alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| **CAPITAL FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES** | Exhibit 32.2 |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------|

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the AnnualReport of Capital Financial Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Valarie A. Hoskin, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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, 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: March 23, 2011 | By /s/ Valarie A. Hoskin |
|----------------------|--------------------------|
|                 | Valarie A.  Hoskin       |
|                 | Chief  Financial Officer |
#### A. W. WATSON, Jr. and Martha Carol Smith, Appellants, v. Sallie WILLIAMS, Appellee.

No. L-388.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 25, 1969.

Jack A. Harnett, Quincy, for appellants.

Gregory, Towles & Beatty, Quincy, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellants have filed their motion to review an order of the Circuit Court striking certain paragraphs of the appellants’ Directions to the Clerk.

It appears that certain interrogatories and answers thereto, were obtained from the plaintiff and the defendants, which are designated by the appellants in their Directions to the Clerk as paragraphs numbered 4, S, 6 and 7. At the final hearing of the cause, the interrogatories were not tendered nor received in evidence, and therefore are not judicially before the court merely because they were filed. Therefore, the trial court was correct in striking said paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of said Directions.

As to the eighth paragraph of appellants’ directions to the Clerk, it also appears that the depositions of the appellants were not filed in evidence before the court, but reference to certain portions of the deposition of the appellant, Martha Carol Smith, was made by appellee counsel at the final hearing, particularly as to pages 21 and 22 thereof. The appellee’s counsel read from said deposition, which was quoted in the court reporter’s transcribed notes as being a quotation from said deposition. The trial court, however, in its final decree, apparently treated said deposition or at least pages 21 and 22, as if the same had been introduced in evidence, when he used in subparagraph (7) of his final decree, the following language: *“** * * as she testified at the final hearing and *on pages*21-22 of her deposition * * * ” It thus appearing that the trial court was in fact quoting from the deposition of Martha Carol Smith, pages 21-22, we are of the opinion, and so hold that the appellants’ direction to the clerk,

*227as contained in paragraph 8 thereof was erroneously stricken in toto, but that pages 21 and 22 of said deposition should be included by the Clerk of the Circuit Court in making up his record on appeal.

Appellants’ motion is therefore denied in part and granted in part.

Appellants’ motion for extension of time within which to file their brief is hereby granted and the appellants allowed thirty days within which to file their brief.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD IC„ and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-49810)  pertaining to the Employee Incentive Plan of Tarrant Apparel
Group of our  report  dated  March 14,  2003 with  respect  to the  consolidated
financial  statements  and schedule of Tarrant  Apparel  Group and  subsidiaries
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Los Angeles, California
March 27, 2003
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10(b)
  
    Consent of Independent Accountants    
  


        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of Illini Corporation relating to the issuance of
securities in the proposed merger of Illinois Community Bancorp into Illini Corporation, of our report, dated February 23, 2001, on the consolidated financial statements of Illini Corporation
as of December 31, 2000 and for the year then ended. We also consent to the reference to our firm appearing under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus. 



BKD,
LLP

February 4, 2002 


Decatur,
Illinois 









QuickLinks


EXHIBIT 10(b) Consent of Independent Accountants
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51461-51462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26003]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Solicitation for Financial Assistance

AGENCY: Idaho Operations Office, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation for financial assistance: DE-PS07-
98ID13589--Geothermal Reservoir Technology Research, Development and 
Demonstration.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho Operations Office 
(ID), under the authority of the

[[Page 51462]]

Geothermal Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1974 
(Pub. L. 93-410), is seeking applications for research, development and 
demonstration (field testing) in the area of Geothermal Reservoir 
Technology. The research is to be directed toward the domestic use and 
development of new technologies for exploration, identification of 
fractures, location of fracture permeability, and reservoir engineering 
and chemistry. Proposals involving work in foreign countries will not 
be considered. This solicitation will remain open for two years. 
Federal funds available for this solicitation are expected to be from 
$0-$5,000,000 annually. DOE anticipates making several grant/
cooperative agreement awards for projects with durations of five years 
or less.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Bruns, Contract Specialist, 
Procurement Services Division; U.S. Department of Energy; Idaho 
Operations Office; 850 Energy Drive, MS 1221, Idaho Falls, ID 83401-
1563; telephone (208) 526-1534, facsimile (208) 526-5548, e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f7d6d6a716c7c735f76717a7331787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a08181f041909062a03040f06440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>. The Contracting Officer is Brad Bauer, (208) 526-
0090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
(CFDA) Number for this program is 81.087, Renewable Energy Research & 
Development. The solicitation text is expected to be posted on the DOE-
ID Procurement Services Division home page on or about October 1, 1997, 
and may be accessed using Universal Resource Locator address <a href="http://
www.inel.gov/doeid/solicit.html">http://
www.inel.gov/doeid/solicit.html</a>. Application package forms will not be 
included on the home page and should be requested from the contract 
specialist. Requests for application packages must be in writing and 
shall include: company name, mailing address, point of contact, 
telephone number, and fax number.

