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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Craig A. Knock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§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/ Craig A. KnockCraig A. KnockVice-PresidentChief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer andChief Accounting Officer)November 11, 2005
#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6867.

Entry No. 736209, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, May 1944, etc.

Certified May 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 9, 1944, etc.

(Decided February 13, 1947)

*Marlow & Hines*for the plaintiff.

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

Tilson, Judge:

The appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the issues herein are similar in all material respects to the issues in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record in that case has been admitted in evidence in this case. The question presented is whether or not the appraiser acted correctly in including as a part of the dutiable values the amount of a so-called British purchase tax.

Upon the agreed facts and the law applicable thereto, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by these appeals to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added by the importer on entry to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Amendment to Commercial Loan Agreement



 Exhibit 4.13 
  

									
	 LOAN NUMBER
	 	 LOAN NAME
	 	 ACCT. NUMBER
	 	 AGREEMENT DATE
	 	 
	 156779
	 	Optical Cable Corporation	 	19398	 	10/26/07	 	
					
	 NOTE AMOUNT
	 	 INDEX (w/Margin)
	 	 RATE
	 	 MATURITY DATE
	 	 LOAN PURPOSE

	 $6,500,000.00
	 	 First Phase – Not Applicable
 Second Phase – Not Applicable
	 	 First Phase - 7.5%
 Second Phase - 7.5%
	 	10/01/11	 	Commercial

 AMENDMENT #1 TO COMMERCIAL LOAN AGREEMENT 
 Draw Loan 
 DATE AND PARTIES. The date of this
Amendment #1 to Commercial Loan Agreement (hereafter “Amended Agreement”) is October 26, 2007. The parties and their addresses are as follows: 
  

			
	 LENDER:
	  	 BORROWER:

	 VALLEY BANK
	  	 OPTICAL CABLE CORPORATION

		  	                a Virginia Corporation
	36 W. Church Ave. S.W.	  	5290 Concourse Drive
	Roanoke, Virginia 24011	  	Roanoke, Virginia 24019

 WHEREAS, by mutual agreement the parties desire to modify certain terms of that Commercial Loan Agreement
dated September 22, 2006 (“Original Agreement”), 
 NOW THEREFORE, in exchange for mutual consideration, the sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree that the Original Agreement is hereby supplemented, amended, corrected, and restated as follows: 
  

	1)	The Original Agreement is modified by the addition of the following section: 

 2. E. Draw Period. The loan will be single advancing note with a draw period extending through February 28, 2009. 
 This draw period amends and supersedes the previously stated draw period of 12 months stated in the commitment letter (p.1, section “Funding: C)”) dated July 17, 2006. 
  

	2)	Except as supplemented, amended, and corrected herein, the Original Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect. 

 SIGNATURES. By signing under seal, I agree to the terms contained in this Agreement. I also acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Agreement. 
  

							
	BORROWER:	 	LENDER:
		
	Optical Cable Corporation	 	Valley Bank
				
	By:	 	/s/ Tracy G. Smith                    (Seal)	 	By:	 	/s/ Scott Leffel                    (Seal)
		 	Tracy G. Smith	 	Name:	 	Scott Leffel
		 	Vice President and CFO	 	Title:	 	Vice President
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

         The following table sets forth all subsidiaries of Smith
International, Inc., other than inactive and insignificant subsidiaries that,
considered in the aggregate, would not constitute a significant subsidiary,
indicating the percentage of issued and outstanding voting securities
beneficially owned by it:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   % of Direct
                                    Where                          and Indirect
Name of Subsidiary                  Incorporated                    Ownership
------------------                  ------------                   ------------

