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

Statement





Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that to the knowledge of the undersigned:



(1)

the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.





Dated:  March 1, 2005





/s/ Sheri L. Knope

Sheri L. Knope

Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.  This statement accompanies the periodic report to which it relates and shall not be deemed as filed as part of the report or otherwise for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

February 7, 2011

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 08

‐ 3537

MAURICE COLEMAN,

Petitioner

‐ Appellant

,

v.

MARCUS HARDY,

Respondent

‐ Appellee. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 1:99

‐ CV

‐ 02635

Amy J. St. Eve,

Judge

.

O R D E R

On consideration of the petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc filed by

Respondent

‐ Appellee on December 3, 2010, the opinion issued in the above

‐ titled case on

November 19, 2010 is hereby AMENDED as follows:

On page 11 of the slip opinion, a footnote is inserted immediately following the

sentence, “In such a case an evidentiary hearing is warranted only if ‘the facts underlying the

claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the

underlying offense.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(B).” The footnote reads:

We join the Third and Eleventh Circuits in finding that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §No. 08

‐ 3537 Page 2

2254(e)(2)(A) do not have to be met in order for a court to hold an evidentiary hearing

on whether the petitioner has met the actual innocence threshold necessary to consider

the merits of his procedurally defaulted claim. See Cristin v. Brennan

, 281 F.3d 404, 418

‐

19 (3d Cir. 2002) (finding no indications that “Congress intended § 2254 (e)(2) ʹ s

restrictions on evidentiary hearings to apply, in addition to hearings on the merits, to

hearings on excuses to procedural default.”); Sibley v. Culliver

, 377 F.3d 1196, 1207 n.9

(11th Cir. 2004) (“We do not believe this provision governs the availability of

evidentiary hearings when petitioners seek to introduce evidence concerning actual

innocence. By its own terms, § 2254(e) applies only where a petitioner ‘has failed to

develop the factual basis of a claim in State court.’ The term ‘claim’ appears to refer to

the substantive claim for relief upon which the petition for habeas corpus is based.”).

Cf. Morris v. Dormire

, 217 F.3d 556, 560 (8th Cir. 2000) (rejecting argument that district

court abused its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on claim of actual

innocence where petitioner made no attempt to satisfy § 2254(e)(2)).

All members of the original panel have otherwise voted to deny the petition for

rehearing. No judge in regular active service requested a vote on the petition for rehearing

en banc. Accordingly, the petition is D ENIED

.
January 7, 2014 

Patrick Au 

State of California 

Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District 

43301 Division St., Suite 206 

Lancaster, CA 93535-4649 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Resources Board 

P. 0 . Box 2815 

Sacramento, California 95812 

661.723.8070 

Fax 661.723.3450 

Eldon Heaston, Executive Director 

Project: Amendment of AV AQMD Rule 1130 - Graphic Arts and Rescission of Rule 1128 -

Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating Operations 

Dear Mr. Au: 

The Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AV AQMD) requests that the California 

Air Resources Board submit amended Rule 1130 - Graphics Arts to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), and Rule 1128 - Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating Operations for removal from the SIP. 

The AV AQMD has incorporated the provisions of Rule 1128 into Rule 1130, as the basis for the 

rules were similar and there were many redundancies. The amendment of Rule 1130 satisfies the 

provisions of former California Health & Safety (H&S) Code §39614(d) which required the 

adoption of readily available, feasible and cost-effective control measures for particulate matter, 

and satisfies 42 U.S.C. §§751 la (Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) §182) which requires that ozone 

nonattainment areas implement Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for sources 

that are subject to Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs) for major sources of ozone. 

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (760) 245-1661, 

extension 6726, or Tracy Walters at extension 6122. Please note that alJ documents required for 

a complete submission were sent electronically on January 7, 2014. 

~ ManJ.~ 

Supervising Air Quality Engineer 

AJD/tw CARB SIP Submittal Request Rule 1130 1128 

€1fJmi 

Cities Antelope Valley
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                30
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                          23
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                   1,121
<CASH>                                              19
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               2,720
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,689
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  5,405
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    573
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,689
<PREMIUMS>                                           3
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                 27
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   2
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     (8)
<BENEFITS>                                           1
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (9)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (1)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (8)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (8)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                   5,687
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 5,405
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
(R.D. 11497)

#### Authentic Furniture Prod., Inc. Arthur J. Fritz & Co., Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 1016496, etc.

