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



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



I, Merrill B. Blanksteen, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer hereby certify that NewAlliance
Bancshares, Inc.s report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/ Merrill B. Blanksteen                
|Merrill B. Blanksteen                    
|Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
|Officer and Treasurer                    



Date: November 12, 2004



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### George H. Bend, *Respondent, v.*Elisha Ruckman, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Daniels, J.
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Michelle H.Y. Voon  | Attn:  John Ask / Kristine Gullo |
| 100 Plaza One 6 th Floor        | 100 White Clay Center, Suite 102 |
| Jersey City, NY 07311                | Newark, DE  19711 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets, LLC |
| Attn:  John Ask                       | Ally Financial Inc. |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020              | 200 Renaissance Center |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 12 th Floor, MC 482-B12-C24 |
|                                            | Detroit, MI |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2010-2 |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the Trust Sale and Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the Trust Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |
EXHIBIT 31.2

302 CERTIFICATION

OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I,
William W. Douglas III, Chief Financial Officer of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 17, 2011



/s/ William W. Douglas IIIWilliam W. Douglas IIIChief Financial OfficerCoca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.
#### Algernon S. Sullivan, *Respondent, v.*Margaret Bennis, *Administratrix, etc., Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Brady, J.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D2023-3029 

LT Case No. 2022-CF-010788

_____________________________ 

MINAS KARANGOLIAN, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Jeb T. Branham, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Natalie R. Gossett, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda A. Uwaibi, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

June 11, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

LAMBERT, HARRIS, and KILBANE, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
#### Daniel F. Young, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7492.

Entry No. 728171.

Invoice dated London, England, November 15, 1945.

Certified November 17, 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 17, 1945.

(Decided December 23, 1947)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

La whence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Certification by the Principal Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of RDA Microelectronics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shuran Wei, Chairman and Chief Executive 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.

 

Date: April 28, 2014

 
|   | By:    | /s/   Shuran Wei          |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Shuran   Wei              |
|   | Title: | Chief   Executive Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATION
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
       (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                              UNITED STATES CODE)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Knowles Electronics Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

     The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
"Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: March 28, 2003               /s/ John J. Zei
                                    --------------------------
                                    John J. Zei
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 26, 2015 518768

________________________________ In the Matter of JOHN D. JUSTICE, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: February 10, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ John D. Justice, Comstock, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Melkonian, J.), entered April 4, 2014 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner's motion to hold respondent in civil contempt. Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated, applied for conditional release and, when he did not receive a response, he commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel respondent to rule upon his application. Supreme Court granted the petition and issued an order that, among other things, directed respondent to decide petitioner's application. In connection therewith, the Department of Corrections and Community-2- 518768

Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) informed petitioner that one of the conditions of his release was that he reside in an approved residence. Petitioner provided DOCCS with three residential options. None of these were found acceptable, and DOCCS thus requested that petitioner provide further residential options. Petitioner declined to do so and, instead, brought the instant motion for an order seeking to hold respondent in civil contempt for failure to comply with the court's prior order. Respondent did not file a response. Supreme Court found that respondent had complied with the prior order and denied petitioner's application. Petitioner appeals. We affirm. In order "[t]o establish civil contempt, [the] petitioner must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the [respondent] knowingly violated a clear and unequivocal court order and that such conduct prejudiced his [or her] rights" (Matter of Platten v New York State Div. of Parole, 85 AD3d 1281, 1281-1282 [2011]; see Matter of DeMeo v City of Albany, 73 AD3d 1316, 1317 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 819 [2010]). Petitioner has not made that showing here. The record discloses that DOCCS complied with the prior order by seeking to collect the information needed from petitioner to process his application. Petitioner did not cooperate with DOCCS by providing it with information regarding additional residential options after the first three were found unacceptable and, thus, he may not claim that DOCCS failed to process his application. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly concluded that its prior order was not violated and denied petitioner's motion to hold respondent in civil contempt. We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Lahtinen, J.P., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.-3- 518768

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
July 23, 2012

EPA Technical Memorandum

Subject: Analysis of Argonne National Laboratory’s HEV Data to Evaluate Methods for 

Determining Nominal Voltage

From: James Sanchez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

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

For the definition of nominal voltage in chapter 5 of the technical support document the follow 

data analysis was done. The data used was 10 Hz battery current and voltage data for a 2010 

Toyota Prius, 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid and 2011 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid tested at Argonne 

National Laboratory. The two methods for determine nominal voltage were as follows. 

