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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inland Diversified Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Steven T. Hippel, treasurer and chief accounting officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | (3) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |        |  |                                                                     
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2011 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Steven T. Hippel                                                
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Steven T. Hippel                                                    
|                     |  | Title: |  | Treasurer and chief accounting officer (principal financial officer)

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by
the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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.
Exhibit
31.2




CERTIFICATIONS
UNDER SECTION 302




I, Donna
Brandin, certify that:





1.  I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Lightstone Value Plus Real
Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (the “Company”);




2.  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;




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 Company as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;




4.  The
Company’s other certifying officer and I have:




a)  designed
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)), or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
Company, 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 Company’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 based on such evaluation; and




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




5.  The
Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s
auditors and the audit committee of the Company’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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial
reporting.




March 31,
2010




/s/ Donna BrandinDonna
      BrandinChief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.10

                            CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY
                                       OF
                                PEOPLESOFT, INC.


        The undersigned, Anne S. Jordan, hereby certifies that she is the duly
elected Secretary of PeopleSoft, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Corporation"), and that the following resolutions were duly adopted by the
Board of Directors on May 21, 2001:

AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
DIRECTORS BY ONE

                RESOLVED, THAT SECTION 3.2 OF ARTICLE III OF THE COMPANY'S
BYLAWS IS HEREBY AMENDED AND RESTATED TO READ IT ITS ENTIRETY AS FOLLOWS:

                        3.2 NUMBER OF DIRECTORS

        The Board of Directors shall consist of seven (7) persons until changed
by an amendment to this Section 3.2.

                RESOLVED FURTHER, THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY ARE HEREBY
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS AND TAKE ALL ACTION THEY DEEM
NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS RESOLUTION.


        Dated this 13th day of August, 2001.

                                                       /s/Anne S. Jordan
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Anne S. Jordan, Secretary



                                       34
No. 67158.

protests 60/12665, etc. (New York).

#### J. J. Newberry Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 62836.

#### Joseph H. Reinfeld, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 326959-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 62 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 62

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That (a) a revised edition of the brochure entitled ``How Our Laws Are 
Made'', under the direction of the Parliamentarian of the House of 
Representatives in consultation with the Parliamentarian of the Senate, 
shall be printed as a Senate document, with suitable paper cover in the 
style selected by the chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing.
    (b) There shall be printed--
            (1)(A) 250,000 copies of the brochure for the use of the 
        House of Representatives, distributed in equal numbers to each 
        Member;
            (B) 100,000 copies of the brochure for the use of the 
        Senate, distributed in equal numbers to each Member;
            (C) 2,000 copies of the brochure for the use of the Joint 
        Committee on Printing; and
            (D) 1,400 copies of the brochure for distribution to the 
        depository libraries; or
            (2) if the total printing and production costs of copies in 
        paragraph (1) exceed $180,000, such number of copies of the 
        brochure as does not exceed total printing and production costs 
        of $180,000, with distribution to be allocated in the same 
        proportion as in paragraph (1).

            Passed the Senate November 5, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 62

