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

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
                               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Essex Portfolio, L.P. on Form 10-
Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Schall, Chief
Financial Officerof Essex Property Trust, Inc., the general partner of
the registrant Essex Portfolio, L.P., hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Report 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

November 14, 2003

By: /s/ MICHAEL J. SCHALL

Michael J. Schall
                  Cheif Financial Officer

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis MONK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-1165.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 11, 2001.

*326Before KEITH, BATCHELDER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

The defendant, charged with bank fraud and interstate transportation of counterfeit securities, appeals the denial of his motion for pretrial release under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3164. This panel unanimously agrees that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 9(a); 34(a).

The Speedy Trial Act provides that the trial of a defendant detained pending trial “shall commence not later than ninety days following the beginning of such continuous detention.” 18 U.S.C. 3164(b). The statute provides that “[n]o detainee ... shall be held in custody pending trial after the expiration of such ninety-day period required for the commencement of his trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3164(c). “The periods of delay enumerated in section 3161(h) are excluded in computing the time limitation specified in this section.” 18 U.S.C. § 3164(b). The excludability of the delays set out in § 3161(h) is automatic. *Henderson v. United States,*476 U.S. 321, 327, 106 S.Ct. 1871, 90 L.Ed.2d 299 (1986); *United States v. Robinson,*887 F.2d 651, 656-58 (6th Cir.1989). The standard of review of the district court’s denial of release based on an alleged violation of the Speedy Trial Act is de novo, although the district court’s findings of facts are reviewed for clear error. *See United States v. Murphy,*241 F.3d 447, 453 (6th Cir.2001), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 2013, 149 L.Ed.2d 1014 (2001); *United States v. Robinson,*887 F.2d at 656.

The defendant has not demonstrated that more than ninety non-excludable days have transpired between April 13— the date he consented to pretrial detention — and December 7, 2000. *See United States v. Murphy, supra.*Therefore, the district court’s order denying release is AFFIRMED.
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. L. RUNNELS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:04-cv-0776-TLN-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The case is set for trial on October 31, 2016. Defendants request to modify the 

pretrial order to allow defendants to augment their witness list to further designate as witnesses 

Drs. R. Kanan and M. Cho. ECF No. 306. Plaintiff has submitted no opposition to the motion. 

 The court considers four factors in determining whether to modify a pretrial order: (1) the 

degree of prejudice to the non-moving party from the modification; (2) the ability of the nonmoving party to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly conduct of 

the case; and (4) any bad faith by the moving party. Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 

1998). 

 Defendants have met their burden of showing that these factors support the requested 

modification. They seek to present the testimony of the additional witnesses to rebut potential 

testimony by plaintiff that he has discovered new evidence of injury caused by defendants. There 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 309 Filed 08/02/16 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 

2

does not appear to be any prejudice to plaintiff in granting the request. Defendants listed Drs. 

Cho and Kanan in their original pretrial statement and also submitted declarations from them 

along with their summary judgment motion. Plaintiff is therefore aware of them, and he has 

several months before trial to prepare for their testimony. Prior defense counsel left these 

witnesses out of the pretrial statement inadvertently, not in bad faith. And plaintiff has presented 

no opposition to the motion. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the pretrial order is modified to add Drs. Kanan 

and Cho to the list of defense witnesses. 

 So ordered. 

DATED: August 2, 2016. 

 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 309 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.1
   CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)
 
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the
undersigned, Kevin J. Kelly, the Chief Executive Officer of Patient Portal
Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify,
to his knowledge, that:
 
 The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of the Company
(the “Report”) fully complies 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/  Kevin
      J. KellyKEVIN
      J. KELLYChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      13, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

SHADEE ABUSAAB ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 05-5094 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, ) 

et al. ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 )

ORDER

AND NOW, this ____ day of _________________, 2006, upon consideration of 

Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and 

Plaintiff Shadee Abusaab’s response in opposition thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the 

motion is DENIED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 

 

 

 Bartle, C. J. 

Case 2:05-cv-05094-HB Document 21-3 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 1
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4259 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the 

suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the Lahaina 

National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Ms. HIRONO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study 

to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating 

certain land as the Lahaina National Heritage Area, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lahaina National Her5 itage Area Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4259 IS

1 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of the Interior. 

3 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State 

4 of Hawaii. 