    Issued in Idaho Falls, Idaho, on September 24, 1997.

    Dated: September 24, 1997.
R. Jeffrey Hoyles,
Director, Procurement Services Division.
[FR Doc. 97-26003 Filed 9-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/d07b1474/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Bobby Allen BYNUM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-60.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 24, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Earl ALDRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-4222

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 9, 1977.

William P. Allison, Austin, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

John E. Clark, U. S. Atty., Leroy M. Jahn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Charles J. Muller, III, Trial Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, GODBOLD and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Under the terms of a plea agreement, the appellant Aldridge pled guilty to one count of receiving a firearm in interstate commerce after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) (1970). After being sentenced to two years’ confinement, he now appeals from the conviction entered upon his guilty plea, alleging *inter alia*that the district court failed to follow Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting his plea. We agree, and accordingly reverse and remand for entry of a new plea.

Our review of the record indicates that the district court failed to follow Rule 11 in three respects. First, the court failed to ascertain, through personal inquiry, whether the defendant Aldridge understood the nature of the charges against him. The only questioning on this point came from the prosecutor, and Rule 11 places this responsibility squarely upon the shoulders of the district judge. *See McCarthy v. United States,*394 U.S. 459, 465-66, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969); *United States v. Narisi,*538 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1976). This court’s decisions have emphasized that the district court’s questioning must be careful, and that the compliance with Rule 11 must be literal. *See Sierra v. Gov’t of Canal Zone,*546 F.2d 77, 79 (5th Cir. 1977); *United States v. Crook,*526 F.2d 708, 710 (5th Cir. 1976).

Second, Aldridge was not placed under oath until he had responded to numerous questions and his plea had already been accepted. This court’s construction of Rule 11 requires that the defendant be under oath for the entirety of the proceedings. See *Bryan v. United States,*492 F.2d 775, *923781 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*419 U.S. 1079, 95 S.Ct. 668, 42 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974).

Third, the district court was informed at the outset of the proceedings of September 30, 1976, wherein Aldridge entered his plea, that some plea agreement had been reached between the prosecution and defense counsel. Nevertheless, the court failed to make the painstaking inquiry into the terms and conditions of the plea agreement, as well as the degree of coercion attendant thereto, which this circuit has consistently required. *See Bryan,*492 F.2d at 781.

Under these circumstances, we have no choice but to reverse Aldridge’s conviction and remand the case for entry of a new plea. Accordingly, the judgment below is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 194 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to permit 

the planting of chicory on base acres. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2005 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for himself and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 to permit the planting of chicory on base acres. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PLANTING OF CHICORY ON BASE ACRES. 

4 Section 1106(b)(3)(B) of the Farm Security and 

5 Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7916(b)(3)(B)) 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘and dry peas’’ and inserting ‘‘dry 

7 peas, and chicory’’. 

Æ
### Public and industrial water supplies of the Jackson Purchase region, Kentucky

By: Henry Louis PreeWilliam Harry Walker

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir287

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
NOTE

$3,000.00                                                Date: February 14, 2001


         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ARCHER SYSTEMS LIMITED, INC., the undersigned
("Payor"), hereby promises to pay to the order of RICHARD J. MARGULIES, an
individual, ("Holder"), the principal amount of $3,000.00, payable twenty four
(24) months after the date first set forth above. The principal amount hereof
from time to time outstanding shall bear interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum, payable on the date set forth above. All payments hereunder
shall be in lawful money of the United States of America at the address of the
Holder hereof or at such address as shall be specified by the Holder to ARCHER
SYSTEMS LIMITED, INC.
                  If any default shall be made in the payment of interest or
principal, then the Holder, by written notice to the Payor, may exercise all of
its legal rights to collect the balance due unless within five (5) business days
after such notice the default shall be cured by Payor. Such notice shall be
deemed given three (3) days after having been deposited in the United States
Mail properly addressed and sent by registered mail to the particular addressee,
return receipt requested.

