring and control are unnecessary.
( b ) *Unattended operation.* Unattended operation is either the absence of human supervision or the substitution of automated supervision of a station's transmission system for human supervision. In the former case, equipment is employed which is expected to operate within assigned tolerances for extended periods of time. The latter consists of the use of a self-monitoring or ATS-monitored and controlled transmission system that, in lieu of contacting a person designated by the licensee, automatically takes the station off the air within three hours of any technical malfunction which is capable of causing interference.
[60 FR 55481, Nov. 1, 1995, as amended at 65 FR 30003, May 10, 2000; 82 FR 57882, Dec. 8, 2017]
Chief Information Officer Leadership Development Program

Important Dates (maybe subject to change)

January 2024

First Day of Program January 17, 2024

Day in the Woods January 18, 2024

Administrative Day January 19, 2024

CIO 2.0 roles and responsibilities January 22-29, 2024

February 2024

Reading and Writing Day February 1-2, 2024

Strategic Performance and Budget Management February 5-12, 2024

Reading and Writing Day February 15-16, 2024

President’s Day February 19, 2024

Reading and Writing Day February 22-23, 2024

Cybersecurity Fundamentals February 26-Mar 4, 2024

March 2024

Reading and Writing Day March 5, 2024

DISA Trip March 7, 2024

Reading and Writing Day March 8, 2024

Emerging and Disruptive Technologies March 11-20, 2024

New York Trip March 18-20, 2024

Reading and Writing Day March 21-22, 2024

Strategic Information Technology Acquisition March 25-April 1, 2024

April 2024

Gettysburg Trip April 4, 2024

Verizon trip April 9, 2024

Reading and Writing Days April 11-12, 2024

Domestic Field Study Practicum April 15-19, 2024

Program Out brief April 24, 2024

Program out-processing April 25, 2024

Program Graduation April 26, 2024

Key

Program Courses

Travel

Reading and Writing Days

Holidays
# Academic Partner JMU Hosts Cyber Events April 20 & 24

/ Published April 7, 2015
JMU Town Hall info April 2015.pdfJMU Town Hall info April 2015.pdf
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LEROY JOHNSON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3792

[February 15, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Edward H. Merrigan

, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No. 09

- 7528 CF10A

.

Leroy Johnson, Perry, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

T

AYLOR

, F ORST and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 11-9345.

#### Woodson *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 32.6535 Engineering expense. ( a ) This account shall include costs incurred in the general engineering of the telecommunications plant which are not directly chargeable to an undertaking or project. This includes developing input to the fundamental planning process, performing preliminary work or advance planning in connection with potential undertakings, and performing special studies of an engineering nature.
( b ) Credits shall be made to this account for amounts transferred to construction accounts. These amounts shall be computed on the basis of direct labor hours. (See § 32.2000(c)(2)(ii) of subpart C.)
§ 302-3.509 What policies must we follow when appointing an employee to an overseas assignment? When appointing an employee to an overseas assignment, you must: ( a ) Establish the employee's actual place of residence at the time of appointment and state it in the service agreement;
( b ) Use guidance in 8 U.S.C. 1101(33) which states that “The term *residence* means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent”, for establishing places of residence; and
( c ) Require the employee to sign the service agreement prior to the employee's relocation.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12254, Feb. 16, 2024]
No. 11-5183.

#### McConnel *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.