The first method was averaging the battery voltage just after “key-on” with the battery voltage 

just prior to “key-off. Ideally the voltage measurement would be taken with no load or zero 

current to from the battery, but since this is not possible the data was used to determine a 

reasonable limit for the current during the voltage measurement. Figure 1 and 2 is a sample of 

the current and voltage data at the beginning and end of a test over the UDDS. 

Figure 1 - Battery voltage and current as a percent of maximum current at the start of the UDDS 

cycle.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 V

oltage

%

Current

Time (sec)

Current (% of Absolute Maximum Current) Battery Voltage (V)
Figure 2 - Battery voltage and current as a percent of maximum current at the end of the UDDS 

cycle.

The second method that was evaluated was averaging the battery voltage over the full UDDS 

when the battery current was less than 3% of the absolute maximum current during the test. The 

results turned out to be very similar to the average of the initial and final voltage but were 

slightly higher due to the voltage roll off after each charging event. Table 1 is a summary of the 

two methods. The column labeled “Avg. OC Voltage” are the results from method 2.

Table 1 – Summary of nominal voltage results from the two described methods.

Vehicle Test Initial 

Voltage

Final 

Voltage

Initial 

Current % of 

Max

Final Current 

% of Max

Avg. of 

Initial and 

Final

Avg. OC 

Voltage

% Difference 

in Methods

2011 

Fusion 

Hybrid

1 271.1 272.1 -0.1 -0.2 271.6 275.6 1%

2 270.2 272.1 -0.1 0.0 271.1 276.7 2%

3 270.9 271.8 -0.1 0.0 271.4 276.7 2%

4 270.5 272.2 -0.1 0.0 271.3 277.0 2%

2010 

Prius

1 221.8 224.5 1.8 0.9 223.2 228.1 2%

2 223.4 224.8 1.8 0.8 224.1 228.6 2%

3 223.7 224.2 1.9 0.1 224.0 228.4 2%

2011 1 283.0 281.7 2.5 1.4 282.3 284.0 1%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1340 1345 1350 1355 1360 1365 1370 1375 1380 1385 1390 V

oltage

%

Current

Time (sec)

Current (% of Absolute Maximum Current) Battery Voltage (V)
Sonata 

Hybrid

2 280.7 281.8 2.4 1.5 281.3 283.9 1% 3 280.9 282.2 1.9 1.5 281.6 284.2 1% 4 281.4 281.2 1.7 2.2 281.3 283.8 1%
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8433 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to require the National Institutes 

of Health to select awardees based on merit, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Ms. HAGEMAN (for herself, Mr. BANKS, and Mr. BURLISON) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to require the 

National Institutes of Health to select awardees based 

on merit, 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 ‘‘Abolishing Woke 

5 Awards for Research and Development Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIRING NIH TO SELECT AWARDEES BASED ON 

7 MERIT. 

8 Part A of title IV of the Public Health Service Act 

9 (42 U.S.C. 281 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

10 the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8433 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 404P. REQUIRING NIH TO SELECT AWARDEES BASED 

2 ON MERIT. 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The National Institutes of 

4 Health (including any officer thereof)— 

5 ‘‘(1) shall select the recipients of grants, con6 tracts, cooperative agreements, or other awards 

7 based only on— 

8 ‘‘(A) the merits of the proposals; and 

9 ‘‘(B) the intrinsic research, development, 

10 and scientific benefits of the proposals; and 

11 ‘‘(2) shall not mandate the use of diversity 

12 statements or any other diversity, equity, and inclu13 sion material or documentation as a qualification 

14 for, or condition of receipt of, an award. 

15 ‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec16 tion may be construed to prevent the National Institutes 

17 of Health from conducting or supporting the 

18 disaggregation of data by population for purposes of con19 ducting research or developing products. 

