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


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Brigham Exploration Company
(the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, 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:  November 9, 2004                     /s/ EUGENE B. SHEPHERD, JR.
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr.
                                             Executive Vice President and
                                             Chief Financial Officer

     This certification shall not be deemed to be "filed" for the purpose of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be
incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as
being incorporated therein by reference.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided Brigham Exploration
Company and will be retained by Brigham Exploration Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
#### AMERICAN GROCERY COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. THE DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Submitted May 12, 1933

Decided October 3, 1933.

Before Justices Paekee, Lloyd and Peeskie.

For the appellant, *Frederick B. Scott.*

For the respondent, *Reuben P. Goldstein.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from a judgment obtained against it in the District Court of Hudson county. The action was for the alleged negligence of the defendant railroad company in attempting to get the plaintiff’s truck on a ferry boat at Christopher street, Jersey City.

The ground of appeal is that there was no proof of negligence, and particularly under the state of demand filed in the ease, and that the court should either have entered a nonsuit or directed a verdict for the defendant at the trial of the case.

The state of demand is not printed in the state of the case, but the appellant adds what it claims is a copy at the end of its brief. We cannot sanction this unauthorized and unwarranted method of attempting to get a part of a record before us. The state of the case properly certified is alone the record that can be used on the appeal.

Disregarding this attempted interpolation and assuming that the proofs were in conformity with the pleadings, we *821think there was evidence of negligence in what the defendant did with respect to the assistance given to get the plaintiff’s truck on the boat. The facts developed were that the plaintiff’s driver was attempting to get his truck on the ferry boat. The tide was high and the truck, as is not uncommon perhaps, was unable to make the grade. The railroad company operated the ferry, and with probably a three-fold motive — to get a fare, to assist plaintiff to get his truck upon the boat, and to remove an obstruction from its slip — called upon the chauffeur of another truck for help, and the latter hitched his truck to the front of plaintiff’s truck and attempted to pull it on the boat. The proofs tending to show negligence were that this truck in some stage of the effort, having started, stopped suddenly without warning causing' a collision with the plaintiff’s moving truck, damaging it to the extent of $250, which amount was conceded.

In this we think there was proof from which negligence could be inferred, and the chauffeur of the assisting truck being the agent of the appellant, it was responsible for his act.

The respondent contends that in any event the appellant is not entitled to have its appeal considered because no exception was taken to the ruling on the motions that the court control the case by nonsuit or direction, but this is not so. The case was tried by the judge without a jury and chapter 62 of the laws of 1916 (page 109) provides that “any error made by the court in giving final judgment in the cause shall be subject to change, modification or reversal without the grounds of objection having been specifically submitted to the court.” As, however, we have reached the conclusion that negligence was adequately proved, it is unnecessary to further consider this point.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23
                                                                    ----------


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                         -----------------------------
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
2-89564, No. 33-34998, No. 33-48864, No. 33-45073, No. 33-58952, No. 33-65385
and No. 33-65387 and No. 33-55660 of CML Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries each
on Form S-8, and Registration Statements No. 33-40936, No. 33-40224, No.
33-58054 and 333-01629 of CML Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries each on Form S-3,
of our report dated September 25, 1996 appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of CML Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries for the year ended July 31, 1996.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
October 29, 1996


                                       49
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman

Buddy Garcia, Commissioner

Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner

Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Protecting Texas by Reducing andPreventing Pollution

June 24, 2011

Mr. Lawrence StarfieId

Regional Administrator

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

RE: Implementation ofS. B. 12 (2007)

Dear Mr. Starfield:

I am writing in response to your May 19, 2011 letter regarding implementation of S.B. 12 (2007)

as it relates to the Texas Title V permitting program.

You have requested that Texas provide a supplemental Attorney General statement and other

information demonstrating the state possesses adequate authority to meet the enforcement

requirements of the Title V program as stated in 40 C.F.R. Part 70. TCEQ staff is working with

our Attorney General's office to respond to your request. My compliance and enforcement, air

permits, and legal services offices are also preparing information in response to the May 19

letter's request.