5 (3) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

6 means the census-designated place of Lahaina in 

7 Maui County in the State. 

8 SEC. 3. LAHAINA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY. 

9 The Secretary, in consultation with State and local 

10 historic preservation officers, State and local historical so11 cieties, State and local tourism offices, and other appro12 priate organizations and governmental agencies, shall 

13 carry out, in accordance with section 120103(a) of title 

14 54, United States Code, a study to assess the suitability 

15 and feasibility of designating the study area as a National 

16 Heritage Area, to be known as the ‘‘Lahaina National 

17 Heritage Area’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post Effective Amendment No. 2 to theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-24187) pertaining to the Ingles Markets, Incorporated 1983 Stock Option Plan and in the related Prospectus, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-52103) pertaining to the Ingles Markets, IncorporatedInvestment/Profit Sharing Plan and in the related Prospectus, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13067) pertaining to the Ingles Markets, Incorporated 1987 Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan and in the related Prospectus, in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-63167) pertaining to the Ingles Markets, Incorporated 1991 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan and in the related Prospectus, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-63165) pertaining to the Option Agreementdated July 21, 1993 entered into by Ingles Markets, Incorporated with Robert P. Ingle and in the related Prospectus, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-63163) pertaining to the Option Agreement dated July 21, 1993 entered into by InglesMarkets, Incorporated with Landy B. Laney and in the related Prospectus, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88310) pertaining to the Ingles Markets, Incorporated Amended and Restated 1997 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan and in therelated Prospectus, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-74459) pertaining to the Ingles Markets, Incorporated Investment/Profit Sharing Plan and in the related Prospectus, of our report dated February 4, 2005, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of Ingles Markets, Incorporated and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 25, 2004. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Greenville, South Carolina 

February 10, 2005
Analytics

FLETC All Website Data

All Web Site Data

Go to report 

FLETC.gov Search Performance Metrics Apr 1, 2020 - Apr 30, 2020

Visits to FLETC.gov

71,400

% of Total: 100.00% (71,400)

Total Internal Searches

0

% of Total: 0.00% (0)

Total External Searches (Google)

49,644

% of Total: 69.53% (71,400)

Top Internal Searches by Search Term

Search Term Total Unique Searches Organic Searches

There is no data for this view.

Top External Searches (Google - as reported)

Page Title Sessions

Welcome to FLETC | FLETC 8,094

FedBizOpps | FLETC 7,403

FLETC monitoring of Novel Coronavirus

(COVID-19) | FLETC

2,056

Glynco, Georgia | FLETC 1,583

Search the Training Catalog | FLETC 1,502

Execution of a Search Warrant (I) (MP

3) | FLETC

952

Physical Efficiency Battery (PEB) | FLET

C

886

Customs and Border Protection, Officer

Basic Training | FLETC

878

Federal Conspiracy Law (Mp3) | FLETC 842

Criminal Investigator Training Program

| FLETC

775

New vs. Returned Visitors

Avg. Visits per Visitor

New Visitor Returning Visitor

17%

83%

1 2 Other

15.6%

11.9%

72.5%

© 2020 Google

All Users

100.00% Sessions
Analytics

FLETC All Website Data

All Web Site Data

Go to report 

FLETC.gov Web Performance Metrics Apr 1, 2020 - Apr 30, 2020

Total Visits

71,400

% of Total: 100.00% (71,400)

Avg. Visit Duration

00:02:06

Avg for View: 00:02:06 (0.00%)

Pageviews

211,932

% of Total: 100.00% (211,932)

Unique Visitors

55,128

% of Total: 100.00% (55,128)

Avg. Pages / Visit

2.97

Avg for View: 2.97 (0.00%)

Avg. Time on Page

00:01:04

Avg for View: 00:01:04 (0.00%)

Bounce Rate

49.31%

Avg for View: 49.31% (0.00%)

Top Pages

Page Title Pageviews

Bounce

Rate

Search the Training Catalog | FLET

C

35,394 34.57%

Welcome to FLETC | FLETC 23,867 26.84%

FLETC monitoring of Novel Corona

virus (COVID-19) | FLETC

9,014 65.62%

FedBizOpps | FLETC 8,584 46.04%

Glynco, Georgia | FLETC 7,188 40.99%

Locations | FLETC 4,532 51.29%

Resources | FLETC 4,068 36.67%

Basic Programs | FLETC 3,878 41.74%

PEB Scores for Age and Gender | F

LETC

3,825 12.98%

Careers and Internships | FLETC 3,586 43.33%

Visits by Social Network

Social Network Sessions

Facebook 364

Twitter 110

LinkedIn 31

reddit 29

Instagram 26

Quora 8

YouTube 7

Blogger 2

Yelp 1

Visits by Source

New vs. Returned Visitors

google (direct) bing

search.usa.gov usajobs.gov

Other

19.7%

64.2%

New Visitor Returning Visitor

17%

83%

© 2020 Google

All Users

100.00% Sessions
**Proposed USSGL Account 320700 for FY 2015**

**Attribute Table:**

**Crosswalks Impacted:**

**Proposed Changes to USSGL Accounts 619000 & 750000 for FY 2016**

Account Title:           Contra Bad Debt Expense - Incurred for Others 

Account Number:     619000 

Normal Balance:      Credit 

Definition: The amount of bad debt expense related to accounts receivable held for others.