                  Prepayments may be made in this note voluntarily at any time
and from time to time, without penalty.



                                              Archer Systems Limited, Inc.


                                              BY:______________________
                                                 Walter J. Krzanowski
                                                 Secretary/Treasurer




<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>        0000943323
<NAME>       TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO RESORTS FUNDING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      936
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              936
<BONDS>                                        145,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,936
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes gaming, lodging, food, and beverage and other.
<F2>Includes general and administration, depreciation and amortization, and
pre-opening.
</FN>
         

</TABLE>
#### Agnes C. REGUEIRA, Petitioner, v. HOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 40926.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 13, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed. 243 So.2d 460.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SIAN OCEAN RESIDENCES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a 

Florida non-profit corporation,

Appellant,

v.

BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE 

HOLDERS CWALT, INC. ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OA19, 

MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OA19,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-4687

[May 4, 2016]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Thomas M. Lynch, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE13-20761 

(05).

Ralph C. Ruocco of Glazer & Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

Brian K. Hole and Katherine M. Joffe of Holland & Knight LLP, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Evergrene Partners, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 143 So. 3d 954

(Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN J. MUNIC, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-13-2245

:

WARDEN DAVID LANGAN, ET AL., : (Judge Brann)

:

Defendants :

ORDER

September 18, 2015

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants Lackawanna County, O’Brien, Gerouolo, Sopinski,

Johnson and McMillan’s motion to dismiss is construed as

seeking entry of partial dismissal.

2. The Moving Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal (Doc.

76) is GRANTED.

1

Case 4:13-cv-02245-MWB-JVW Document 107 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 3
3. Dismissal will be granted in favor of the Defendants with

respect to: (1) the RLUIPA claims against the individual

Defendants in their individual capacities; (2) all ADA

allegations; (3) the contentions of verbal threats and

harassment; (4) all claims against Defendants Lackawanna

County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Ex-Commissioner

O’Brien and Judge Geruolo; and (5) the allegations against

Warden McMillan which are premised upon either his

supervisory capacity, his handling of Plaintiff’s grievances, or

the failure to protect claim. 

 4. Dismissal will be GRANTED in favor of Defendants

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lackawanna County; Judge

Vito Geroulo and ex-Commissioner Corey O’Brien.

5. The following claims will proceed: (1) the RLUIPA claims

against Defendants McMillan and Johnson in their official

capacities and the First Amendment religious interference

claims for monetary relief against Defendants McMillan and

Johnson; (2) the failure to protect claim against Defendant

Sopinski; and (3) the allegations that CO Johnson denied

2

Case 4:13-cv-02245-MWB-JVW Document 107 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff adequate clothing and access to drug and alcohol

treatment.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

3

Case 4:13-cv-02245-MWB-JVW Document 107 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 3
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SCOTT CIPRIANI, : Case No. 4:12-CV-1335

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

:

v. : (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

:

:

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE :

COMPANY OF BOSTON, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER 

October 9, 2015

AND NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. United States Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 41) is ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s October 20, 2014 Motion to Determine the Appropriate Standard

(ECF No. 33) is DENIED to the extent that it seeks de novo review, in

conformity with the Report and Recommendation. 

3. Dispositive Motions are due on December 8, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.

BY THE COURT: 

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann 

United States District Judge

Case 4:12-cv-01335-MWB Document 43 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 1
- - 

1 Case 1:04-cv-00301-SJM Document 11 Filed 0313012006 Page 1 of 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, ) 

) Civil Action No.: 04-301E 

v. 

MARGARET W. CASS and 

MICHELLE L. TAYLOR a/k/a 

MICHELLE L. BARTLETTE, 

)Electronically Filed 

Defendants. 

PROPOSED ORDER 

The judgment in the above-captioned case this matter being 

opened to the Court by Mary Beth Buchanan, United States Attorney 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania upon the plaintiff, 

United States of America's application to vacate the Satisfaction 

of Judgment filed on March 23, 2006 against Defendant, Margaret 

W. Cass and Michelle L. Taylor a/k/a Michelle L. Bartlette. 

WHEREAS, it appearing that Defendants have not satisfied 

sf 

said Judgment in full and for good cause shown on this 31 

day of , 2006, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the Satisfaction of Judgment filed on March 23, 

2006, be and hereby is vacated and the Default Judgment, entered 

January 31, 2005, is reinstated. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-00301-SJM Document 12 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 1