<S>                                 <C>                                <C>

Smith Internacional,
 S.A. de C.V.                       Mexico                             l00%
Omega II Insurance Ltd.             Bermuda                            l00%
S.I. Nederland B.V.                 Netherlands                        l00%
Smith International
 Acquisition Corp.                  Delaware                           100%
Smith International
 Australia (Pty) Ltd.               Australia                          l00%
Smith International
 Canada Ltd.                        Canada                             l00%
Smith International
 do Brasil Ltda.                    Brazil                             l00%
Smith International
 Deutschland GmbH                   Germany                            l00%
Smith International
 Gulf Services Ltd.*                U.A.E.                              49%
Smith International
 France, S.A.R.L.                   France                             l00%
Smith International
 Italia, S.p.A.                     Italy                              l00%
Smith International
 (North Sea) Ltd.                   Scotland                           l00%
Smith Internacional
 de Venezuela, C.A.                 Venezuela                          l00%
Wilson Industries, Inc.             Texas                              100%
</TABLE>

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

*        Not consolidated; accounted for on the equity method of
         accounting.

Except as indicated, all of the above subsidiaries are included in the
Company's consolidated financial statements.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011�1003

Combined Multibeam and LIDAR Bathymetry Data from Eastern Long Island Sound and Westernmost Block Island Sound � A Regional Perspective

----

## References 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
September 16, 1949

No. 7740.

#### Larsen *Importing Corp.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 7709. Motion by plaintiff.
5882.

#### EDWARD H. PURCELL vs. GUSTAVE SEEGER.

Appeal from the 'Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 87,923. ' Pión. G. H. T-heard, Judge.

John Watt, for plaintiff and -appellant.

Prank E. Rainold, J. Gross, George Sladovich, attorneys.

Poster, Milling, Brian & Saa-1, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, -as follows:

On Rehearing,

Upon the original hearing we held substantially that the property of one who has regularly paid to the State the taxes due by him upon his property, cannot legally be sold for taxes by the State, even though the assessment upon which the taxes were paid as aforesaid did not properly describe his property, but, on the contrary, more aptly fitted property belonging to another.

*18Opinion and decree, November 10, 1913.

Rehearing refused November 24, 1913.

Writ denied, December 16, 1913.

Upon the application for a rehearing- onr attention was directed to the case of In Re Quaker Realty Company, Praying, etc., 6 Court of Appeal, 220, which'we find does undoubtedly announce and apply a. contrary doctrine, but one which upon a thorough re-examination of the authorities appears to -be in direct conflict with the jurisprudence as established by our Supreme Court.

Bernstein vs. Leeper, 118 La., 1098.

Boeksh vs. Lumber Co., 115 La., 351.

Kellogg vs. McFatter, 111 La., 1037.

Page vs. Kidd, 121 La., 2.

Bender vs. Bailey, 130 L¡a., 341.

Lefebre vs. Negrotto, 44 A., 792.

The facts in the Bernstein case and in the Page case are identical with those in the present case, while the principle applied in all these cases is in accord with thar announced in our original opinion herein. The case of Quaker Realty Company, supra, must be overruled, and we will abide by our former opinion and decree.

It is accordingly ordered that our original decree herein be reinstated and be made the judgment of this Court.

Former decree reinstated.

Original opinion Volume X, page 308.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2040 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2040

 To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish a point of 
order to prohibit an increase or other modification of the public debt 
 limit unless a concurrent resolution on the budget has been agreed to 
                           and is in effect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2012

Mr. Lee (for himself, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
Coburn, Mr. Paul, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Risch, and 
  Mr. Crapo) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish a point of 
order to prohibit an increase or other modification of the public debt 
 limit unless a concurrent resolution on the budget has been agreed to 
                           and is in effect.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Budget Before Borrowing Act of 
2012''.

SEC. 2. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF DEBT LIMIT 
              MODIFICATION.

    Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Point of Order Against Consideration of Debt Limit 
Modification.--(1) It shall not be in order in the House of 
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or joint resolution, 
or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, to increase or 
modify the public debt limit unless a concurrent resolution on the 
budget has been agreed to and is in effect for the fiscal year during 
which such measure is being considered.
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended in the House of 
Representatives or the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-
thirds of its Members, duly chosen and sworn.
    ``(3) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen 
and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the 
ruling of the Chair on a point of order under paragraph (1).''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 96-5694.

