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

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                  |                                                                     |                                   |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Date:                November 4, 2008 | By:                                                            | /s/                SANDRINE CRISAFULLI |
|                                  | Sandrine                CrisafulliChief                Financial Officer |
|                                  |                                                                     |
|                                  |                                                                     |
|                                  |                                                                     |

----
March 2 4 , 2015

Mr. Tim Lehman

1722 Moorland Lane

Crystal Lake, IL 60014

Dear Mr. Lehman :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your February 12 , 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0467 ) , but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exem ption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exempti on.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### ABSTRACT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PARK AVENUE PAINTS, INC., a Florida corporation, Robert Melnick, Doria Melnick, Daniel Melnick, Janice Melnick, Melvin A. Robinson and Dorothy G. Robinson, Appellees.

No. 69-277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 15, 1970.

W. C. Hutchison, Jr., of Hutchison & Leffler, Sanford, for appellant.

Charles R. Wilson, Lake Park, for ap-pellee Park Avenue Paints.

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant was defendant below and appeals from a money judgment entered against it following a non-jury trial.

The case went to trial on the plaintiff’s second amended complaint which alleged that certain individual defendants were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $2,-768.12; that the appellant had agreed to act as an escrow agent to receive payment from the individual defendants in the form of a check for $1,768.12 and a 90-day promissory note for $1,000, both payable to plaintiff, and upon such receipt to deliver same to the plaintiff; and that upon delivering such payment appellant could deliver to the defendants a release of mechanics’ lien which plaintiff had executed and delivered in escrow to appellant.

When the cause came on for trial before the court on due notice appellant was not represented at the trial. The record does not contain a transcript of the proceedings had at the trial but the final judgment recites that the court heard testimony. The final judgment dismissed the individual defendants for lack of jurisdiction and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against appellant in the sum of $2,768.12, plus costs.

The second amended complaint does not state a cause of action against appellant either in negligence or for breach of its alleged fiduciary duty to plaintiff. *324Although the second amended complaint alleged appellant’s fiduciary responsibility once appellant received the check and promissory note from the individual defendants, nowhere is it alleged that appellant had ever received the check and promissory note.

The judgment against appellant is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings. Upon remand the trial court shall afford plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to further amend to correct the deficiency noted, and in the event of plaintiff's failure to do so within the time set by the court, the second amended complaint shall be dismissed as against appellant.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.
1 APPENDIX A
Proposed Regulation Order

Note: Set forth below is the proposed 2003 amendment to the Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles (OHRV) and Engines Regulation. The text of the proposed amendment is shown in underline to indicate additions and strikeout to indicate deletions, compared to the current regulatory language. Subsections or parts thereof for which no changes are proposed are indicated by the phrase “[No changes.]” Amend Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9, Article 3, Section 2415, to read as follows: § 2415. California Off-Highway Vehicle Areas and Riding Seasons for OffHighway Recreational Vehicles with Use Restrictions. (a) The following table lists the public off-highway vehicle (OHV) areas of California designated for off-highway recreational vehicle operation, including off-highway motorcycle and ATV operation. Model year 2003 and lateroffhighway motorcycles and ATVs that are certified pursuant to section 2412(f) are permitted to operate in the areas noted below only during the applicable riding seasons noted. Off-highway motorcycles and ATVs that meet the emissions standards noted in section 2412(b) are not subject to riding season use restrictions. This table contains the following information: OHV area managing entities, OHV area names, and the applicable riding seasons.
Table 1 [No changes.] (b) [No changes.] (1) [No changes.] (2) [No changes.] (c) [No changes.]

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 43013, 43018 and 43107, Health and Safety Code; and Sections 38020 and 38390, Vehicle Code. Reference: Sections 43013, 43018 and 43107, Health and Safety Code ; and Governor's Executive Order W144-97.
Appeal dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed August 29, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00524-CV

CARVEL JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

PATRICIA DEMARIS HARRIS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2024-20704

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed on July 15, 2024 denying 

appellant’s requests to dismiss the underlying lawsuit, vacate a temporary restraining 

order, and sanction appellee. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final 

judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When 

orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain 

interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory 

exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 
2

2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding). Based on the court’s review, no component of the July 15, 2024 order

may properly be the subject of an interlocutory appeal.

On August 12, 2024, the court notified the parties of this court’s intention to 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless any party demonstrated this court 

has jurisdiction over this appeal on or before August 22, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(a). No response was filed.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
Description of Bonus for Vice-President - Product Procurement &  Marketing



Exhibit 10.6 
 
Bonus Arrangement for Vice-President – Product Procurement, Marketing, and Logistics

 
Fastenal Company’s Vice-President – Product
Procurement, Marketing, and Logistics is paid a bonus under an individual bonus arrangement. Under this arrangement, the bonus for any quarter is calculated based on the amount by which the Company’s consolidated pre-tax income for such quarter
exceeds the Company’s consolidated pre-tax income for the same quarter in the prior year.
Exhibit 32.2



                  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Susan  Luckfield,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report of Net  Perceptions,  Inc.  on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended June 30,
2005,  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q  fairly  presents in all  material  respects  the  financial
condition and results of operations of Net Perceptions, Inc.



