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 2004

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IEH Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 26, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Knoth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2004, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Robert Knoth
----------------
Robert Knoth
Chief Financial Officer, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer

Date: November 10, 2008

This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report,
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to IEH Corporation. and will be retained by IEH Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                     - 35 -
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1368 

To extend the existence of the Parole Commission, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 1, 2005 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To extend the existence of the Parole Commission, 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 ‘‘United States Parole 

5 Commission Extension and Sentencing Commission Au6 thority Act of 2005’’. 

7 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXISTENCE OF THE PAROLE COM8 MISSION. 

9 For purposes of section 235(b) of the Sentencing Re10 form Act of 1984 (98 Stat. 2032) as such section relates 

11 to chapter 311 of title 18, United States Code, and the 
2 

•S 1368 CPS

1 United States Parole Commission, each reference in such 

2 section to ‘‘eighteen years’’ or ‘‘eighteen-year period’’ shall 

3 be deemed a reference to ‘‘21 years’’ or ‘‘21-year period’’, 

4 respectively. 

5 SEC. 3. PROVISION OF EMERGENCY AMENDMENT AUTHOR6 ITY FOR SENTENCING COMMISSION. 

7 In accordance with the procedure set forth in section 

8 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (Public Law 100– 

9 182), as though the authority under that Act had not ex10 pired, the United States Sentencing Commission shall— 

11 (1) not later than 60 days after the date of the 

12 enactment of this Act, amend the Federal sentencing 

13 guidelines, commentary, and policy statements to 

14 implement section 6703 of the Intelligence Reform 

15 and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 

16 108–458); and 

17 (2) not later than 180 days after the date of 

18 the enactment of this Act, amend the Federal sen19 tencing guidelines, commentary, and policy state20 ments to implement section 3 of the Anabolic Ster21 oid Control Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–358). 

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,289]

CDR Ridgway, Ridgway, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of May 9, 1997, the United Steelworkers of America 
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding worker eligibility to apply for trade 
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The 
denial notice was signed on April 28, 1997 and will soon be published 
in the Federal Register.
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The request for reconsideration claims that the amount of pigment 
production in the United States has decreased and that the amount of 
inks and ink related products being shipped into the United States has 
affected the employment at CDR Ridgway.
    In order for the Department to issue a worker group certification, 
all of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade 
Act must be met. Review of the investigation findings show that 
criterion (2) was not met. Layoffs at the subject firm were the result 
of the consolidation of pigment production from the subject firm into 
three other company-owned plants located domestically. Corporate wide 
sales of pigments increased in 1996 compared to 1995.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of July 1997.
Curtis K. Kooser,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-20351 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
Exhibit 32  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 PCS Edventures!.com , Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), I, Anthony A. Maher, President and CEO 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:  (1) The Quarterly 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    Date:August 14, 2008By:/s/Anthony A. MaherAnthony A. MaherPresident and CEO
#### Orville COON v. W. S. BLANEY, Jr., d/b/a W. S. Blarney, Jr. Construction Company.

No. 61577.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1978.

In re: Orville Coon, applying for certiora-ri, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of LaSalle. 353 So.2d 744.

Writ denied.
# L_2023084EN.01000101.xml

| 23.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 84/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 84/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/666

of 16 March 2023

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Olio Campania’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Olio Campania’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Olio Campania’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Olio Campania’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Olio Campania’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Olio Campania’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 March 2023.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 448, 25.11.2022, p. 39.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1471 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur RF-E. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 22, 2005 

Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur RF-E. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESMODUR RF-E. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.94 Mixtures of tris(4- 

isocyanatophenyl) 

thiophosphate, ethyl acetate, 

and monochlorobenzene 

(Desmodur RF-E) (CAS No. 

4151–51–3) (as provided for 

in subheading 3824.90.28) .. 6.5% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 
2 

•S 1471 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
No. 00-7127.