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   Authorizing printing of the brochure entitled ``How Our Laws Are 
                                Made''.
```
U.S

. Deportment ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration 

# OCT 0 5 

# 2016
Mr. William V. O ' Connor Morrison & Foerster LLP Counsel to Airphrame, Corp. 4200 Republic Plaza 370 17th St. Denver, CO 80202
Dear Mr. O'Connor: 800 Independence A ve .. S W Wash i nglon

. D

.C

. 20591



### T hank you for your July 22, 2016, letter on behalf ofAirphrame , Inc. (hereinafter petitioner or operator) requ esting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cancel Exemption No. 12569A (Docket No. FAA-2015 -2409). In Exemption No. 12569A, the operator was granted an exemption from 14 CF R 

### §§ 61.23(a) and (c) , 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a) , 61.315(a) , 91.7(a) , 9 1.119(c), 91.121 , 91.15l(a)(1) , 91.405(a) , 91.407(a)(l), 91.409(a)(1) and (2) , and 91.417(a) and (b) , to the extent necessary to conduct UAS operations. Your request for cancellation is hereby granted, effective 

# OCT 0 5 

# 2016



# ?J

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standard s ServiceMORRISON 

# I FOERSTER

July 22 , 20 1 6

Via First Class Mail Director John S. Duncan Flight Standards Services Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington , DC 20591 1253 1 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CAUFORN I A 92130-2040 TELEPHONE: 858.720.5100 FACSL\fLLE: 858.720.5 125 W

\ \\'W.i\IOFO.COM ).IOit RI SON A tt'OE R STER ll_.P BLIJISC, BL:HI'<, BRl S SLLS, DE'<\'I.R, HO'-.:C:

**~U~G.** LUSOos, LOS ANGELrtS, Ni

l \\ YO R K, SO K illliRS VIRGIN I A, P ;

\LU ALTO, SAC R AllENTO, SAN OICCU,

**SA~** FRASCtSCO,

**SH.\~Gftt\t, SIS'GAPOIF.~** 

**TU~VCI,** \t'ASIH,GTOS. O, C,

Writer's Dir ec t Contact + I (858) 720.7932 WOConnor @ mofo .com

Re: Airphrame , Inc. , Exemption No. 12569 , Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2409 Dear Director Duncan: I am writing to inform you that in light of the August 29 , 20 16 effective date of Part 107 , Airphrame Inc
. , holder of FAA Exemption Number 12569 (and 12569A) , has discontinued commercial sUAS operations in order to make the neces s ary pr e paration s to transition to Part I07. Therefore , to avoid any confusion as to the requirements for commercial operations , Airphrame hereby relinquishes and surrenders the above grant of exemption by the FAA , effective immediately. No future commercia l sUAS operations will be conducted under the exemption by Airphrame or any third party operator. Future commercial operations , if any , will be conducted by Airphrame pursuant to Part 107 after it goes into effect next month. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any que s tions. Very truly yours ,



# 1/t!~ William V. O'Connor

sd-684 572
No. 59286.

protests 243981-K, etc. (New York).

#### Ascot, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of traveling irons similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Greatrex, Limited,*and *J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 1639), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>     1
<PERIOD-TYPE>               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1996
<CASH>                                           4,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,319
<PP&E>                                          37,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 271,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,097
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,294,032
<OTHER-SE>                                 (21,141,711)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   271,046
<SALES>                                        243,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               243,271
<CGS>                                           63,719
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,342
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 63,791
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   63,7915
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01

        




</TABLE>
From: rosariobuy@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:30:35 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,

Rosario Uy

Potomac, MD 20854
1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3634

___________ Laurence Robert Otto, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 31, 2000 Filed: February 3, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Laurence R. Otto, who was convicted of possessing an unregistered sawed-off rifle in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), see United States v. Otto , 64 F.3d 367, 369-71 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 516 U.S. 1133 (1996), appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court correctly denied Otto’s motion because he did not request and obtain this court’s authorization prior to filing it. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255,-2-

2244(b)(2), (3). We nevertheless observe that Eighth Circuit precedent precludes Otto f rom being successful on his claim that his section 5861(d) conviction was unconstitutional under United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995). See United States v. Hall , 171 F.3d 1133, 1142 (8th Cir. 1999) (Congress had authority under taxing clause to enact § 5861(d) and criminalize possession of unregistered firearm). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DANNY GRIFFITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5022 FDB/KLS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 NOTED FOR: AUGUST 11, 2006

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This action was

filed on January 11, 2006. (Dkt. # 1). Plaintiff was given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. #

3). Plaintiff is attempting to litigate for the loss of “earned early release” time. Plaintiff was ordered to

amend his complaint to allege a constitutional harm under Section 1983, but has failed to do so.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff was originally ordered to amend his complaint by March 11, 2006. (Dkt. # 5). Rather

than amend his complaint, plaintiff appealed the court’s order to the district court. (Dkt. # 6). Judge

Franklin D. Burgess ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by June 26, 2006, warning that a

failure to do so might result in a recommendation of dismissal of his action. (Dkt. 7). Plaintiff has not

amended his complaint nor has he sought an extension of time within which to file an amended

complaint.

Case 3:06-cv-05022-FDB Document 8 Filed 07/19/06 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 - 2

CONCLUSION

The court recommends the action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated

in the order to amend and for failure to comply with the court’s order to amend (Dkt. # 5), and for failure

to comply with the order of the District Court (Dkt. # 7). A proposed order 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. 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 August 11, 2006, as noted in the

caption. 

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05022-FDB Document 8 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of New York City Transit Authority, Respondent, v Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local 100, et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 81]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate so much of an arbitration award dated October 12, 1993, as modified the petitioner’s dismissal of an employee to a suspension, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 20, 1994, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it violates a strong and substantial public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specific limitation on the arbitrator’s power *(see, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.],*70 NY2d 907; *Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg],*46 NY2d 623). Under the particular circumstances of this case, where the Tripartite Arbitration Board made a specific finding that the conduct of the petitioner’s employee presented "a potential danger to fellow employees and the public”, its modification of the penalty from dismissal to a suspension violated public policy. Requiring the petitioner to reinstate an employee who has been found to be a threat to public safety is contrary to public policy and to the petitioner’s statutory responsibility to operate the transit system for the safety of the public *(see,*Public Authorities Law § 1204 [15]; *Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. v Transport Workers Union,*182 AD2d 626; *see also, Matter of State Univ. of N. Y. v Young,*170 AD2d 510). Consequently, the Supreme Court did not err in vacating so much of the award as modified the penalty imposed. Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.
No. 60259.

protest 257250-K (New York).

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., and Joosten & Janssen *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.