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

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

                  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alkermes, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James M. Frates, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my
knowledge:

         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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                                   /s/ James M. Frates
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   James M. Frates
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   November 13, 2003
No. 66021.

#### Elmar Products Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 322199-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic camera viewers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65082, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: fordmaniac@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:05:05 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.

Inteligent, informed and educated people, with all of the latest developments in medicine and science

KNOW that life begins at conception. It is now beyond possible for anyone of even average knowledge

to believe otherwise. Decent, moral people also KNOW that it is wrong to intentionally end the life of a

fellow human being, post or preborn. You to know that, do you not?

May God have the mercy on you that you deny to others, especially those too small or too young to

defend themselves. And, may our Lord help anf guide you to once again awaken to the plight of your

fellow human beings and begin again to stand for morality, decency and the "right to life" for

EVERYONE.

Sincerely,

Tom Morofski

Oceanside, CA 92057
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6057

NORMAN D. JIMMERSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-162-3) Submitted: April 17, 2002 Decided: May 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman D. Jimmerson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Norman D. Jimmerson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Jimmerson v. Virginia , No. CA-01-162-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2001). We deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 415 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 30, 2008.
Whereas soldiers of Asian and Pacific Islander descent fought bravely and 
        honorably during the United States Civil War;
Whereas Edward Day Cohota was among the soldiers of Asian descent who fought in 
        the Civil War;
Whereas as a small child, Mr. Cohota stowed away in the ship Cohota, leaving 
        Shanghai, China, in 1845;
Whereas Mr. Cohota enlisted in the 23rd Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteer 
        Infantry;
Whereas during the Civil War, Mr. Cohota fought valiantly in the fog-bound 
        Battle of Drury's Bluff;
Whereas Mr. Cohota proved his courage at Cold Harbor;
Whereas Mr. Cohota served in the United States Army for 30 years;
Whereas Joseph L. Pierce was also among the soldiers of Asian descent who fought 
        in the Civil War;
Whereas Mr. Pierce enlisted in the 14th Regiment, Connecticut Volunteer 
        Infantry, in 1862;
Whereas Mr. Pierce fought at Antietam and in the Battle of Gettysburg; and
Whereas many of the soldiers of Asian and Pacific Islander descent who fought in 
        the Civil War, including Edward Day Cohota and Joseph L. Pierce, were 
        denied rightful recognition of their service: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes and expresses its appreciation for the courageous and 
        loyal contributions made by soldiers of Asian and Pacific Islander 
        descent during the United States Civil War; and
            (2) recognizes and honors the 2 most documented of those soldiers, 
        Edward Day Cohota and Joseph L. Pierce, for their distinguished and 
        dedicated service to preserving and maintaining the Union.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the BJ's
Wholesale Club, Inc. consolidated statements of income and consolidated
balance sheets filed with the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 1, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 AUG-1-1998
<CASH>                                          9,361
<SECURITIES>                                       97
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,905
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   350,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              413,381
<PP&E>                                        563,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                158,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                828,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         291,732
<BONDS>                                        14,643
<COMMON>                                          377
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                    480,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  828,820
<SALES>                                     1,614,351
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,646,494
<CGS>                                       1,475,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,475,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              124,560
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (220)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                46,896
<INCOME-TAX>                                   18,289
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            28,607
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   28,607
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.75
        

























































</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

February 23, 1967

No. P67/45.

#### Arnart Imports, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/2177, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of plaques similar in all material respect to those the subject of *Arnart Imports, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 187, C.D. 2531), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: cview7rs@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:11:01 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,

Carol Louw

Orem, UT 84097
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001037120
<NAME> LOOMIS, FARGO & CO
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,907
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,138
<INVENTORY>                                        881
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,650
<PP&E>                                         105,070
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,927
<BONDS>                                        132,219
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                       (817)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   188,111
<SALES>                                        190,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               190,268
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  179,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,903
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,510
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,393
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,393
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
From: wswalker310@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:02:04 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,

Wayne Walker

Salem, IL 62881
1

**MEMORANDUM To**  : Commercial I ndustrial Solid Waste In cinerator Docket **From** : Amy

Hambrick , US EPA **Date:** April 23, 2012 **Subject:** EPA Meeting with Commenters EPA met with Richard Stoll (Foley & Lardner, LLP), Andrew O’Hare (Portland Cement Association), and Michael Pelan (L aFarge) to discuss their public comments submitted to the CI SWIdocket
.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, John Slatky, certify that:



I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc.;

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date:

March 1, 2005





/s/ John Slatky

John Slatky

Chief Executive Officer
Before the Third Division,

July 21, 1955

No. 59228.

protests 226799-K, etc. (Juneau, Alaska).

#### Wingren’s Food Stores *v.*United States,

*219Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0726 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-023-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

17.0 $1,445.0

0

$5,205 $6,650.00 83 $551,950.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $551,950

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

3.0 $ 255.00 $4,643 $4,898.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: