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

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

I, Robert S. Kergan, Chief Financial Officer, of Winmax Trading Group, Inc.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as enacted by ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,
            2005 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully
            complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
            Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   Information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of Winmax Trading Group, Inc.


Dated: Aug 12, 2005

                                                /s/ Robert S. Kergan
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Robert S. Kergan
                                                Chief Financial Officer


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 to Winmax Trading Group, Inc. and
will be retained by Winmax Trading Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Jodirodda@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:48:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jody Rodda

Mount Juliet, TN 37122
#### Joseph F. Mackey, Appellant, *v.*The Royal Bank of New York, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

March, 1912.)

Banking — Individual and private banks — Eight to do banking business and illegal banking — Usury.

The plaintiff, in an action against a private banker to recover a penalty for a- violation of section 74 of the Banking Lawj is entitled to recover twice the amount of all the usurious interest he had paid within the two years next preceding the commencement of the action, and it is error to dismiss a complaint which, as one cause of action, alleges twenty-one separate and distinct violations within the statutory period, on the ground that the action was for cumulative penalties.

Appeal-by the plaintiff from a judgment dismissing the complaint after a trial in the Municipal Court of the city of Yew York, borough of Manhattan, eighth district.

Thomas A. McGrath,, for appellant.

L. E. Warren (J. M. Grossman, of counsel), for respondent.

*631Guy, J.

This action was brought to recover penalties from the 'defendant, a private banker, under section 74, chapter 10, Laws of 1909, being chapter 2 of the Consolidated Laws. The complaint alleged as one cause of action twenty-one separate and distinct violations of’ the act and asked judgment for twice the amount of illegal interest paid, aggregating $157.50.

The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was “ an action for cumulative penalties.”

Section 74 of the Banking Law provides that its true intent and meaning is to place and continue State banks and private bankers on an equality with national banks. In an action against a national bank to recover usurious interest *“*the party entitled to maintain the action is entitled to recover twice the amount he had paid for usury within two years prior to the commencement of the action, whether the amount was paid in one or several payments.” Hintermister v. First Nat. Bank, 64 N. Y. 213, 214-217; Farmers’ Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 36; Schlesinger v. Gilhooly, 189 N. Y. 9-11. Under the very terms of the statute the plaintiff was entitled to recover twice the amount of all the .usurious interest he had paid within two years.

Cumulative recoveries of penalties are sometimes allowable. People v. Spencer, 201 N. Y. 105, 109; Grover v. Morris, 73 id. 473; Suydham v. Smith, 52 id. 383, 389; People v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 13 id. 78, 82.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to ábide.the event.

Seabuey and Bijuk, JL, concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
From: Beth Johnson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:59:35 PM

Dear HHS,

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking

you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for "religious employers." These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better

access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that "religious refusal" exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste

for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make

exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they

work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM's recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal

exemption provisions.

Sincerely,

Beth Johnson
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 D0 02 2 . HAROLD MARTY v . J ULI E MARTY.

On M ay 1 6

, 20 1 6

, th e s u p eri o r co u rt en t ered a fi n al ju d g m en t an d d ecree o f

d i v o rce i n t h i s cas e. Haro l d M art y (“ Hu s b an d ”) fi l ed a m o t i on fo r n ew t ri al , wh i ch

t h e s u p eri o r co u rt d en i ed b y o rd er en t ered o n J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 1 7 . On J u l y 2 5

, 2 0 1 7 , t h e

Cl erk of Co u rt recei v ed t h i s ap p l i ca t i o n fo r d i s cret i on ary ap p eal by p ri o ri t y U. S.

m ai l

. W h en a p ro s e p art y m ak es a fi l i ng w i t h t h i s co u rt b y Un i t ed St at es m ai l

, t h e

d o cu m en t i s d eem ed fi l ed as t h e d at e s h o wn b y t h e o ffi ci al p o s t m ark affi x ed b y t h e

Un i ted St at es Po s t al Serv i ce. Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 4 (c). In t h i s c a s e

, t h e o ffi ci al

p o s t m ark i s i ll eg i b le, b u t i t ap pears fro m t h e Un i ted St at es Po s t al Serv i c e ’s o n -l i n e

t rack i n g s y s t em t h at t h e d ocu m en t was d ep o s i t ed wi t h t h e Po s t al Serv i ce o n J u l y 2 2,

2 0 1 7

.

