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 on Form 10-K of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James T. Riffe, Executive Vice President and Cashier 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

/s/ James T. Riffe

James T. Riffe

Executive Vice President and Cashier

April 1, 2008
§ 52.01-50 Fusible plugs (modifies A-19 through A-21). ( a ) Fusible plugs must comply with the requirements of A19 and A20 of Section I of the ASME BPVC (incorporated by reference; see § 52.01-1) and be stamped on the casing with the name of the manufacturer, and on the water end of the fusible metal “ASME Std.” Fusible plugs are not permitted where the maximum steam temperature to which they are exposed exceeds 218 °C (425 °F).
( b ) ( 1 ) Fusible plugs must be cleaned and will be examined by the marine inspector at each inspection for certification, periodic inspection, or if the boiler is opened for repair or inspection. If in the marine inspector's opinion, the condition of any plug is satisfactory, it may be continued in use.
( 2 ) When fusible plugs are renewed at other than the inspection for certification and no marine inspector is in attendance, the Chief Engineer must report the renewal to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. This report must contain the following information: ( i ) Name and official number of vessel.
( ii ) Date of renewal of fusible plugs.
( iii ) Number and location of fusible plugs renewed in each boiler.
( iv ) Manufacturer and rating of each plug.
( v ) Reason for renewal.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18815, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 81-79, 50 FR 9432, Mar. 8, 1985; USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6500, Feb. 9, 2000; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65160, Oct. 31, 2008]
#### Rowell *v.*B. & M. Railroad. Burleigh *v.*Ford. Daniels *v.*Lebanon.

The act of August 17, 1878 *(a.*64, Laws of 1878), “relating to review and new trials,” does not take away the right of review in actions pending when the statute went into effect, nor in actions in which judgment had heen rendered and the limitation of time for review had not expired at the time of the passage of the act.

Review. In the first action, in Rockingham, there was a verdict for the plaintiff at the April term, 1878, on which judgment was rendered at the April term, 1879, and thereupon the defendants moved to bring forward the action for review.

*A. R.*Hatch, for the defendants.

*Marston*and Frink, for the plaintiff.

In the second action, in Belknap, the plaintiff recovered judgment at the March term, 1878. The defendant sued out a writ of review August 28, 187 8. The plaintiff moved to dismiss, on the ground that the action of review was abolished by c. 64, Laws of 1878. Motion granted, and the defendant excepted.

*Whipple,*for the defendant.

*Hibbard,*for the plaintiff.

In the third action, in Sullivan, the plaintiff recovered judgment at the September term, 1878. The action was brought forward by the defendants for review at the same term, and the plaintiff moved to dismiss.

*Spring*and *Shirley,*for the plaintiff.

*Dole*and *Barton,*for the defendants.

Clark, J.

While the first and third actions were pending, and after trials and verdicts had been had, and after judgment had been rendered in the second action, that portion of Gen. St., *c.*215, granting a review as matter of right, was repealed by the act of August 17,1878 *(c.*64, Laws of 1878); and the question presented is, whether the defendants have the right to review these actions. *36There is nothing in the language of the repealing act making it applicable to pending causes. Gen. St., *c.*1, s. 34 (G. L., *c.*1, *s.*33), provides that “the repeal of any act shall in no case affect any act done, or any right accruing, accrued, acquired, or established, or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil case, before the time when said repeal shall take effect.” The question is settled in *Dickinson*v. Lovell, 36 N. H. 364. Upon the authority of that case, the act of August 17, 1878, does not take away the right of review in actions pending when the statute went into effect; and for the same reason we think it does not take away the right of review in actions in which judgment had been rendered and the limitation of time for review had not expired at the time of the passage of the act. *Pickering*v. *Pickering,*19 N. H. 389; *Woart*v. *Winnick,*3 N. H. 473; *Colony*v. *Dublin,*32 N. H. 432; *Railroad*v. *Cilley,*44 N. H. 578.

*Motion in first action granted.*

*Exceptions in second action sustained.*

*Motion in third action denied.*

Dob, C. J., doubted; Foster and Bingham, JJ., dissented; the others concurred.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending October 7, 2006

|Filer                     | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                              
|------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIFTH THIRD BANK          | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Cincinnati, OH intends to establish a branch at 4653 Tuscarawas Street West, Perry Township, OH.                                                 | Newspaper:10/14/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                | 10/14/2006    
|Federal Register:         | Not applicable
|PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION | * 3A3          | Application by Park National Corporation, Newark, OH to acquire Anderson Bank Company, Cincinnati, OH pursuant to Section 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:10/26/2006 
|Newspaper:                | Not available 
|Federal Register:         | 10/26/2006    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### The State ex rel. Karl, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Karl v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 111.]

(No. 98-555

Submitted October 12, 1998

Decided December 9, 1998.)

*112
      *M. Blake Stone,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Steven K. Aronoff,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellees Industrial Commission and Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

*Rademaker, Matty, McClelland & Greve*and *Lynn G. Murphy,*for appellee D-A Lubricant Co., Inc.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-MC-50571

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

CARL LESLEY,

Defendant,

and

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Garnishee.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST

FOR HEARING AND CLAIM FOR EXEMPTIONS

This is a miscellaneous matter in which the government has filed an

application for writ of continuing garnishment. Defendant Carl Lesley was

convicted of theft of government money on March 31, 2015. The court sentenced

him to serve 33 months in prison and to pay $126,834 in restitution. 

The government is attempting to collect Defendant’s restitution obligation

pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3201, et seq.

