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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Craig A. Knock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, created by 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), as applicable,
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 Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Craig A. Knock                                                                                                                      
|                     |  |  |  | Craig A. Knock Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Principal Accounting Officer Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-429-000]


Ozark Gas Transmission System; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

July 30, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 25, 1997, Ozark Gas Transmission System 
(Ozark) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 106 and Original Sheet 
No. 106A, to become effective September 1, 1997.
    Ozark states that the revised tariff sheets implement an open tap 
policy for deliveries out of its system in compliance with the 
Commission's June 25, 1997 Order in Docket No. EC97-20. Specifically, 
Ozark states that it will install promptly metering and interconnection 
facilities in those instances when new facilities are necessary to 
accommodate the delivery of gas under its FTS Rate Schedule out of its 
system for delivery to a Local Distribution Company, municipality, 
electric utility, Independent Power Producer or direct end user, if the 
Shipper agrees to reimburse Ozark for the costs incurred for such 
installation.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20537 Filed 8-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Jung Forwarding Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6604.

Entry No. 739555, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, January 17, 1946, etc.

Certified January 23, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 20, 1946, etc.

(Decided December 11, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Moldison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed fh schedule A, hereto attached and,made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto;

■ (Stipulation omitted.)

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 values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

October 22, 1943

No. 48903.

#### Protest 811802-G/10596 of Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

At the hearing several affidavits and documents were offered in evidence by plaintiff but were denied admission by the court, following *Thornley*v. *United States*(19 C. C. P. A. 221, T. D. 45325). It appeared from a review of the record that the plaintiff offered no competent evidence to establish the actual quantity of lumber imported. An inspector of customs testified that he took three measurements, length, breadth, and height, but he could only say the amount indicated by such measurements did not exceed the amount specified on the consumption entry permit. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
#### Mrs. M. S. Heisley *v.*United States

No. 7738.

Entry No. 106.

(Decided September 26, 1949)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Joseph E. Weil,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement under section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930 from the value found by the appraiser at the port of Charleston, S. C., on a certain beaver coat imported from Montreal, Canada.

The merchandise was entered on November 24, 1948, at a value of $1,400 and was appraised as entered.

Attached to the entry is a paper (exhibit 1) in the form of a bill under the billhead of the seller, addressed to the plaintiff, stating the retail price to be $1,400; the wholesale price to be approximately 25-per centum less; and that the transaction was a *bona fide*tourist purchase.

The consular invoice upon which entry was based shows an invoiced amount of $1,400 Canadian currency. In column 11 of this invoice the words “or export” have been crossed out of the heading which now reads “Current Price (Home consumption) Per Unit.” This amount is stated to be $1,400 Canadian currency. The information contained in column 11 of the invoice is some indication that the foreign value of the merchandise is higher than the export value.

*277Subsequent to the date of the appraisement, an amended consular invoice was presented which, in addition to the above-mentioned data given in the original consular invoice, contains the statement “Wholesale Price Approximately 25% Less.”

The plaintiff claims this merchandise should he valued at $1,400 less 25 per centum on the basis of the wholesale price of an article which was purchased at retail for exportation to the United States.

Section 402, Tariff Act of 1930, provides that the value of imported merchandise shall be the foreign or export value, whichever is higher.

The statement on the invoices that the price for home consumption was $1,400 was before the appraiser at the time he made his appraisement and it must be presumed that it was considered by him. I fail to find sufficient evidence in this record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the finding of value made by the appraiser.

On the basis of the record before me I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value was the appraised value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 56713.

protests 62282-K (S) and 62283-K (S) (New York).

#### Roovers Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

*493Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Roovers Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(23 Cust. Ct. 53, C. D. 1190). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
#### William Brooks *v.*United States

No. 7780.

Entry No. 701763, etc.

(Decided January 24, 1950)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiS.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, which is marked “A” and made a part of this decision, was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 00-733.

#### Nicholas et al. *v.*Saul Stone & Co. et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Caprius, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond Jackshies, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.
 /s/Raymond Jackshies
 Raymond Jackshies
 Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer
 
  Date:  December 16, 2010
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE

This First Amendment to Lease ("Amendment"), dated the day of
November, 1996, amends the Lease dated as of June 1, 1994 ("Lease")
between Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company ("Landlord") and
Maxicare Health Plans, Inc. ("Tenant") who hereby agree as follows:

1.	Defined Terms. All terms not defined herein to the contrary
shall have the same meaning as the defined terms under the Lease.