#### Taylor *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### 14910-U-FI """"""'+0;""",. 

### ~->S'''_ DEPAHT!\IENT Of TR'\.!~SPOKrATION 

### -It 

# m Federal ,\ \-hHiQn Administration 14eFR I'"t 39 

# Jt:;lrsJ?J:)Or IOod"l't i'\o. FAA_~_H*H; ~irccwr:Ht' fdcnlificr 2010-N\\".254-ADI ; 

# . ""'. .I 

### l'l/, (. 

### -11(,,- ,,.,.,.~.\>O< 

### ~ I. _~.-~; RIN 2120-:\."\.64 

### AinHJr1i1incss Dlrfftin"s; Fokkcr Ser,-ices B.V. iviodel F.18 i"lark 

### 1Vi10. 

### 29i.JI.J. ;/;(if-J. 

### ~nd ::'000Airplanes .\GEi\TY: Fcdcrrll Aviation AJmir:i,;umioll (FAA}, DOT. "..•.•; I t?-{I'lQ. '(; 

# , - 

### --~, .....,.

l66 -'-4-(.,

c\CTIO~':~O{k:c of propos1.':d rulemaking. (1'\PR:'-I). 

# . -4- 

# I-ZC2:-- SGt\l!\'JARY: W¢ propuse to adopt 

### a new airwonhil1css dircCli\'c (AD) fer ihi.:

### jlWdUC1S "". 1-V/V"3 d

'I< 

### * .•under certain cOlldi~i0ns. an tgnitiol1 source m;lY 

### de"e1op in tilt: wing tan!..: vapour sp<:Ice, dlie-lOjiil;;tillicicnt c:lCitlancc bt:!wccn ihe wirillg alung 

### th~ hIe 

### I QUtll1\lly 

### Tank Units tFQlU\1 <1tlJ 

### the 11)cni 

### rei 11 

### f"ufcing. SlfU<:tl!t'1.: around the upper skin Cll!~OUL



# , , il~lr.:d ~bo\"l:. TIlls proposed AD r.esults from mandatory cOlllinujng 3JfwQrt!mK's.s I 

### lnfor11l:liii,.)11

(I""lCAIJ IJriginated tly 

### an ll\"i,lliO!l

### <1l1lhority or 

### m'l:Hl1ercounlry 10 identiry

This con.dition. ifnet com:cted. in combination with flanmmhle fuel VllrOUfS. cOll1d resuli in u,\\:ing ltlnk explosion tlnd t~OIlSCqUCl1t 11,1$5 of the ::n:l'(1p1;);l<:-. ,IllJ c(lrrCI,;,\:In tl11sufc condition on 311a\iiu:ion product. The MeAl describes the un,,;,f,;



# ,

. d·· "" •• fil~' 

### pf0poscd AD \\ould require .:lCI10liS Ihat <1r.:inlL'IH.i.:d 10 

### address lhe Ull.:>.lf;:cull JtJO 1

FAAForm 1:i60-14.1 {S·89J OfFICIAL fILE copy
Exhibit 10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

Schedule of directors and officers subject to Indemnification Agreements 

Directors: 
 Anand D. Gala 

Joseph Jacobs 
 Jonathan P. Lennon 

Richard Shapiro 
 Patrick D. Walsh 

Bryan L. Wolff 
 Adam J. Wright 

Officers: 
 Richard A. Pawlowski 

Abelardo Ruiz 
 John P. Beckman
# DLA Distribution Yokosuka, Japan, incoming commander recognized in ceremony

/ Published Jan. 9, 2018
MECHANICSBURG, Pa., A Navy Commander assigned to Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP), Weapon Systems Support (WSS) in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, was recognized in a promotion and award ceremony Jan. 4.Cmdr. Allen “A.J.” Rivera, director of Operations Research and Analysis Division of NAVSUP WSS, was awarded a Meritorious Service Medal for his outstanding meritorious service after serving with distinction for more than two years. Rivera will be transferring to take over as commanding officer of Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Yokosuka, Japan.Rivera is a native of Mountaintop, Pennsylvania, and joined the Navy in 1999 after receiving a commission via the University of Pittsburgh/Carnegie Mellon University NROTC program. According to Rivera’s Meritorious Service Medal citation, his direct leadership was “instrumental in directing Weapon Systems Support analysis in one of the most critical and challenging logistics billets, supporting a worldwide enterprise of more than 22,500 military and civilian personnel across 13 globally disbursed commands.” Rivera also graduated from San Diego State University with a Master of Business Administration in International Finance and graduate of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, with a Master of Science degree in Operations Research.A field activity of the Naval Supply Systems Command, NAVSUP WSS is the U.S. Navy’s supply chain manager providing worldwide support to the aviation, surface ship, and submarine communities. NAVSUP WSS provides Navy, Marine Corps, joint and allied forces with products and services that deliver combat capability through logistics. There are more than 2,000 civilian and military personnel employed at its two Pennsylvania sites, and one site in Norfolk, Va.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00070-CR

Samantha Nicole Thorp, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. D-1-DC-13-207095, THE HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due April 5, 2018. On counsel’s 

motions, the time for filing was extended to July 5, 2018. Appellant’s counsel has now filed a 

third motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief. We grant the 

motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than August 20, 2018. No 

further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order will result in the 

referral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure.