#### Williams *v.*New York.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-649-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 17, 1997, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, filed in 
Docket No. CP97-643-000, a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205 and 157.216) for authorization to abandon by sale to 
Intermountain Gas Corporation (Intermountain), a portion of its 
existing 6-inch Simplot-Westvaco Lateral loop line (loop line) located 
in Power County, Idaho, under Northwest's blanket certificate issued in 
Docket No. CP82-433-000, pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 
all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Northwest relates that the portion of the loop line that Northwest 
has agreed to sell to Intermountain consists of approximately 811 feet 
of 6-inch pipeline extending from an insulated flange within 
Intermountain's Simplot Meter Station to approximately 733 feet beyond 
the outlet of the meter station. Northwest says the line will be sold 
at Northwest's net book value which is currently approximately $81. 
Northwest explains that no facilities will be removed or modified and 
no service will be affected as a result of the proposed sale.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19732 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**STATEMENT
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Winston Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd.
      (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a)
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
      2005, to which this certification accompanies (the "Annual Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      The
      information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








March
      22,
      2006


/S/
      Winston Johnson


Winston
      Johnson, Chief Executive Officer







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. and
      will
      be retained by Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1761 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1761

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the exception to 
the treatment of consolidated groups under the personal holding company 
                                 rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 21 (legislative day, October 20), 2011

 Ms. Cantwell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the exception to 
the treatment of consolidated groups under the personal holding company 
                                 rules.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF EXCEPTION TO TREATMENT AS CONSOLIDATED GROUP UNDER 
              PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RULES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 542 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraphs (2) and (4), and
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (5) as paragraphs 
        (2) and (3), respectively.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Paragraph (1) of section 542(b) of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'' and inserting 
        ``paragraph (2)''.
            (2) Clause (ii) of section 1504(c)(2)(B) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``section 542(b)(5)'' and inserting 
        ``section 542(b)(3)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2014245EN.01001001.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014 — Grupo Flexi de León v OHIM (FLEXI)

(Case T-352/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark FLEXI - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 245/13

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Flexi de León, SA de CV (León, Mexico) (represented by: M. Zarobe, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2012 (Case R 1335/2011-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign FLEXI as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Grupo Flexi de León, SA de CV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Grupo Flexi de León, SA de CV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of **FIRSTBINGO.COM INC.**(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Michael Kabin, 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:

- 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 

Dated this 18th day of May, 2006.

 
MICHAEL KABIN 
Michael Kabin 
Chief Executive Officer
No. 48232.

#### Protest 969219-G of Kamen Wiping Materials Co. (St. Louis).

*444Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Certain of the cotton rags, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schapiro*(24 C. C. P. A. 343, T. D. 48771), were held, entitled to free entry in accordance with the percentages,of rags used for paper making as stipulated by counsel. Protect sustained to that extent.
(Reap. Dec. 9118)

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5994.

(Decided on rehearing [not published] April 2, 1958)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the market value or the price of the merchandise manufactured by Schumann & Schreider on the invoice covered by the above enumerated appeal for reappraisement, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany, the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the appraised value less the amount added under duress and that there was no higher foreign value.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal be submitted on 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 *781for the determination of tbe value of the merchandise here involved, manufactured by Schumann *&*Schreider, and that such values were the appraised values, less the amount added under duress.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ERVIN MIDDLETON, Appellant,

vs. MERCHANTS BONDING COMPANY,



### Respondent. No. 70657



# FILED JUL 1 1 2016

TRACIE K. LINDEMAN CLERIWF SUPREME COURT BY StItc&na---

DEPUTY CLERK 

### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Rob Bare, Judge.

Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a potential jurisdictional defect. Specifically, we are unable to discern whether this court has jurisdiction to consider the instant appeal because appellant fails to identify any appealable order. Moreover, it appears from the district court docket entries and minutes that the proceedings are ongoing. Accordingly, it appears that no final judgment has been entered. A notice of appeal filed before entry of a final written judgment is premature and of no effect. 

### See NRAP 4(a)(1); 

### Rust v. Clark Cty. School District, 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction, and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.



## /Sc,t 

# 441 \

, J. Hardesty 

# tc:YetthA Saitta Pickering

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947Acc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge Ervin Middleton The Faux Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A