2.	Lease Remains in Effect.  Except as modified by this
Amendment, the Lease remains in full force and effect.

3.	Base Year.  Effective January 1, 1997, the Base Year for
computing Operating Expenses under the Lease shall be the calendar year
1996 ("Base Year") and Tenant shall pay Tenant's PERCENTAGE SHARE
(currently 6.85%) of all increases in Operating Expenses, computed in
accordance with the Lease, over the Operating Expenses, computed in
accordance with the Lease, attributable to the Base Year. Provided,
however, in computing the Management Fee component of Operating Expenses,
the Management Fee for the Base Year shall be equal to the Management Fee
charged in the calendar year 1997.

4.	Rent Credit.  Tenant shall receive a credit against rents past
due and owing under the Lease in the amount of $69,457.86. Landlord and
Tenant agree that the rent including Percentage Rent for the month of
December 1996 is $94,746.67. Landlord and Tenant agree that as of
January-y 1, 1997, Landlord shall have no claim against Tenant, and
Tenant shall have no claim against Landlord, for Operating Expenses
overcharges or undercharges attributable to the period of time commencing
June 1, 1994 and ending on December 31, 1996.

5.	Confidentiality. The Lease and the terms of the Lease, as amended by
this Amendment, and the covenants, obligations and conditions contained
there 4 n shall remain strictly confidential and therefore Landlord and
Tenant agree to use reasonable efforts to keep such terms, covenants,
obligations and conditions contained strictly confidential and, except for
disclosing the fact of a renewal, not to disclose such matters to any
other tenant, broker or entity, except hat the Landlord may disclose
information related to determinations of market rent in connection with
other leases and may disclose all terms and conditions of the Lease to
prospective and current lenders and to prospective purchasers and Landlord
and Tenant may disclose such information in connection with any dispute
pertaining to this Lease.
<PAGE>


EXECUTED in Los Angeles, California, as of November 1996.

Tenant:

MAXICARE HEALTH-PLANS, INC, a Delaware
Corporation

By:   /s/ George Batchelor
Name:
Title:

Landlord:

TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a California corporation

By:       /s/ Paul Wintermute
Name:         Paul Wintermute
Title:       Investment Officer
#### United States *v.*Reedy Forwarding Company a/c Commodity Sales Company

No. 7918.

Entry No. M-1312.

*469(Order dated December 11, 1950)

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Harold L. Gross-man,*special attorney), for the plaintiff, against the motion.

*John F. Kavanagh*for Reedy Forwarding Company, for the motion.

*H. Reid DeJarnette*for the United States Guarantee Company.

DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO IMPLEAD SURETY COMPANY AS PARTY DEPENDANT

Rao, Judge:

For tbe reasons stated in the decision and order on the motion made by defendant Reedy Forwarding Company in re xeappraisement 163082-A, issued concurrently herewith, the motion to implead an additional party defendant is denied.

The case is restored to the next Miami docket for all purposes.
# C_2015138EN.01000602.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — B. Martens v Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

(Case C-359/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - National of a Member State - Residence in another Member State - Studies pursued in an overseas country or territory - Maintenance of the grant of funding for higher education - ‘Three-out-of-six-years’ residence rule - Restriction - Justification))

(2015/C 138/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: B. Martens

Appellant:

Respondent: Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the continued grant of funding for higher education outside that State subject to the rule that the student applying for such funding has resided in that Member State for a period of at least three out of the six years preceding his enrolment.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-65463) on Form S-8 of Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp. and subsidiaries
of our report dated March 16, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 1998
and January 30, 1999, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended January 30, 1999, which report appears in the January 30, 1999
annual report on form 10-K of Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp. and
subsidiaries.

                                                   /s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
April 29, 1999
No. 47759.

#### Protest 692355-G of Caradine Hat Co. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the merchandise ip. question consists of “8-Bu. paper hats” the same as those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith some were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and those imported subsequent to the effective date of the trade agreement with the Netherlands (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at 12}! percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), as modified by T. D. 48075.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damon Dixon, Appellant.

[612 NYS2d 145]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Carey, J.), rendered September 17, 1990, convicting defendant, after a plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of *2Vi*to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The IAS Court’s decision to deny defendant’s *pro se*motion to withdraw his plea without conducting an evidentiary hearing after it thoroughly reviewed the plea minutes and all responses to the defendant’s *pro se*motion, which revealed that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily and that counsel effectively represented the defendant, was proper *(see, People v Bangert,*107 AD2d 752, 753).

