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

**CERTIFICATION      OF**

**CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER**

| (1)                     | The              Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the period              ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), to which this statement is filed              as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)              or              15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;              and |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | By:/s/                John P. MuellerJohn                P. MuellerChief                Financial Officer(Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated:                May 3, 2007 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick Cipriano, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 8]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered April 23, 1993, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review, the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the indictment should be dismissed because the People did not exercise due diligence in securing his release from Federal authorities for a speedy trial in this matter, resulting in a delay chargeable to the People. *462The record, establishes that the District Attorney made diligent efforts to secure the presence of the defendant after he was taken into Federal custody on an alleged parole violation. Thus, the period from August 3, 1992, to November 6, 1992, is not chargeable to the People and defendant’s speedy trial motion was properly denied *(see, People v Garrett,*207 AD2d 948; *People v Brown,*136 AD2d 715). Thompson, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eduardo Rojas, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 356]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered August 10, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertion on appeal, we find that the delay between his arrest and arraignment was not calculated to deprive him of his indelible right to counsel and that it did not render involuntary statements made by him to the police during the six-hour period *(see, People v Ortlieb,*84 NY2d 989). The delay was justified in part by the fact that the police were trying to elicit information from the defendant concerning the whereabouts of his cousin, an individual they believed was also involved in the instant crime *(see, People v Beckham,*174 AD2d 748). We note that the hearing record shows that the defendant effectively waived his *Miranda*rights *383and willingly talked to the police without the presence of counsel.

We further find that the evidence at trial regarding the defendant’s homosexual prostitution and immigration law violations was properly admitted because it was both necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the crime charged and was inextricably interwoven with the description of the events depicted *(see, People v Lemma,*201 AD2d 669; *People v Caíala,*198 AD2d 293).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suifte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/4/2023 1

Purging Voter Registrations 

Because of Registration in Other States 

Democratic Party of Virginia v. Virginia State Board 

of Elections (Claude M. Hilton, E.D. Va. 1:13-cv-1218) 

A federal complaint challenged the purging of voter registrations 

for persons that appeared to have registered in other states since the 

last time they voted in Virginia, alleging an excess of errors. The 

district judge denied the plaintiffs relief, finding several mechanisms in place to correct errors. 

Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topic: Registration challenges. 

Five weeks before the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia, the commonwealth’s Democratic Party filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District of 

Virginia’s Alexandria courthouse seeking an immediate halt to a program of 

purging voter registrations for persons who appeared to have registered in 

other states since the last time they voted in Virginia, alleging an excess of 

errors.1

 Two days later, the party filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.2

Five days after that, the plaintiffs notified the defendants of a hearing on the 

matter in ten days.3

On October 21, three days after the hearing, Judge Claude M. Hilton denied the party immediate relief.4

 “If a voter is removed from the voter rolls in 

error, there are several mechanisms in place to protect that voter’s rights, including provisional ballots and registration reinstatement.”5

 On election day, 

Judge Hilton granted the parties a stipulated dismissal.6

1. Complaint, Democratic Party of Va. v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:13-cv-1218 

(E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2013), D.E. 1; see Antonio Olivo, Democrats File Lawsuit to Stop Use of Voter “Purge List,” Wash. Post, Oct. 3, 2013, at B5. 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Democratic Party of Va., No. 1:13-cv-1218 (E.D. Va. 

Oct. 3, 2013), D.E. 6. 

3. Notice, id. (Oct. 8, 2013), D.E. 12. 

4. Opinion, id. (Oct. 21, 2013), D.E. 34, 2013 WL 5741486; see Matt Zapotosky, Democrats Lose Suit Over Voter Rolls, Wash. Post, Oct. 19, 2013, at B3. 

Judge Hilton granted leave for two interest groups to file amicus curiae briefs. Order, 

Democratic Party of Va., No. 1:13-cv-1218 (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2013), D.E. 33. 

5. Opinion, supra note 4, at 4–5. 

6. Order, Democratic Party of Va., No. 1:13-cv-1218 (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 2013), D.E. 41.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-51028

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TANISHA TEMPLETON,

also known as Juna Marie Mitchell,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-98-CR-ALL

--------------------

September 7, 2000

Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Juges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tanisha Templeton ("Templeton") appeals from her conviction 

for possession of more than five grams of cocaine base in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844. Her conviction was based on a

conditional plea, and Templeton now asserts that the district

court erred in denying her motion to suppress. Because we

conclude that Templeton lacks standing to raise a Fourth

Amendment challenge to the seizure of evidence we affirm the

judgment of the district court.
No. 99-51028

-2-

Templeton argues that she maintained a reasonable

expectation of privacy in a purse and duffle bag located within a

motel room that was searched by police after obtaining consent to

search from Templeton's sister. Templeton asserts on appeal that

the container with the cocaine found inside the duffle bag should

have been suppressed. A review of the evidence at the

suppression hearing, however, shows that Templeton denied staying

in the motel room where the duffle bag was located and claimed

ownership of only the purse. Therefore, Templeton lacked a

reasonable expectation of privacy in a search of the room or the

duffle bag. See United States v. Boruff, 909 F.2d 111, 116 (5th

Cir. 1990); United States v. Alvarez, 6 F.3d 287, 289 (5th Cir.

1993). Additionally, evidence other than that found in the purse

connected Templeton to the cocaine seized by police.

