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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 27, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Justine F. Lien, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/    JUSTINE F. LIEN 
|                       
|Justine F. Lien        
|Chief Financial Officer



May 11, 2004
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 243 Filed 01/06/05 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 243 Filed 01/06/05 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 243 Filed 01/06/05 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 243 Filed 01/06/05 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 243 Filed 01/06/05 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 243 Filed 01/06/05 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 243 Filed 01/06/05 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 243 Filed 01/06/05 Page 8 of 8
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
 Dated: August 31, 2006
    /s/  SETH R. JOHNSONSeth R. JohnsonChief Executive Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Executive Officer) Dated: August 31, 2006
    /s/  GERALD M. CHANEYGerald M. ChaneySenior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Financial Officer)
Before the Third Division,

August 7, 1967

No. P67/260.

No. P67/261.

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States, protest 63/1184 (Seattle). National Silver Co. *v.*United States, protest 64/13956 (San Diego).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Com*pany, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: cgkerns@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:36:48 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,

Charles Kerns

Midlothian, VA 23112
H. Res. 446 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 6, 2007. 

Whereas Walter Schirra was born on March 12, 1923, in 

Hackensack, New Jersey; 

Whereas as an exchange pilot with the 154th Fighter Bomber 

Squadron during the Korean War, he flew 90 combat 

missions in F–84E jets and was credited with downing 

at least one MIG fighter; 

Whereas on October 3, 1962, Walter Schirra became the fifth 

person to fly in space when he piloted Mercury 8 (Sigma 

7) on a six-orbit mission lasting 9 hours, 13 minutes and 

11 seconds; 

Whereas on December 15, 1965, Walter Schirra piloted Gemini 6A in what was the first attempted rendezvous by two 

manned spacecraft in earth orbit; 

Whereas on October 11, 1968, he concluded his third and 

final mission when he was launched as commander of 

Apollo 7, the first manned Apollo mission, making Commander Schirra the only astronaut to fly aboard Mercury, 

Gemini and Apollo spacecrafts; 

Whereas Commander Schirra was the recipient of many distinguished awards, including three distinguished flying 

crosses, two air medals, two NASA Distinguished Serv-
2 

•HRES 446 EH 

ices Medals and induction into the National Aviation Hall 

of Fame; 

Whereas after he retired to San Diego in 1984, Wally dedicated much of his later years to working with children on 

connecting them to the amazing possibilities that a career 

on space exploration could provide, and as a tireless advocate for discovery, Wally was an inspirational figure for 

countless San Diegans; and 

Whereas Commander Schirra was an exemplary resident of 

the State of California where he resided in La Jolla until 

the time of his death on May 2, 2007: Now, therefore, 

be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) honors the life and accomplishments of Astronaut Walter Marty Schirra and expresses condolences on 

his passing; and 

(2) recognizes the profound importance of Astronaut Schirra’s record as a pioneer in space exploration 

and long-time contributor to NASA’s mission as a catalyst to space exploration and scientific advancement in 

the United States. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 25, 2011 

d0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

142046(65) 

STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142046 

 COA: 289230 

Oakland CC: 2007-087673-NF 

BROE REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 29, 

2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 7, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00541

- CV

Warren Transportation, LLC, Appellant

v.

Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General o f the State of Texas, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND ROSE

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on June 28, 2013

. Appellant has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having reviewed the record, the Court agrees that the

appeal should be dismisse d. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal

.

The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7055 KEMBA NIAMBI SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-162, CA-97-411-2) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 15, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL George Kendall, Leah Song Richardson, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, New York, New York; Gerald ThomasZerkin, GERALD T. ZERKIN & ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Kemba Niambi Smith appeals from a district court order that concluded her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1998). Smith's conviction b ecame final in 1995, and she filed her habeas motion on April 23, 1997. B ecause Smith had until April 23, 1997 to file her § 2255 motion, see Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208), her motion was not time barred. For these reasons, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate thedistrict court's order, and remand for further proceedings. We 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 2
NUMBER 13-18-00533-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MARY GRIGSBY, Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 130th District Court 

of Matagorda County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Appellant, Mary Grigsby, attempts to appeal the trial court’s denial of her motion 

requesting a free copy of trial court records. It appears appellant is seeking these records 

in order to prosecute a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. The trial court entered an 

order denying appellant’s motion on October 19, 2015. 
2

On September 25, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared

that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order and requested

correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has

failed to respond to the Court’s directive. 

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment 

without parole. Appellant pursued a direct appeal of her conviction and on July 12, 2012, 

2005, this Court issued a memorandum opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court. 

See Grigsby v. State, No. 13-10-00650-CR, 2012 WL 2861670 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 

July 12, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

The trial court’s refusal to provide appellant with a free copy of the record does not 

invoke our jurisdiction. An intermediate court of appeals is not vested with jurisdiction to 

consider an appeal from an order denying a request for a free copy of the trial record when 

such request is not presented in conjunction with a timely-filed appeal. Everett v. State, 91 

S.W. 3d 386 (Tex.App – Waco 2002, no pet’n). Furthermore, an intermediate court of 

appeals has no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.); Hoang v. 

State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Cr. App. 1993), cert. den’d, 513 U.S. 863 (1994). Even 

if this Court had jurisdiction, the appeal was untimely as it was filed almost three years after 

the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the 

opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal 

is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). 
3

All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

GINA M. BENAVIDES,

 JUSTICE

Do not publish.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

8th day of November, 2018.
From: mps7@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:03:48 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,

michael sprowso

Oklahoma City, OK 73162
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000874787
<NAME> COASTAL PHYSICIAN GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                           1,663
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,697
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,412
<PP&E>                                           5,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          126,462
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                           380
<OTHER-SE>                                    (71,188)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,804
<SALES>                                         99,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,881
<CGS>                                          101,653
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,096)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,096)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,096)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Liquidation of Union Indemnity Insurance Company of New York. Carlin-Atlas Corp., Appellant-Respondent, v Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator, Respondent-Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 21]

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 6, 1995, confirming the report of the Referee disallowing the claim against the Liquidator, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Cross appeal by the Liquidator unanimously dismissed as academic.

The Referee properly construed the performance bond in finding that claimant was required to provide the surety with notice of the subcontractor’s default, and, contrary to claimant’s contention, the Second Department decisions in *Babylon Assocs. v County of Suffolk*(101 AD2d 207, 217-218) and *Menorah Nursing Home v Zukov*(153 AD2d 13, 21-22) do not suggest to the contrary.

The Referee’s determination that notice had not in fact been provided in this case was supported by the record *(see, Kardanis v Velis,*90 AD2d 727). The mailing presumption did not apply in the absence of testimony by a person with knowledge of claimant’s regular office practice. The testimony of claimant’s vice president that his secretary usually did what she was told was insufficient for this purpose.

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the issue raised on the Liquidator’s cross-appeal with respect to the claimant’s entitlement to interest. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
From: merrelljoyce@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:30:48 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,

Joyce Wheeler

Fort Wayne, IN 46807
No. 66006.

#### J. M. Sutton Sons & Co. and Reliance Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/3363(B) and 60/28724 (New York).

*294Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall plaques similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ross Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 74, C.D. 2106), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-046 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company