alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of REV Holdings LLC (the "Company")for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Todd J. Slotkin, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Todd J. Slotkin         Todd J. Slotkin        Chief Financial OfficerAugust 11,2005

----
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2023 / Presidential Documents 62437 

Notice of September 7, 2023 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to 

Foreign Interference in or Undermining Public Confidence in 

United States Elections 

On September 12, 2018, by Executive Order 13848, the President declared 

a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United 

States constituted by the threat of foreign interference in or undermining 

public confidence in United States elections. 

Although there has been no evidence of a foreign power altering the outcomes 

or vote tabulation in any United States election, foreign powers have historically sought to exploit America’s free and open political system. In recent 

years, the proliferation of digital devices and internet-based communications 

has created significant vulnerabilities and magnified the scope and intensity 

of the threat of foreign interference. The ability of persons located, in whole 

or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine 

public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, continues to pose an unusual and 

extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United 

States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on September 12, 

2018, must continue in effect beyond September 12, 2023. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 

1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in 

Executive Order 13848 with respect to the threat of foreign interference 

in or undermining public confidence in United States elections. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-O2
62438 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2023 / Presidential Documents 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

September 7, 2023. [FR Doc. 2023–19743 

Filed 9–8–23; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3395–F3–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-O2BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
AND 1998 AND FROM THE BALANCE SHEETS AT DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND DECEMBER 31, 1998
OF PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,296,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,600
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          37,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,017
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,325,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,198,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     31,000
<COMMON>                                        14,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     380,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,325,598
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               247,147
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  150,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,637
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,007
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,722
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,285
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,285
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
From: ron_caudill@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:49:08 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,

Ronald Caudill

Westerville, OH 43081
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          60,888
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          14,128
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                11,304
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    317,945
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          99,416
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            97,357
<LOANS>                                      1,114,734
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,068
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,719,334
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,314,073
<SHORT-TERM>                                   142,266
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             18,597
<LONG-TERM>                                    100,578
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,998
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,719,334
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 86,339
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               25,408
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   952
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               113,798
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              42,849
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,041
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           61,757
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,295
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  10
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 67,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,242
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      13,063
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,063
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.26
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,181
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,514
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 26,700
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                14,241
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    5,118
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,650
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,068
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            11,686
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,382


</TABLE>
No. 466.

#### Daniels & Kennedy, Inc., *v.*A/S Inger et al.

*Joseph M. Soviero, Harry Schecter*and *Harold Klein*for petitioner.

*Warner Pyne*and *William A. Wilson*for A/S Inger, and *J. Ward O’Neill*and *David P. H. Watson*for Illinois Atlantic Corp., respondents.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: Niechele Gambill

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:11:47 PM

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.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this very important matter it is greatly

appreciated.

Sincerely,

Niechele Gambill
Exhibit 32.2

                              Multiband Corporation
                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 this Annual Report Form 10-K,  Multiband  Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004, I, Steven M. Bell, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

1.    This Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents,  in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


Date: May 25, 2005                      By: /s/ Steven M. Bell
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995             MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           48900                   46200
<SECURITIES>                                      6500                   76300
<RECEIVABLES>                                   412300                  408800
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (11000)                 (11000)
<INVENTORY>                                     341900                  276400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                923800                  925800
<PP&E>                                         1460200                 1481300
<DEPRECIATION>                                (749700)                (764200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2723700                 2780300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           468800                  446900
<BONDS>                                         218500                  218500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        148400                  148400
<OTHER-SE>                                     1591600                 1668700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2723700                 2780300
<SALES>                                        1066100                 1695900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1103800                 1755500
<CGS>                                           731700                 1164600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   941300                 1481200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5100                    7700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               12400                   18700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 145000                  247900
<INCOME-TAX>                                     52900                   90600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              92100                  157300
<DISCONTINUED>                                   74700                  117200
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    166800                  274500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.13                    1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11                    1.83
        

</TABLE>
From: Jen Halbert

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please accept IOM"s recommendations on women"s health without a religious employer exemption

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:48:17 PM

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.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

GRACE BARRETTA-BIONDO and MARIA 

BARRETTA-AMATO,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

UNPUBLISHED

July 28, 2022

v No. 356890

Macomb Probate Court

MARGARET J. SHELLENBARGER, LC No. 2020-235429-CZ

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and O’BRIEN and HOOD, JJ.

HOOD, J. (concurring).

I concur in the analysis and legal conclusions contained in the majority opinion with one 

exception. I would not assess costs against plaintiffs’ attorney for vexatious litigation because the 

appeal has not satisfied any of the standards under MCR 7.216(C)(1). MCR 7.216(C)(1) provides:

The Court of Appeals may, on its own initiative or on the motion of any 

party filed under MCR 7.211(C)(8), assess actual and punitive damages or take 

other disciplinary action when it determines that an appeal or any of the proceedings 

in an appeal was vexatious because

(a) the appeal was taken for purposes of hindrance or delay or without any 

reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be 

determined on appeal; or

(b) a pleading, motion, argument, brief, document, record filed in the case 

or any testimony presented in the case was grossly lacking in the 

requirements of propriety, violated court rules, or grossly disregarded the 

requirements of a fair presentation of the issues to the court. 
-2-

Illuminating is this Court’s statement that it “will grant such damages only in cases of clear 

abuse of the appellate processes.” Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch v Ayvazian, 62 Mich App 

94, 103; 233 NW2d 200 (1975) (quotation marks and citations omitted).1 

Here, the majority has not precisely stated the basis for its conclusion that vexatious 

litigation sanctions are appropriate, and I do not believe that one exists. The basis for the 

costs appears to be the conclusion that res judicata precludes plaintiffs’ arguments on 

appeal related to coercion and undue influence, since the probate court previously 

determined there was no such evidence in the action admitting the wills to probate, and 

plaintiffs did not appeal that decision. Although sanctions under MCR 7.216 are 

discretionary, it cannot be the case that a conclusion that res judicata bars a claim 

automatically triggers this discretion. MCR 7.216(C)(1) appears to require more, such as 

a purpose of delay, a lack of any reasonable basis for believing the issue had merit, or 

grossly lacking in the requirements of propriety or fair presentation of the issues. See MCR 

7.216(C)(1). I do not believe any of these aggravating factors to be present. 

For these reasons, I concur in the result and dissent as it relates to award of costs 

for vexatious litigation. 

 /s/ Noah P. Hood

 

1 Although cases decided before November 1, 1990, are not binding precedent, MCR 7.215(J)(1), 

we nevertheless can consider them as persuasive authority. In re Stillwell Trust, 299 Mich App

289, 299 n 1; 829 NW 2d 353 (2012).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 14, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 14, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21A0421. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-2 v. RYAN SWERTFAGER.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion the hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
From: Carey O"Reilly

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 12:35:51 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Carey O'Reilly
Austin, Texas