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

          - 49 CFR Parts 531 and 533
          - [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27350]

# AGENCY:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

# ACTION:

Request for comments; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects the dates and addresses captions in a request for comments published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 27, 2007 (72 FR 8664), regarding the acquisition of new and updated manufacturers' future product plans to aid in implementing the President's plan for reforming and increasing corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and further increasing the already reformed light truck standards.  The                         **DATES**                         caption did not include the correct date for submission of light truck product plans, and the addresses caption did not include a complete docket number.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ken Katz, (202) 366-4936.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 27, 2007, in FR Doc. 07-878, make the following corrections.  On page 8664, in the third column, correct the                         **DATES**                         caption to read:                    

# DATES:

Passenger car comments must be received on or before May 29, 2007. Light truck comments must be received on or before June 27, 2007. 

                        On page 8664, in the third column, correct the first three lines of the                         **ADDRESSES**                         caption to read:                    

# ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 2007-27350] by any of the following methods:

Issued: March 9, 2007.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

 [FR Doc. E7-4765 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0301

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM G. ROSSBACH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 3, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 28 2020

12/28/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0301
#### Charles L. Chatterton, *Receiver, etc., Respondent, v.*Mary E. Pine, *Appellant,*Impleaded, *etc.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Gilbert, J.
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

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ First Request for EOT to file a Responsive Pleading

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

JAMES E. FLYNN

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

MARIA G. CHAN, State Bar No. 192130

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 323-1940

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Andreasen,

Grannis and Khoury

SA2005301009

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREASEN, et. al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S -04-2515 FCD PAN P

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ FIRST REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING

Defendant’s first request for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading was

considered by the Court, and good cause appearing, Defendants’ request is granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall have until October 26, 2005 to file a

response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

will2515.proposed order.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02515-FCD-EFB Document 16 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 1
#### SIDNEY PALEY, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. TOWNSHIP OF WOODBRIDGE, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Stewart M. Mutt*and *Mr. Sam Weiss*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Patten & Pryga*for the respondents.

April 30, 1962.
Exhibit 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 the Quarterly Report of American Home Mortgage Investment
Corp. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael Strauss, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
and President of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.


May 5, 2005

                                    /s/ Michael Strauss
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 Michael Strauss
                                 Chairman, Chief Executive
                                 Officer and President
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.'s 333-62903 and 333-38724) pertaining to the Academic Systems
Corporation 1992 Stock Option Plan (1992 Plan), the 2000 Equity Incentive
Plan (2000 Plan) and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (2000 ESP Plan) of
our report dated March 2, 2001, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Lightspan, Inc. for the year ended January 31, 2002.

                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California
April 24, 2002
No. 58061.

protests 219943-K, etc. (New York).

#### S. A. Haram & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of herring, prepared or preserved in any manner, packed in airtight containers weighing with their contents not more than 15 pounds each, without added oil or oil and other substances, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
JZOED STqT,s 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

~ A 7~ REGION 5 

2 = 77 WEST JACKSON BOVLEVARD 

~~'Tq~ PRG ~EG~~o CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

MAR 07 2012 

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF 

WN-16J 

Mr. Chris Antieau 

Great Lakes Shorelands Unit 

Water Resources Division 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 30473 

Lansing, Michigan 48909 

Re: Request for 15 Day Extension and Additional Extension 

Dear Mr. Antieau: 

This letter responds to your letter of February 17, 2012 requesting an extension of time to 

provide your Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency concurrence or obj ection on 

the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's national consistency determinations for re-issuance 

of the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and issuance of the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). 

EPA provided its "national consistency determinations" to you for review under section 307 of 

the CZMA by a letter dated December 08, 2011. In that letter, EPA explained that it anticipated 

your response within 60 days of receipt or that EPA would presume concurrence. 

Your letter indicated that you will be unable to complete your CZMA consistency review until 

the Michigan DEQ issues Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 certifications for the draft VGP 

and sVGP. EPA believes that it is appropriate to provide additional time for completion of your 

CZMA consistency review because Michigan DEQ has until June 30, 2012 to either provide or 

waive CWA section 401 certification on the permits. 

By this letter, EPA provides you an extension of time until July 16, 2012 for completion of your 

CZMA consistency review, including your concurrence with or objection to EPA's national 

consistency determinations for the VGP and sVGP, respectively. The extension for your 

response is until your close of business on July 16, 2012. We are also notifying you now that in 

order to enable EPA to timely complete final action on these two permits, EPA generally will not 

be able to accommodate extensions beyond July 16, 2012. If a reply is not received within that 

time period, EPA intends to presume your concurrence. See, 15 C.F.R. 930.41(a). 

It is important to all of us that we are able to take timely final action on the next VGP and sVGP, 

and completion of the CZMA review process is an important part of that. EPA urges you to 

initiate your CZMA review promptly, including in coordination with your colleagues conducting 

the 401 certification processes in Michigan DEQ. 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Pap-er (50% Postconsumer) 
If you have any questions, please contact Sean Ramach of my staff, at 312-886-5284 or 

ramach.sean@epa.gov . 

Sincerely, 

_--- 

Tinka G. Hyde 

Director, Water Division
Before the First Division,

December 20, 1940

No. 45011.

#### Protests 890944-G(B), etc., of A. D. Cohen Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar to the wool hat bodies passed upon in *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Cheviot Financial Corp. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Scott T. Smith, 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, to my knowledge:

     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/Scott T. Smith
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Scott T. Smith
                                         Chief Financial Officer

     Date: May 14, 2004
(Reap. Dec. 8271)

#### E. Fougera & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 788976; 729992.

(Decided December 18, 1953)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States, of the merchandise covered by the above appeals for reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus 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 *436shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases, plus 4}4% Transmission Tax, and that there is no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeals for reappraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases, plus 4K per centum transmission tax.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.