Date:    August 12, 2005                   By: /s/ Susan Luckfield
                                           -----------------------------
                                           Name:    Susan Luckfield
                                           Title:   Controller
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gayle SMITH et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11224.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

May 27, 1969.

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1969.

Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley, Shreveport, for appellant.

Ferris & Achee, Shreveport, for appel-lees.

Before GLADNEY, DIXON and PRICE, JJ.

DIXON, Judge.

This is a companion case to Haire v. Allstate Insurance Company et al., No. 11,223, 224 So.2d 531 this day decided. The cases were consolidated for the purpose of trial.

Plaintiff is the collision insurer of Thomas Edward Haire, and sues to enforce its subrogation agreement against the defendants, Gayle Smith and Allstate Insurance Company. There was judgment in the district court for the defendants, rejecting the demands of the plaintiff.

We have this day found that the accident for which this plaintiff claims damages was caused by the negligence of Gayle Smith, and that plaintiff’s insured, Thomas Edward Haire, was not guilty of contributory negligence which might have precluded his recovery.

The automobile owned by Haire and insured by the plaintiff was a total loss as a result of the accident. Plaintiff’s net loss was $2,687.08.

For the reasons expressed in Haire v. Allstate Insurance Company et al., No. 11,223, 224 So.2d 531 this day decided, the judgment of the district court rendered in the case before us is reversed, and it is decreed that there be judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, and against the defendants, Gayle Smith and Allstate Insurance Company, in solido, in the full sum of $2,687.08, with 5% interest from date of judicial demand until paid, and all costs of this suit.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONI, Bruce Capra, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nicklebys.com, 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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

> 
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;				(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and				(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

> 
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and				(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

			Date: November 11, 2005   /s/ Bruce Capra                            Bruce Capra			Chief Financial Officer

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                        0000907127
<NAME>                       SIMS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                          295,900
<SECURITIES>                  1,510,000
<RECEIVABLES>                   233,742
<ALLOWANCES>                     27,584
<INVENTORY>                   1,083,199
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,006,289
<PP&E>                        1,161,081
<DEPRECIATION>                  424,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                5,544,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         3,630,430
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                         125
<COMMON>                            848
<OTHER-SE>                    1,826,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  5,544,173
<SALES>                       4,730,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,730,112
<CGS>                         2,861,421
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 4,616,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 40,613
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (2,788,896)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (2,788,896)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                 (2,788,896)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (0.42)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3472 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3472

  To provide for the conveyance of certain land, Dillard Road, Patoka 
    Lake, Indiana, to the State of Indiana, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 12, 2023

   Mr. Braun introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the conveyance of certain land, Dillard Road, Patoka 
    Lake, Indiana, to the State of Indiana, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DISPOSITION OF DILLARD ROAD, PATOKA LAKE, INDIANA.

    (a) Disposition.--The Secretary of the Army (referred to in this 
section as the ``Secretary'') shall convey to the State of Indiana, all 
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to road 
easements associated with Dillard Road, totaling approximately 11.85 
acres, located in Patoka Township, Crawford County, Indiana, including 
any improvements on the land.
    (b) Quitclaim Deed.--A conveyance under this section shall be by 
quitclaim deed and without consideration.
    (c) Administrative Costs.--The Secretary shall be responsible for 
all administrative costs associated with a conveyance under this 
section.
    (d) Terms and Conditions.--A conveyance under this section shall be 
subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary 
determines to be necessary to protect the interests of the United 
States.
    (e) Liability.--A conveyance under this section shall require the 
State of Indiana to hold the United States harmless from any and all 
liability with respect to activities carried out on the land described 
in subsection (a) on or after the date of the conveyance.
    (f) Application of Property Screening Provisions.--Section 2696 of 
title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to a conveyance under 
this section.
    (g) Disposal.--If the State of Indiana does not accept conveyance 
of the land described in subsection (a), the Secretary may dispose of 
the land in accordance with subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, 
United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55158-55159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28017]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 510 and 520

Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related Products; Selegiline 
Hydrochloride Tablets; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a

[[Page 55159]]

final rule that appeared in the Federal Register of June 27, 1997 (62 
FR 34631). The document amended the animal drug regulations to reflect 
approval of a new animal drug application (NADA) filed by Deprenyl 
Animal Health, Inc. The NADA provides for oral use of selegiline 
hydrochloride tables for dogs for the control of clinical signs 
associated with uncomplicated pituitary-dependent hyperadrenocorticism. 
The approved use in dogs was inadvertently omitted from the document. 
This document corrects that error.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Gordon, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1739.

    In FR Doc. 97-16791, appearing on page 34631 in the Federal 
Register of Friday, June 27, 1997, the following corrections are made:
    1. On page 34631, in the first column, in the heading ``Tablet'' is 
corrected to read ``Tablets''.

Sec. 520.2098  [Corrected]

    2. On page 34632, in the first column, in Sec. 520.2098 Selegiline 
hydrochloride tablets, in paragraph (d), the heading ``(d) Conditions 
of use--'' is corrected to read ``(d)  Conditions of use--Dogs--''; and 
in paragraph (d)(2), in the 4th line, ``hyperadrenocorticism.'' is 
corrected to read ``hyperadrenocorticism in dogs.''

    Dated: September 8, 1997.
Robert C. Livingston,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 97-28017 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
```