20 ‘‘(c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘diver21 sity statement’ means any written or oral statement dis22 cussing— 

23 ‘‘(1) the race, sex, color, ethnicity, gender iden24 tity, or sexual orientation of the person making the 

25 statement; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8433 IH

1 ‘‘(2) the views of the person making the state2 ment on, experience with, or contributions to— 

3 ‘‘(A) diversity, equity, and inclusion; 

4 ‘‘(B) marginalized groups; 

5 ‘‘(C) anti-racism; 

6 ‘‘(D) social justice; 

7 ‘‘(E) intersectionality; 

8 ‘‘(F) confessing one’s race-based privilege; 

9 or 

10 ‘‘(G) related concepts; 

11 ‘‘(3) the views of the person making the state12 ment on, experience with the race, sex, color, eth13 nicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation of stu14 dents and co-workers; or 

15 ‘‘(4) the views of the person making the state16 ment regarding any theory or practice that advo17 cates for the differential treatment of any individual 

18 or groups of individuals based on race, sex, color, 

19 gender, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orienta20 tion.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
rj ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 23-0021 

GREGG ALLEN ZINDELL, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Respondent and Appellee. 

FILLD 

FEB 0 7 rn 

Bowen Gt _ 

C, ,x of Supreme Court 

State of tVlontana 

ORDER 

Earlier this year, self-represented Appellant Gregg Allen Zindell filed a Notice of 

Appeal and Motion for Appointment of Counsel with this Court. On January 12, 2023, 

this Court denied his rnotion for appointrnent of counsel because Zindell is not entitled to 

appointed representation for postconviction relief. Zindell now moves this Court again for 

appointment of counsel, and he moves for a sixty-day extension of time. 

Zindell's motion for an extension of time is premature. Upon review of this Court's 

docket, this Court has not received the record from the District Court. Zindell will receive 

written notice of when the Court receives the record from the Clerk of the Supreme Court. 

M. R. App. P. 9(6). After that, Zindell may move this Court for an extension of time to 

file his opening brief 

Turning to his rnotion for legal representation, it appears that Zindell did not receive 

this Court's first Order before he filed a second motion. As stated previously, Zindell is 

not entitled to counsel in this appeal. Section 46-8-104, MCA. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Zindell's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zindell's Motion for a Sixty-Day Extension of 

Time is DIS1VIISSED without prejudice. Zindell may make his request again. 

02/07/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0021
The Clerk oldie Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel 

of record and to Gregg Allen Zindell personally. 

DATED this V A-day of February, 2023. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10(b)

                           REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL

I, Sandra M. DaDalt, in my capacity as counsel to Sun Life of Canada (U.S.)
Variable Account F (the "Account") have reviewed this Post-Effective
Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account which is being filed
pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485 under the Securities Act of 1933. Based
on my review of this Post-Effective Amendment and such other material
relating to the operations of the Account as I deemed relevant, I hereby
certify as of the date of filing this Amendment, that the Post-Effective
Amendment does not contain disclosure which would render it ineligible to
become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.

I hereby consent to the filing of this representation as part of this
Post-Effective Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account.

                                              /s/ SANDRA DADALT
                                              --------------------
                                              Sandra DaDalt, Esq.

April 10, 2001
[No. 15499.

In Bank.—

March 3, 1894.]

#### LUCY W. AUZERAIS et al., Petitioners, *v.*THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent.

Writ of Review—Additional Finding of Superior Court—Excess of Jurisdiction—Remedy Upon Appeal.—A proceeding in the supreme court upon a writ of review to annul an order and additional finding of the superior court on the ground that the latter court was at the time without jurisdiction to make such order and finding, because the cause in which it was made was then pending in the supreme court on appeal, will be dismissed, as the petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in due course of law, when the additional finding is presented in the supreme court as a part of the record on appeal. If the superior court was without authority to make the finding complained of, such finding will be entirely disregarded as a part of the record on appeal.

Proceeding in the Supreme Court upon a writ of review to annul an order of the Superior Court of Sacramento County.

*A. G. Freeman,*and *McKune & George,*for Petitioners.

*Johnson, Johnson & Johnson, contra.*

The Court.—

The petitioners seek by this proceeding to annul a certain order and finding made by the superior court of the county of Sacramento on July 29,1893, in a certain proceeding then or before then pending in that court in the matter of the estate of Lewellyn Williams, deceased. The ground of the application is that the superior court was at the time without jurisdiction to make such an order and additional finding, because the cause in which it was made was then pending in this court on appeal. Conceding this to be so, the petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in due course of law, when the additional finding is presented here as a part of the record on that appeal. If the superior court was without authority to make the finding complained of, such finding will be entirely disregarded as a part of the record on the appeal referred to.

The proceeding is dismissed.
No. 45068.

#### Protest 835244-G of S. H. Kress & Co. (New York).

■ Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the rubber- mice in question are in part of bamboo and similar to those the subject of Abstract 40389. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was therefore sustained.