While my staff and the Attorney General's office are working diligently to provide the

supplementation statement and information you have requested, it is not possible to submit this

to you by July 1,2011. We will make every effort to provide the information you have requested

in as timely a manner as possible.

I have asked my legal staff to keep your office appraised of our progress. Ifyou or your staff has

any questions, please contact Terry Salem at (512) 239-0469 or John Minter at (512) 239-0663.

Sincerely,

Mark R. Vickery, P.G.

Executive Director

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512-239-1000 Internet address: wwvv.tceq.state.tx.us
From: Jennifer Holladay Tarrant [mailto:jdyanholladay@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:21 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: comment

Keep your hands off of my money! I am perfectly capable of making my own 

investment choices. Why would I trust the government to handle my retirement 

money when they can't even handle the plan they have set up now, i.e. Social 

Security?? I have investments precisely because I don't expect Social Security to be 

around when I retire! 

 

Jennifer Tarrant 

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
From: Ryan Kennedy

To: E-OHPSCA1251.EBSA

Subject: Comments on interim rules on grandfathering

Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:28:58 PM

I believe that the restriction on prohibiting changing carriers without losing grandfathering misses

the intent of the regulations. ERISA has always defined a plan by the plan sponsor not the carrier.

More importantly it gives carriers far too much power to manipulate the system with undue

increases and then the plan sponsors essentially have no options. I would ask that you drop that

from the criteria and focus on maintaining the same levels of benefits instead.

The other item that I think needs to be seriously examined is the method of calculating trend.

There are numerous trend surveys and actuarial reports that show actual trend to be much higher

than the 4% calculated for this year. I would encourage you to use an average of certain credible

studies instead of the proposed method.

Ryan Kennedy

Liberty Benefit

5446 Thornwood Dr

San Jose CA 95123

408-360-0307 Direct

408-360-0302 Fax
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 57978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18186]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure 
(Fall 2023) (#25150) (Hybrid Meeting).
    Date and Time: September 21, 2023 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (Eastern), 
September 22, 2023 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (Eastern).
    Place: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (Hybrid).
    The final meeting agenda and instructions to register and attend 
the meeting will be posted on the ACCI website: https://www.nsf.gov/cise/oac/advisory.jsp.
    Please contact Rediet Woldeselassie at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#addfdac2c1c9c8dec8edc3decb83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a787d65666e6f796f4a64796c246d657c">[email protected]</span></a> to obtain a 
visitor badge. All visitors to the NSF will be required to show photo 
ID to obtain a badge.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Persons: Walton, Amy, National Science Foundation, 2415 
Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-4538.
    Minutes: May be obtained from Christine Christy, National Science 
Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: 
(783) 878-0375 and will be posted within 90-days after the meeting end 
date to the ACCI website: https://www.nsf.gov/cise/oac/advisory.jsp.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel 
on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering programs and 
activities.
    Agenda: Updates on OAC wide NSF activities.

    Dated: August 18, 2023.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-18186 Filed 8-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, we the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively of Communications Systems, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify:  (1) That the accompanying Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (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/ Jeffrey K. BergDate: November 11, 2010
     
     Jeffrey K. Berg
President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ David T. McGrawDate: November 11, 2010
     