We also find that defendant waived the attorney-client privilege with regard to counsel’s disclosure of defendant’s admission that he acted as a lookout during the robbery, in *235light of the fact that, during the plea proceeding, defendant admitted that he and two others forcibly stole the complainant’s wallet and since defendant challenged counsel’s representation *(see, People v Edney,*39 NY2d 620). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.
Amendment to Form of Change in Control Agreement



 Exhibit 10.15 
  
 AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 
  

 THIS AMENDMENT is made this         day of
                 , 20         by and between H.B. FULLER COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation (the
“Company”), and                  (the “Executive”). 
  
 W I T N E S S E T H: 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have heretofore entered into a Change In
Control Agreement, dated                , 2007 (the “Agreement”); 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the mutual
covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties agree that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1.    DEFINITION OF CHANGE IN CONTROL. Effective as of the date of this Amendment, Section 1(b)(i) of the Agreement is amended by replacing the number “15%” with the
number “30%.” 
  
 2.    SAVINGS CLAUSE. Save
and except as hereinabove expressly amended, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have executed this instrument as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	H.B. FULLER COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 
		 	President and Chief Executive Officer



	
	
	
	[Executive]
| **Exhibit 21**
SUNRISE MEDICAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

List of Subsidiaries

Name of Subsidiary
Incorporation
Ownership %
Sunrise Medical CCG Inc.
Wisconsin
100
Sunrise Medical HHG Inc.
California
100
DynaVox Systems, Inc.
Pennsylvania
100
SunMed Finance Inc.
Delaware
100
Sunrise Medical Canada Inc.
Canada
100
Sunrise Medical Holdings B.V.
Netherlands
100
Norsk Rehab AS
Norway
100
Sopur Medizintechnik GmbH
Germany
100
Sunrise Medical B.V.
Netherlands
100
Sunrise Medical S.A.S.
France
100
DeVilbiss Medical France S.A.S.
France
100
SCI La Planche S.A.
France
100
Sunrise Medical S.L.
Spain
100
Sunrise Medical S.r.l.
Italy
100
Sunrise Medical Ltd.
United Kingdom
100
Parker Bath Ltd.
United Kingdom
100
DeVilbiss Medequip Ltd.
United Kingdom
100
Sunrise Medical A.G.
Switzerland
100
Vitactiv AB
Sweden
100
Sunrise Medical Pty Ltd.
Australia
100
Sunrise Medical Tecnologias S.A. de C.V.
Mexico
100
 Each corporation is the parent of those indented beneath it.

We have omitted from the list fourteen foreign and three domesticsubsidiaries. None of the omitted companies individually or in the aggregate isa significant subsidiary. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
US Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20590 

As provided for in 14 CFR 11.61, I am filing the following Petition for Rulemaking. 

14 CFR 91.527 is currently the Part 91 regulation that prohibits taking off with frost, snow or ice 

adhering to certain parts of an aircraft 

14 CFR 91.527 is only applicable to Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional 

Ownership Program Aircraft (reference 14 CFR 91.501). 

Frost, snow or ice does not discriminate. Under the right conditions, be they Large and TurbinePowered Multiengine aircraft, be they a Piper Malibu, or a Cessna 172, Frost snow or ice can and will 

adhere to all aircraft operating in the Part 91 environment. 

• For aircraft operating under Part 135, 14 CFR Part 135.227 prohibits taking off with Frost, snow 

or ice adhering to certain parts of an aircraft. 

• For aircraft operating under Part 121, 14 CFR Part 121.629 prohibits taking off with Frost, snow 

or ice adhering to certain parts of an aircraft .. 

Yet it the Part 91 environment, the regulations, and it appears the Federal Aviation Administration, are 

only concerned with Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership 

Program Aircraft. 

My petition is as follows: 

• Move the 91.527 regulation from Subpart F, the section pertaining to Large and TurbinePowered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft, to 14 CFR 91, -- -- ------ -- - ---- -- - -. •• -· -~- - - -- - + - ---

Subpart B, the section pertaining to Flight Rules General; or 

• Write a regulation pertaining to frost, snow and ice for the rest of the aircraft operating in the 

Part 91 environment. 

Hugh J. Roche, Jr. 

80 Stags Leap Circle 

Sparks, NV 89441 

semperfi3516@sbcglobal.net 

cell: 775-742-5091 

/