It is ordered on July 9, 2018. 

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Do Not Publish
# DLA’s Director of Logistics Operations, J3, visits Distribution Headquarters

/ Published May 2, 2018
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Mark K. Johnson, Director of Logistics Operations, J3 DLA, visited Distribution Headquarters where he received the command presentation and toured the Eastern Distribution Center.

No stranger to the Agency, Johnson’s first experience with DLA was as a captain in 1994 at Ogden (Hill Air Force Base). He was the program manager responsible for implementing the Distribution Standard System. 

During the command presentation brief, Johnson focused a lot of discussion around driving costs down for the agency and “busting” the myths about the cost of doing business with DLA. Discussion then continued about DLA Distribution looking at a commercial off-the-shelf warehouse management system that will be synchronized with the U.S. Transportation Command. 

“The goal is to increase our interoperability with the services. It is no longer good enough to get the part to the customer. They want it when they want it,” said Johnson.

Wrapping up his visit, Johnson remarked, “I want to tell you what a rock star job you all did on the humanitarian support with the hurricanes last fall. I hope we don’t have to do that again this year!” 

Additionally, he stated, “We are at a dynamic time inside the agency.”
#### Donald Gene MEEKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1768.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 8, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and Susan G. Sexton, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. We agree with appellant that the seizure of marijuana from his person was illegal and reverse.

*46At the hearing on the motion, Officer Byrd testified that at about 10:45 one evening he and another officer spotted appellant and two companions standing in the middle of a dark alley in the business district of Frostproof. The officers stopped the two and following standard procedure frisked them.

As Officer Byrd patted appellant’s pockets he felt a lump approximately five inches long by three inches wide. Thereupon, he reached into appellant’s pocket and pulled out a plastic bag of marijuana. He testified that he never thought the lump was a weapon but that he believed it was a plastic bag which probably contained marijuana.

After hearing the officer’s testimony and argument of counsel, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the bag of marijuana. We believe he erred in so doing. While we have some question about the right of the officers to stop appellant in the first place, we will assume for the purposes of this opinion that the stop was proper because there is another more compelling reason for finding the seizure to be improper.

Section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1975) is based on the holding in Terry v. *Ohio,*392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and lays out the procedure by which police officers may stop and frisk people suspected of wrongdoing. Under that statute, if the officer has properly stopped someone and believes that the person may be armed with a dangerous weapon, “he may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon.”

Our reading of the *Terry*decision and cases from other jurisdictions which have interpreted *Terry*leads us to believe that the language we have quoted means that an officer in a stop and frisk situation may not extend his search beyond a pat down of a suspect’s outer clothing unless that pat down or other circumstances leads the officer to conclude that the suspect has a weapon on his person. *State*v. *Handspike,*142 Ga.App. 104, 235 S.E.2d 568 (1977); *People*v. *Collins,*1 Cal.3d 658, 83 Cal.Rptr. 179, 463 P.2d 403 (1970); *People v. Mosher,*1 Cal.3d 379, 82 Cal.Rptr. 379, 461 P.2d 659 (1969). Clearly then, since Officer Byrd knew the lump in appellant’s pocket was not a weapon he could not legally reach into the pocket and pull out the plastic bag.

In view of what we have said we vacate the judgment and order placing appellant on probation, and reverse the order denying appellant’s motion to suppress and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
!(

!(

!(2

3

2

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet /

Apalachia Reservoir

Land Management Plan

Tile: B9

Jul 24, 2008

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\Maps\Apalachia_land_plan\Apalachia_land_plan_for_Web.mxd
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6967

STEPHEN WITCHOSKI,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,

District Judge. (CA-03-28)

Submitted: October 20, 2004 Decided: November 5, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Witchoski, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Witchoski seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Witchoski has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
31.2.1




Certification
of Principal Financial Officer







I, Gary
Pokrassa, certify that:





1.   I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Lakeland Industries,
Inc.;





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:
      April 17, 2008
            /s/ Gary
      PokrassaGary
      PokrassaChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)