5:15-mc-50571-JCO Doc # 6 Filed 10/13/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 29
The government has served a writ of continuing garnishment on the Michigan

Department of Treasury for any income tax refunds due to Defendant. Defendant

has filed a request for hearing and claim for exemptions. 

Under the circumstances presented here, the issues to be considered at a

hearing are limited by §3202(d) to (1) the probable validity of any claim of

exemption, or (2) the government’s compliance with statutory requirements. 28

U.S.C. § 3202(d). Defendant does not argue that the government failed to comply

with statutory requirements. Further, his asserted exemptions (wearing apparel,

personal effects, books, unemployment benefits, mail, pension payments,

workmen’s compensation, child support, etc.) do not include or encompass income

tax refunds. Defendant’s claim for exemptions is not valid on its face. 

Defendant has not presented a legal basis to object to the garnishment

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d). Accordingly, a hearing is not required. See

United States v. Miller, 588 F. Supp.2d 789, 797 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (“courts have

denied a hearing where the debtor did not object based on one of the issues

specified in 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d), where the objection is plainly without merit, or

where the objection was simply a matter of statutory interpretation”).

-2-

5:15-mc-50571-JCO Doc # 6 Filed 10/13/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 30
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s request for hearing about the

garnishment and claim for exemptions is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: October 13, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the

parties of record on this date, October 13, 2015, using the ECF system and/or

ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-3-

5:15-mc-50571-JCO Doc # 6 Filed 10/13/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 31
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/
    
    Stephen L. Day
    
    /s/
    
    Michael W. BrunsStephen L. Day
    
    Michael W. BrunsPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director
    
    Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)Date: August 13, 2010
    
    Date: August 13, 2010
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending July 12, 2008

|Filer             | Filing Type        | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                                  
|----------------- | ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|CSB BANCORP, INC. | * 18C* 4c8* Branch | CSB Bancorp, Inc., Millersburg, Ohio, to acquire Indian Village Bancorp, Inc.and its thrift subsidiary, Indian Village Community Bank, both of Gnadenhutten, Ohio | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available  
|Newspaper:        | Not available     
|Federal Register: | Not available     
|MADISON BANK      | Member             | Application by Madison Bank, Richmond, KY, to become a member of the Federal Reserve System                                                                       | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not applicable    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
----

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Annual Reportof Golden Elephant Glass Technology, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Hong Tan, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to her knowledge: 

(1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

December 22, 2010

/S/ HongTan                                                                 **Hong Tan Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)**

[A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Golden Elephant Glass Technology, Inc. and willbe retained by Golden Elephant Glass Technology, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.] 

----
#### § 502.311 Applicability.

In the event the respondent elects not to consent to determination of the claim under subpart S of this part, it shall be adjudicated by the administrative law judges of the Commission under procedures set forth in this subpart, if timely filed under § 502.302. The previously assigned Docket Number shall be used except that it shall now be followed by capital “F” instead of “I” in parentheses (See § 502.304(c)). The complaint shall consist of the documents submitted by the claimant under subpart S of this part. [Rule 311.]
98-2116.

#### State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Prohibition. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<NAME> AMERICAN MEDICAL ALERT CORP
<CIK>  0000700721
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         476,460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,751,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,209,787
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,715,013
<PP&E>                                       4,150,311
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,093,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          523,962
<BONDS>                                        262,156
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,668
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,026,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,093,779
<SALES>                                        314,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,045,020
<CGS>                                          250,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,166,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                878,260
<INCOME-TAX>                                   389,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   489,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
#### § 502.26 Attorneys at law.

Attorneys at law who are admitted to practice before the Federal courts or before the courts of any State or Territory of the United States may practice before the Commission. An attorney practicing before the Commission is expected to conform to the standards of conduct set forth in the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct in addition to the specific requirements of this chapter. [Rule 26.]

[64 FR 7807, Feb. 17, 1999, as amended at 78 FR 45069, July 26, 2013]
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2506 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2506

 To direct the Secretary of Defense to ensure the members of the Armed 
     Forces receive mandatory hearing screenings before and after 
deployments and to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to mandate 
 that tinnitus be listed as a mandatory condition for treatment by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs Auditory Centers of Excellence and that 
    research on the preventing, treating, and curing of tinnitus be 
                               conducted.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2009

  Mr. Teague introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Defense to ensure the members of the Armed 
     Forces receive mandatory hearing screenings before and after 
deployments and to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to mandate 
 that tinnitus be listed as a mandatory condition for treatment by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs Auditory Centers of Excellence and that 
    research on the preventing, treating, and curing of tinnitus be 
                               conducted.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Hearing and Assessment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that tinnitus is one of the leading 
service-connected disability issues that is not being addressed.

SEC. 3. MANDATORY HEARING EVALUATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

    The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that each member of the Armed 
Forces receives a hearing evaluation that includes a screening for 
tinnitus before the member is deployed and after the member returns 
from a deployment.

SEC. 4. RESEARCH AND TREATMENT OF TINNITUS BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    (a) Recognition.--The Secretary of Veterans affairs shall recognize 
tinnitus as a mandatory condition for research and treatment by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs Auditory Centers of Excellence.
    (b) Research.--The Secretary for Veterans Affairs shall ensure that 
research is conducted at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities on 
the prevention, treatment, and curing of tinnitus.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM PCD INC.'S 1997 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,990
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                       205
<INVENTORY>                                      4,796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,725
<PP&E>                                          20,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,357
<BONDS>                                         88,203
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,592
<SALES>                                         29,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,796
<CGS>                                           15,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,816
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,802)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,836)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,836)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.83)
        


</TABLE>