     David T. McGraw
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
       7


---
Year

Out of 

Season

# occurrences of 

8-hour averages 

at or above 

0.060 ppm Date

Daily Maximum 

8-hr average 

Ozone 

Concentration 

(ppm) County Site ID

before 

April 0 - - - -

after 

October 0 - - - -

before 

April 1 03/25 0.060 Sumner 201910002

after 

October 0 - - - -

03/17 0.061 Leavenworth 201030003

03/17 0.063 Linn 201070002

03/21 0.060 Shawnee 201770013

03/22 0.060 Johnson 200910010

03/22 0.062 Linn 201070002

03/22 0.060 Shawnee 201770013

03/29 0.061 Trego 201950001

after 

October 0 - - - -

03/31 0.060 Johnson 200910010

03/31 0.061 Shawnee 201770013

after 

October 0 - - - -

7

2

2007

2008

2009

2010

before 

April

before 

April
Responsible Agency Code and 

Name Land Use Location Monitor Type

- - - -

- - - -

(0563) Kansas Department Of 

Health And Environment RESIDENTIAL RURAL OTHER

- - - -

(0563) Kansas Department Of 

Health And Environment RESIDENTIAL

URBAN AND CENTER 

CITY SLAMS

(0563) Kansas Department Of 

Health And Environment AGRICULTURAL RURAL OTHER

(0563) Kansas Department Of 

Health And Environment RESIDENTIAL

URBAN AND CENTER 

CITY

SPECIAL 

PURPOSE

(0563) Kansas Department Of 

Health And Environment COMMERCIAL SUBURBAN SLAMS

(0563) Kansas Department Of 

Health And Environment AGRICULTURAL RURAL OTHER

(0563) Kansas Department Of 

Health And Environment RESIDENTIAL

URBAN AND CENTER 

CITY

SPECIAL 

PURPOSE

(0563) Kansas Department Of 

Health And Environment AGRICULTURAL RURAL OTHER

- - - -

(0563) Kansas Department Of 

Health And Environment COMMERCIAL SUBURBAN SLAMS

(0563) Kansas Department Of 

Health And Environment RESIDENTIAL

URBAN AND CENTER 

CITY

SPECIAL 

PURPOSE

- - - -
Monitoring Objective

Elevation 

(m)

- -

- -

REGIONAL 

TRANSPORT 383

- -

POPULATION 

EXPOSURE 292

REGIONAL 

TRANSPORT 259

POPULATION 

EXPOSURE 280

POPULATION 

EXPOSURE 324.2

REGIONAL 

TRANSPORT 259

POPULATION 

EXPOSURE 280

GENERAL/BACKGR

OUND 670

- -

POPULATION 

EXPOSURE 324.2

POPULATION 

EXPOSURE 280

- -
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Parent) (Delaware)Cooper International Holding Corporation (Delaware)Cooper International Rubber, Limited (Jamaica) (Inactive)Cooper Tire & Rubber Company de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (Mexico) (50% owned)Corporación de Occidente SA de CV (16.8% owned  also below indirect ownership for a total of 37.5% )Inversionistas del Bajío SA de CV (Mexico) (50% owned)Corporación de Occidente SA de CV (41.6% owned)Cooper Receivables LLC (Delaware)Cooper Tire Holding Company (Ohio)Cooper Tire Holding B.V. (The Netherlands)Cooper Tire International Trading Company (Cayman Islands)Branch Office (Singapore)Cooper Tire & Rubber International Trading Limited (Cayman Islands)Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Barbados) Ltd. (Barbados)Cooper Tire Asia-Pacific (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. (PRC)Cooper Tire Asia-Pacific Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (PRC)Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. Shanghai Rep Office (PRC  Branch)Cooper Tire & Rubber Foundation (Ohio)Cooper Tire & Vehicle Test Center Inc. (Texas)Cooper Tyre & Rubber Company UK Limited (England)Cooper Tire & Rubber Company Deutschland GmbH (Germany)Cooper Tire & Rubber Company Espana S.L. (Spain)Cooper Tire & Rubber Company Europe Limited (England)Cooper Tire & Rubber Company International Development Limited (England)Cooper Tire & Rubber Company France Sarl (France)Cooper Tire & Rubber Company Italia S.r.l. (Italy)Cooper Tire & Rubber Company Suisse SA (Switzerland)CTB (Barbados) Investment Co. Ltd. (Barbados)Cooper Kenda Global Holding Co. Ltd. (Barbados) (50% owned)Cooper Kenda Tire (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (PRC)Cooper Kenda Global Holding Investment Co. Ltd. (Barbados) (80% owned)Cooper Tire Investment Holding (Barbados) Ltd. (Barbados)Cooper Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Company Ltd. (PRC) (51% owned)CTBX Company (Ohio)CTTG Inc. (Ohio)Elemica, Inc. (2.031% owned)Ilpea Equity, LLC (0.6264% owned)Master Assurance & Indemnity Ltd (Bermuda)Max-Trac Tire Co., Inc. (Ohio)Mickey Thompson Performance Racing Inc. (Ohio)Mickey Thompson International, Inc. (Virgin Islands) (Inactive)
 - 1 -
From: Brian Dunn [mailto:bdunn@bdunn.org] 

Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 8:10 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

To whom it may concern:

I understand that the Department of Labor (DoL) is considering barring options in IRAs as part of the 

"Conflict of Interest" Proposal.

I must personally urge you not to do so.

Options provide a means to generate and protect wealth. By taking this tool away from those saving 

for retirement, the DoL will by perpetuate a system that keeps rich people rich and poor people poor.

My goal is to retire at 59 1/2. I did not start with any inheritance or large gifts or lottery winnings. I 

started with $0, but I have saved since my first job out of college, and I have used options to 

generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in my retirement account.

I have also used options to protect my positions when there was bad news about a company whose 

stock I owned, saving me thousands of dollars of losses.

In addition, I plan to use options to generate income in my retirement.

Options are not an inherent danger to a retirement portfolio. They are a tool to be used to increase 

and protect a retirement portfolio.

So please reconsider barring options in IRA accounts.

With respect,

Brian Dunn
EXHIBIT
23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-105180, No.
33-51990, No. 333-44333, No. 33-62087, No. 33-57060, No. 33-20880, and No.
33-34619 on Form S-8 of our report dated September 14, 2009, (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, Accounting
for Uncertainty in Income Taxes  an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,on
July 1, 2007), relating to the financial statements of Zygo Corporation
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zygo Corporation for the year
ended June 30, 2009.

/s/ Deloitte
& Touche LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
September 14, 2009

---
IV

House Calendar No. 142

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 388

[Report No. 107–411]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 476) to amend title 18, United

States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention

of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 16, 2002

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 476) to amend

title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors

across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring

the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 476) to

4 amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking mi5 nors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring

6 the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. The bill
2

HRES 388 RH

1 shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous

2 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final

3 passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours

4 of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the

5 chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

6 on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

House Calendar No. 142

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 388

[Report No. 107–411]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 476)

to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement ofparents in abortion decisions.

APRIL 16, 2002

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### ELIZABETH BRANDSTEIN AND HARRY BRANDSTEIN, HER HUSBAND, RESPONDENTS, v. THE IRONBOUND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Submitted May term, 1933

Decided October 3, 1933.

*844Before Justices Parker, Lloyd a,nd Perskie.

For the appellant, *Maurice J. McKeown*and *Milton Bruch.*

For the respondents, *Elias G. Willman.*

Per Curiam.

The appeal in this case is by the defendant from a judgment of the First District Court of Newark in favor of'the plaintiffs.

The single ground of appeal is that the court refused to permit a question asked by defendant’s counsel of the plaintiff Elizabeth Brandstein, the question being: “And did you receive compensation from the Public Service as a result of the accident?”

The plaintiff had been a passenger in a Public Service Coordinated Transport bus and was injured by a collision between the bus in which she was riding and a bus of the defendant company. At the trial the defendant sought to show that the plaintiff, in consideration of the payment of a certain sum of money, had signed an agreement not to sue the Public Service Company, claiming that it was entitled to show this payment in mitigation of damages against the present appellant. Cases throughout the country and in the federal courts are cited to show that while a covenant not to sue is not a release of one tort feasor absolving other tort feasors, any payment made under such an agreement is admissible in mitigation of the plaintiff’s claim against other defendants.

The difficulty is that in the case of *Fast*v. *Pecan,*11 *N. J. Mis. R. 258;*165 *Atl. Rep.*281, this court decided exactly to the contrary and held that subtsantially the same question here presented was properly overruled. That ruling is by a co-ordinate branch of this court and cannot be disregarded here.

The judgment is affirmed, with cost.