*793(Decided March 7, 1968)

*Stein & Shostalc*for the plaintiffs.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Watson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AUD AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, which is incorporated herein:

> 1. That on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or in the absence of sales freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were invoice unit prices net packed.

> 2. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54721 [sic], effective February 27,1958.

> 3. That all the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement was entered for consumption subsequent to February 27, 1958.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such values were the invoice unit prices, net packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                              Nine Months Ended June 30
                                                               1999                1998
<S>                                                    <C>                   <C>
                                                               ----                ----
Weighted average shares outstanding
         Common stock                                       4,755,243            4,558,016
         Common stock equivalents                             - 0 -      .         405,015
                                                       --------------       --------------


Weighted average common shares and
     equivalents                                            4,755,243            4,963,031
                                                       ==============       ==============


Net income                                                     204,402        $    209,716
                                                       ===============      ==============

Net income per share:
         Basic                                         $        0.04        $        0.05
         Diluted                                       $        0.04        $        0.04


</TABLE>
#### Mary Ann Lyman, Appellant, v Raymond Lyman, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 135]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irene J. Duffy, J.), entered on or about January 9, 1995, which, after a trial, granted the parties a dual divorce and related ancillary relief concerning custody of the parties’ minor child, support, and the marital home, unanimously modified, on the law and facts, the rulings with respect to the related ancillary relief vacated and the matter remanded for a new trial thereon and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g) provides that a court shall set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision and such may not be waived by either party or counsel. Upon the conclusion of the trial in this matter in November 1993, the trial court (Lorraine Backal, J.), reserved decision and requested the parties’ counsel to submit memoranda of law and proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Counsel for the parties made the requested submissions and thereafter called and wrote the Trial Judge. However, no decision was rendered by the court for over a year. On November *36921, 1994, the day the Trial Judge resigned from the bench, the Judge simply signed defendant’s proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

The trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g) *(Rossi v Rossi,*137 AD2d 590, 591; *see, Nielsen v Nielsen,*91 AD2d 1016). In view of the state of the record and the absence of any indication of the reasoning employed by the trial court for its determination of the ancillary issues of, *inter alia,*custody, support and possession of the marital residence, the matter is remanded for a new trial on said ancillary issues. Neither party raising any issue or requesting any relief with respect to the granting of the dual divorce itself, that portion of the judgment is affirmed. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
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

ORDER

Page - 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

IN RE: PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE

(PPA) PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION,

______________________________

MDL NO. 1407

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

This document relates to:

Williams v. Novartis

Pharmaceuticals Corp., C02-

1720

Defendant Wyeth, on behalf of itself and its unincorporated

division Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, has moved for summary judgment on plaintiff Herman Williams’ claims against it. According

to Wyeth, Williams has produced no evidence of having ingested

any Wyeth PPA-containing product within 72 hours of his stroke, a

required element for recovery under Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and this court’s June 8, 2003

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part MDL Defendants’ Motion

to Preclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Opinions. Plaintiff has not filed

a response, thereby conceding defendant’s position.

Plaintiff Williams has filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of defendant Wyeth without prejudice. Nevertheless, given

the un-refuted evidence that plaintiff’s claims against Wyeth are

Case 2:02-cv-01720-BJR Document 60 Filed 07/11/05 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

ORDER

Page - 2 -

not viable, as noted above, the court hereby GRANTS Wyeth’s

motion for summary judgment and STRIKES plaintiff’s motion for

voluntary dismissal as moot. Plaintiff’s claims against Wyeth are

DISMISSED with prejudice.

 DATED at Seattle, Washington this 11th day of July, 2005.

ABARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01720-BJR Document 60 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

October 16, 1962

No. 67129.

protest 59/33624 (New York).

