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




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned officer of the Powerdyne International, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:
 
 The Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2010 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 
 /s/   Linda H. Madison

Chief Accounting Officer

Chief Financial Officer
 
 Date: September 20, 2011
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 2008-035 (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. SoethoutDwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
Order entered January 5 , 202 1

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00560
- CR JOSE DAVID GUTIERREZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the C r i m i na l District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16
- 23201
- H

O RDER Before the Court is appellant ’ s January 4, 2021 motion for an extension of
time to file his ame nded or supplemental brief . We GRANT the motion and
ORDER appellant ’ s am ended or supplemental brief due by January 1 5 , 2021.
The State ’ s brief will be due thirty days after a ppellant files his amended or supplemental b rief.
/ s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JD CHARLES McMANUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5563RBL

REPORT AND

 RECOMMENDATION 

NOTED FOR:

DECEMBER 16th, 2005

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and

MJR 4. On October 7th, 2005 the court entered an Order requiring plaintiff to submit service documents

including copies of the complaint. (Dkt. # 5). Plaintiff has not complied.

Plaintiff was specifically informed that failure to provide the documents would result in a Report and

Recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. # 5). As

plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order the court now recommends this action be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A proposed order and proposed judgment accompanies this Report and

Recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v.

Case 3:05-cv-05563-RBL Document 6 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to

set the matter for consideration on December 16th, 2005, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 30th day of November, 2005.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05563-RBL Document 6 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Alfrederic S. Hatch, Respondent, v. Henry Y. Attrill and another, Appellants.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs, and order refusing to set aside verdict for irregularity affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Cullen, J., not sitting.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER NOTING HABEAS PETITION ON

COURT’S CALENDAR FOR CONSIDERATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD LIONEL DYSON,

Petitioner,

v.

REED HOLTGEERTZ,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1500-MJP-MAT

ORDER NOTING HABEAS

PETITION ON COURT’S

CALENDAR FOR CONSIDERATION

On August 31, 2005, petitioner submitted to this Court for review a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court subsequently ordered service of the

petition on respondent, and respondent filed an answer to the petition on November 4, 2005. On

November 21, 2005, the Court received from petitioner a letter requesting that respondent’s

answer be mailed to him at his current place of confinement because he had yet to receive a copy.

It appears that a copy of the answer was mailed to petitioner at the Washington Corrections

Center on November 23, 2005.

Because respondent failed to note his answer for consideration as directed in this Court’s

September 26, 2005, Service Order, and because petitioner only recently received a copy of

Case 2:05-cv-01500-MJP Document 12 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER NOTING HABEAS PETITION ON

COURT’S CALENDAR FOR CONSIDERATION

PAGE -2

respondent’s answer, the Court does hereby ORDER as follows:

(1) Petitioner may file and serve any response to respondent’s answer not later than

January 9, 2006.

(2) This matter is NOTED on the Court’s calendar for consideration on January 13,

2006.

(3) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent,

and to the Hon. Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 8th day of December , 2005.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01500-MJP Document 12 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 2
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 *





In
connection with the Annual Report of DRC Ventures, Inc., (the “Company”), on
Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) pursuant to the
requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350), Ronald Williams,
the President, principal executive officer and principal financial officer of
the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:





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





2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the Periodic Report.





Date:
      October 12, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Ronald WilliamsRonald
      WilliamsPresident
      (Principal Executive Officer
                and
      Principal Financial Officer)





* This
certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before
or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, EARL R. REFSLAND, certify that:

1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ALLIED HEALTHCARE
PRODUCTS, INC.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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;

3. 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;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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) omitted as not yet applicable;

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant'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 financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Date: November 7, 2006


                                        /s/ EARL R. REFSLAND
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Earl. R. Refsland
                                        President & Chief Executive Officer
Before the First Division,

September 10, 1959

No. 63324.

protests 262404-K/7156, etc. (Chicago).

#### China Mercantile Company et al. *v.*United States,

Wilson, Judge:

The merchandise involved in these protests consists of certain so-called iron pictures representing the four seasons, which was classified at various rates of duty under paragraph 1518 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, as “Artificial or ornamental fruits, vegetables, grasses, grains, leaves, flowers, stems, or parts thereof,” not specially provided for. Plaintiffs claim the said merchandise properly classifiable at lower rates of duty applicable under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, as articles or wares, not specially provided for, in chief value of base metal.

At the trial, counsel for the respective parties agreed that the involved merchandise is similar in all material respects to the merchandise which was the subject of *Marshall Field & Co.*v. *United States,*45 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 72, C.A.D. 676, and the record in the latter ease was by consent of the parties herein incorporated into the record of the case at bar.

The court in the *Marshall Field*case, *supra,*held that the articles there involved were not dutiable under paragraph 1518 of the tariff act, as modified, as *333“artificial fruits” or “artificial flowers,” as classified, but that the merchandise in question was properly classifiable at the applicable rate under paragraph 397 of the said act as articles or wares in chief value of base metal.

On the agreed facts and in accordance with the holding of our appellate court in the *Marshall Field*case, *supra,*we are of opinion and hold that the articles involved in the case at bar are properly dutiable as articles in chief value of base metal at the following applicable rates of duty: The merchandise covered by protests 262404—K, 58/22979, 262392-K, and 321077-K at *22y2*per centum ad valorem under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 51802; and the merchandise covered by protest 326012-K at 21 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 397 of the act, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 54108. To the extent indicated, the protests are sustained. In all other respects and as to all other merchandise, all the claims are overruled.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
From: bjkay75@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:34:39 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,

Brooks Kay

Manchester, CT 06040
From: ssemtner7@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:30:24 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,

Sharon Semtner

Konawa, OK 74849
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549








FORM 8-K








CURRENT REPORT








Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the


Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): January 20, 2016











THE FIRST BANCORP, INC.


(Exact name of Registrant as specified in charter)





MAINE


(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)





0-2658901-0404322(Commission file number)(IRS employer identification no.)








Main Street, Damariscotta, Maine04543(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)








(207) 563-3195


(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is


intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligations


of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





[_] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





[_] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





[_] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





[_] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4 (c))










---



TABLE OF CONTENTS





Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial ConditionPage 1Item 9.01 Financial Statements and ExhibitsPage 1SignaturesPage 2Exhibit IndexPage 3











---






Section 2 - Financial Information





Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.





On January 20, 2016 , the Registrant issued the press release filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 with information regarding the results of operations and financial condition of The First Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2015 .











Section 9 - Financial Statements and Exhibits





Item 9.01 Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.





(c) Exhibits.


--------





The following Exhibits are being furnished herewith:





99.1 Registrant's Press Release dated January 20, 2016 .








1


---



SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.











THE FIRST BANCORP, INC.








By: /s/ F. STEPHEN WARD





F. Stephen Ward


Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer





Dated: January 20, 2016








2


---



Exhibit Index














Exhibit Number    Description of Exhibit





99.1        Registrant's Press Release dated January 20, 2016 .








3
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 15

- 00131

- CR

PATRICK ONEAL BIBLE

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR14921

ORDER

Appellant’s Motion for Free Reporter’s Record and Affidavit of Inability to Pay

Cost for Reporter’s Record was filed on February 15, 2017. The mandate issued in this

appeal on June 3, 2016. We no longer have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of appellant’s

motion. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scog gins

Motion dismissed

Order issued and filed March 8 , 2017