***Justification:****Removing specific Federal/Non-Federal Code attribute domain value use instructions from the definition. Users can find specific instructions related to this Attribute in the TFM 2-4700.*

Account Title:           Distribution of Income - Dividend 

Account Number:     750000 

Normal Balance:      Debit 

Definition: Distribution of income such as interest on capital and franchise taxes.  

***Justification:****Removing specific Federal/Non-Federal Code attribute domain value use instructions from the definition. Users can find specific instructions related to this Attribute in the TFM 2-4700.*

Proposed USSGL account 320700 & F/N impacts to 619000, 750000IRC Handout 5-7-15Page 1
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

MELTON LOSOYA,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-1310 LKK KJM P

ORDER

Respondent has sought an application for an extension of time in which to file an answer

to the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Respondent’s request for an extension of time is granted;

2. The answer is due within thirty days of the date of this order. Petitioner’s traverse,

if any, is due thirty days after the answer is filed.

3. No further extensions of time to file the answer will be granted. 

DATED: May 24, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01310-LKK -KJM Document 26 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 52586.

protest 56710-K (Cleveland).

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on entries 1046, 1050, 1086, and 11. The protest was sustained to this extent.
F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 1 4, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1438 3
D. C. Dock et No. 0 2- 20 39 8 C V-KAM DANIEL LU GO, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,

ve rs us GAIL LEVINE , ALISON W . LEHR, et al ., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S out he rnD ist ri ct

of F lor ida (D ec em be r 14, 200 7) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, DUBINA, Cir cu it Ju dg e an d S TORY,* District Judge.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ *Honora ble Richard W. Story , United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation.Th ou g h th e dis tr ic t c ourt ba se d it s d ism iss a l on

the de fe nd a nts ’ a

rgumen t f

or a bs olute 1 prosec utorial immunit y , we need not address that question. Lug o failed to state a claim abse nt such immunit y , and we may

aff irm for an y re as o n supported by the re cord. See W

ill iam s v . B d. of R eg en ts o f U niv

. Sy s. of G a. , 477 F. 3d 12 82, 1294 (11t h Cir. 2007 ). 2 PE R CU RIA M: In this civil righ ts action broug ht pursu ant to 42 U.S .C. § 1983 , plaintiff Da niel Lugo (“ Lugo”) appeals the district court’ s orders dism issin g his am ended

co m pla int a nd d en y ing his va ri ous post -j udgm en t m oti ons. W e re vie w de nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r dis m iss ing ac om pla int , ac ce pti ng a ll al le ga tio ns “ in t he c om pla int a s tr ue a nd d raw ing a ll re as ona ble inference s therefr om

in the plainti ff’ s favor. ” Chesser v. Sparks , 248 F

. 3d 1 117, 1121 (11th Cir. 2001). Ne vertheless, “ concluso ry allegations, unwarr anted factual deduction s or legal conclusion s m asquerading as facts w ill not p revent dism issal.” Davila v. De lta Air Lines, Inc. , 326 F. 3d 11 83, 1185 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , a nd h av ing the be ne fi t of or al a rg um en t, w e co nc lud e tha t L ugo’ s a m en de d c om pla int f ai le d to sta te ac la im

. Mo re ove r, be ca use w e co nc lud e tha t t he dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y 1 dis m iss ed the a m en de d c om

pla int , w e co nc lud e tha t i t di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by de ny ing L ugo’ s va ri ous post -j udgm en t m oti ons, inc lud ing tho se r eque sti ng relief not pl ed in the am ended com plaint. A ccordingly , w e af firm the district3

co urt’ s or de rs dis m iss ing L ugo’ s a m en de d c om pla int a nd d en y ing his va ri ous post -j udgm en t m oti ons. AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,949
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                       713
<INVENTORY>                                     21,668
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,909
<PP&E>                                          96,721
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,334
<BONDS>                                         34,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,916
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,470)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,192
<SALES>                                         43,351
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,587
<CGS>                                           30,663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,473
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,283
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,488
<INCOME-TAX>                                       478
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,010
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,010
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20<F2>
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC PER SFAS 128
<F2>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED PER SFAS 128
</FN>


</TABLE>
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE I. QUEEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK

INDIANS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK

INDIANS, a federally

recognized Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHARP IMAGE GAMING, INC., a

California corporation, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

No. 2:04-cv-00974-MCE-GGH

NON RELATED CASE ORDER

No. 2:10-cv-01396-FCD-GGH

The court has received the Notice of Related Cases

concerning the above-captioned cases filed June 11, 2010. See

Local Rule 123, E.D. Cal. (1997). 

///

Case 2:04-cv-00974-MCE -GGH Document 27 Filed 07/08/10 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

2

The court has determined, however, that it is inappropriate to

relate or reassign the cases, and therefore declines to do so. 

This order is issued for informational purposes only, and shall

have no effect on the status of the cases, including any previous

Related (or Non-Related) Case Order of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00974-MCE -GGH Document 27 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 2