#### Wm. Shaland Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature pocketknives similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65737, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### ABRAHA M LINCOL N

CAPITA LAIRPOR T A TSPRINGFIEL D Mar k E
. Hanna , A.A.E. , Executiv e Directo r

Springfiel d Airpor t Authorit y Marc h9 , 201 0

Th e Honorabl e Raymon dH
. LaHoo d Secretary U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : Docke t

DOT-OST-2010-00I 8 Dear Mr
. Secretary : I respectfull y as k

yo u t o approv e America nAirlines ' reques t fo r allocatio no f

tw o dail y U.S.-Haned aslo t

pair s t o operat e year-roun dschedule dai r transportatio nfro mNew York an dLo s Angele s t o Toky o Haneda
. America nAirlines ' propose dservic e represent s th e public' s interes t

us e fo r tw o o f th e fou r frequencies t o b e awarde di nthi s proceeding , a s New York

an dLo s Angele s appear

t o b e on e o f

th e larges t

trave l market s betwee nth e U.S
. mainlan dan dTokyo
. Furthermore , American' s propose dservic e wil l provid e significan t connectin g opportunities , providin g benefit s t o eve nmor e consumers . A tota l o f 1 7 U.S
. citie s wil l enjo y on-lin e servic e beyon dNew Yor k i non e o r bothdirections , an d2 0 beyon dLo s Angeles
. Al l 1 0 o f

th e larges t

U.S
. mainland-Toky o market s wil l gai non-lin e servic e t o Haned aunde r

American' s proposal , includin g SanFrancisco , Chicago , La s Vegas , Seattle , Washington , Boston , Orlando , an dPortlan dthroug hroundtri p connections
. I encourag e th e Departmen t o f Transportatio nt o giv e America nAirlines ' applicatio n favorabl e consideratio n an dapproval , a s i t wil l benefi t

th e broades t

publi c interes t

an d wil l hav e apositiv e impac t o n ai r trave l b y offerin g customer s mor e service , schedulin g an dpricin g option s t o choos e from
. Sincerely , 

# \l\^Jcs^<^4^ ^ Mark E
. Hann a Executiv e Directo r Springfiel dAirport

Authorit y mhanna@flyspi.co m

120 0 Capita l Airpor t Driv e • Springfield , Illinoi s 6270 7 217-788-106 0 • 217-788-805 6 (Fax ) • www.flyspi.co m
Exhibit 10.8


                       SECOND AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT


     THIS SECOND  AMENDMENT is made as of the 10th  day  of February,  1998,  by
and between  MALCOLM G. CHACE  ("Lender")  and ACCESS  SOLUTIONS  INTERNATIONAL,
INC., a Delaware corporation ("Borrower").

                      W I T N E S S E T H     T H A T:

     WHEREAS,  Lender and  Borrower  are parties to a certain  letter  agreement
dated December 30, 1997 ("Loan  Agreement") which Loan Agreement is incorporated
by  reference  herein and made a part  hereof,  and pursuant to which the Lender
agreed to loan to the Borrower the maximum principal sum of $200,000; and

     WHEREAS,  Borrower and Lender  executed a First Amendment to Loan Agreement
dated as of January 27,  1998,  pursuant to which the maximum  principal  amount
available for borrowing under the Loan Agreement was increased to $290,000,  the
maturity date for repayment was extended,  and additional collateral was granted
to Lender; and

     WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the Loan Agreement to increase
the maximum principal amount available for borrowing under the Loan Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE,  for good and valuable consideration,  the receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1. INCREASE IN  AVAILABILITY.  The maximum  principal  amount available for
borrowing under the Loan Agreement is being increased from $290,000 to $330,000.
Therefore,  the first  sentence  of the Loan  Agreement  is  amended  to read as
follows:

          "This letter is written to set forth our  agreement  whereby
          MALCOLM G. CHACE  ("Lender"),  will lend to ACCESS SOLUTIONS
          INTERNATIONAL,  INC., a Delaware  corporation  ("Borrower"),
          the maximum  principal sum of Three Hundred Thirty  Thousand
          Dollars ($330,000) (the "Loan")."

     2. MISCELLANEOUS. Except as modified and amended hereby, the Loan Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect and is in all other respects  ratified and
confirmed.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment Agreement
to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.


                                           /s/ Malcolm G. Chace
                                           -------------------------------------
                                               Malcolm G. Chace


                                           ACCESS SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                                           BY: /s/ Robert H. Stone
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                   Robert H. Stone
                                                   President and CEO
H. Res. 601 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

August 2, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3159) to mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation 

for units and members of the regular and reserve components 

of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation 

Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. All points of 

order against consideration of the bill are waived except those 

arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 

in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee 

on Armed Services now printed in the bill shall be considered 

as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, 

are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 

of the Committee on Armed Services; and (2) one motion to 

recommit with or without instructions. 
2 

•HRES 601 EH 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3159 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.