A d i s cret i o n ary ap p li cat i o n m u s t be fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry o f t h e

ju d g m en t s o u g h t t o b e ap p eal ed

. O CGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ). Th e req u i rem en t s o f OCGA

§ 5 -6 -3 5 are ju ri s d i ct i o n al

, an d t h i s Co u rt can n o t accep t an ap p l i cat i o n fo r ap p eal n ot

m ad e i n co m

p l i an ce t h erewi t h

. Bo

yl e v. S t a t e

, 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4

, 7 3 4 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 )

(1 9 8 9); see al s o In t h e In t er es t o f B. R. F.

, 33 8 Ga. Ap p. 7 6 2

, 7 6 2 ( 79 1 SE2 d 8 5 9 )

(2 0 1 6) (fi l i n g d ead l i n e fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o ns “ i s j u ri s d i ct i o nal

, an d th i s co u rt

i s un ab l e t o accep t an u n ti m el y ap p l i cat i o n ”). Becau se i t ap p ears t h at Hu s b an d fi l ed

t h i s ap p l i cat i o n 3 1 day s aft er en t ry o f th e ju d g m en t h e s eek s t o ap p eal

, i t i s un t i m el y

, August 21, 2017a n d w e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n s i d er i t. 1 Acco rd i n g l y

, t h i s ap p l i cat i o n i s h ere b y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

.

1 If Hu s b a n d c an sh o w th at t h e Un i t ed St at es Po s t al Serv i ce p o s t m ark was

act u a l l y J u l y 2 1

, 2 0 1 7, H u sb an d m ay t i m el y fi l e a m o t i o n fo r reco n s i d erat i o n fro m

t h i s o rd er. 08/21/2017
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.07 MB)
 
 USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) DDG 53 Royal Bahrain Naval Force ship Al Manama (P 50)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.7 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 15

- 00035

- CV

BRIDGET BROWN PARSON, Appellant

V.
LAKEWIND , LLC, RANDALL BAGGS, OWNER, ET AL., AND CHINN EXPLORATION, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 123rd District Court Panola County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009

- 396

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Previously, on October 4, 2011, the trial court had dismissed Bridget Brown Parson’s lawsuit due to her failure to prosecute the case. Over two and one

- half years later, the trial court entered a May 21, 2015, order setting the case for trial and, subsequently, a June 4, 2015, order striking that trial setting. Parson seeks to appeal from the June 4 order granting Lakewind, LLC’s “Motion to Strike Order Setting Trial.” By letter of August 13, 2015, we notified Parson that it appeared we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because the order appealed from was void, as it was signed well after the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction had expired. We afforded Parson ten days to demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of the appeal. Having received no response as of September 8, 2015, we sua sponte consider our jurisdiction over the appeal. “A trial court retains plenary power over its judgment until that judgment becomes final.” In re Sheppard , 19 3 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tex. App.

— Housto n [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (citing Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo , 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993)). “It is well

- settled that an order signed after the trial court’s plenary power has expired is void.” Id. The order of October 4, 2011, dismissing P arson’s lawsuit was a final, appealable order from which Parson could have perfected an appeal, though the time for filing a direct appeal from that dismissal expired long ago. When that dismissal became final thirty days after it was signed, the trial co urt’s plenary power expired. Consequently, any orders entered by the trial court after that time, including the May 21, 2015, order setting the case for trial and the June 4, 2015, order striking the trial setting, were void.3

Our jurisdiction, as an appe llate court, is constitutional and statutory in nature. See T EX
. C ONST
. art. V, § 6; T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.220 (West Supp. 2014) . Unless we are granted specific authority over an appeal from a particular type of order, we have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). It is clear under Texas law that an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order signed after the trial court’s plenary power has expired, such as the order from which Parson attempts to appeal in this case. See State ex rel. Latty v. Owens , 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submit ted: September 15 , 2015 Date Decided: September 16 , 2015
No. 503, Misc.

#### Collins *v.*Huntington Beach Union High School District.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
No. 167, Misc.

#### Ely *v.*New York.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
From: pmorton@borton.biz

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:33:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Penn Morton

Hutchinson, KS 67501
##### 



CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
  a.
    
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and thatb.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition of the Company at September 30, 2005, and the results of the Companys
operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005.
  /S/ BRUCE R. KNOOIHUIZENBruce R. KnooihuizenExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and principal financial officer
From: ascscottie@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:44:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lark Sessions

Augusta, GA 30907