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 Congoleum Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Howard
N. Feist III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations
            of the Company.


November 12, 2004

/s/ Howard N. Feist III
-------------------------
Howard N. Feist III
Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Congoleum Corporation and will be retained by Congoleum Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


                                       41
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Hornby International Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Maureen Brogan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of February 2006


/s/ Maureen Brogan
---------------------------
Maureen Brogan
Chief Financial Officer
All data has been removed from this file as a result of CBI sanitization. All data used to develop the

chemical dosage rates is considered CBI or CBI deducible.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DICK SKY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

BRUNO STOLC,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-35473

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00152-JWS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 29, 2012** 

Anchorage, Alaska

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Dick Sky appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for failure to name the proper respondent. Sky

named as respondent Bruno Stolc, the warden of the private correctional facility

FILED

AUG 31 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
where he was being held. Stolc filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction, arguing that he was not the proper respondent because he was not a

“state officer who has custody” as required by the Rules Governing [28 U.S.C.]

§ 2254 Cases. The district court dismissed Sky’s petition with prejudice after Sky

failed to amend to name the proper respondent, Alaska Commissioner of

Corrections Joseph Schmidt. Whether a habeas petitioner has named the proper

respondent is reviewed de novo. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th

Cir. 1996). Failure to name the proper respondent strips the district court of

personal jurisdiction. Id.

Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases states that “[i]f the petitioner

is currently in custody under a state-court judgment, the petition must name as

respondent the state officer who has custody.” Sky concedes that Stolc is not a

state officer, but argues that Stolc remains the proper respondent because Stolc had

custody of Sky. However, Alaska Statute § 33.30.051 states that “[a] person

convicted of an offense against the state shall be committed to the custody of the

commissioner.” See Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895 (holding that the proper

respondent in a habeas petition depends in part on who has official custody of

prisoners in the penal system of the state in question). Although Stolc had physical

custody of Sky at the time Sky filed his habeas petition, Stolc is not a state officer

and, thus, is not the proper respondent.
The dismissal with prejudice of Sky’s habeas petition for failure to name the

proper respondent is AFFIRMED.

All pending motions are DENIED.
<TABLE>
                                                                                                   EXHIBIT 12
                     COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
     Computation of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                    (in thousands except ratio data)
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                      Twelve
                                                                                                      Months
                                                                  Year Ended December 31,             Ended
                                                    1993       1994       1995      1996       1997   6/30/98 
<S>                                              <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>      <C>
Fixed Charges:                                                                                      
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds. . . . . . . . $74,119    $68,471    $66,811    $59,711   $55,156  $52,396
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt. . . . . . . .  10,436     10,221      8,829     12,125    15,525   19,107
  Interest on Short-term Debt . . . . . . . . . .   1,305        817      1,328      2,400     5,104    4,328
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges. . . . . . . . .   4,036      4,566      4,657      4,374     4,729    4,538
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals . .   3,700      3,700      4,100      4,600     4,100    4,100
       Total Fixed Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . $93,596    $87,775    $85,725    $83,210   $84,614  $84,469
                                                                                                    
Earnings:                                                                                           
  Net Income (Loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$(55,898)  $109,845   $110,616   $107,108  $119,379 $131,012
  Plus Federal Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . .  34,154     49,838     58,648     60,302    69,760   74,704
  Plus State Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . .    -             1          7         11         6        6
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above) . . . . . . . . .  93,596     87,775     85,725     83,210    84,614   84,469
       Total Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 71,852   $247,459   $254,996   $250,631  $273,759 $290,191
                                                                                                    
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. . . . . . . .    0.76(a)    2.81       2.97       3.01      3.23     3.43

(a) Ratio includes the effect of the Loss from Zimmer Plant Disallowance of $144,533,000 (net of applicable
income taxes  of $14,534,000).  As a result, earnings for  the twelve  months ended  December 31, 1993 were
inadequate to cover fixed charges by $21,744,000.  If the effect of the Loss from Zimmer Plant Disallowance
were excluded, the ratio would be 2.46 for the twelve months ended December 31, 1993.
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO NON-QUALIFIED  SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT AGREEMENT

This Second Amendment to Non-Qualified Supplemental Retirement Benefit Agreement (the "Second Amendment") is made and entered into as of May 6, 2003 (the
"Effective Date") by and between Computer Horizons Corp., a New York corporation (the "Company") and William J. Murphy an individual employee of the Company (the "Participating Employee").

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the Company and the Participating Employee have entered into a Non-Qualified Supplemental Retirement Benefit Agreement (the "Benefit Agreement"); and

WHEREAS,
the Company and the Participating Employee have determined to amend the Benefit Agreement;

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and undertakings contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, and subject to and on the terms and conditions herein set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:



1

---





2

---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officers and the Participating Employee has executed this First
Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

| |  | COMPUTER HORIZONS CORP.
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | By:                    
| |  | PARTICIPATING EMPLOYEE 
| |  |                        

3

---

QuickLinks
LocAL 805 PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND

60 BROAD STREET
37TM FLOOR TEL: 212-308-4200
New York, NY 10004 Fax: 212-308-4545

September 21, 2017

Secretary of the Treasury

Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Room 1204, Office of Kline-Miller Implementation
Washington, D.C. 20220

RE: — Withdrawal of Application for Approval of Suspension of Benefits for the
Local 805 Pension and Retirement Plan (Plan)

As authorized Trustees of the Board of Trustees of the Plan, the sponsor of the Plan, we hereby withdraw
the application for approval to suspend benefits filed March 22, 2017, under section 432(e)(9) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and section 305 (e)(9) of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended, without prejudice. We reserve the right lo resubmit the application with additional
information as may be advisable or recommended by the Department of the Treasury.

Sincerely,

Michael
Author: rustec
Local 805 Pension and Retirement Plan

Zz

ee _
Eeonard Schwartz

Authorized Trustee
Local 805 Pension and Retirement Plan

wAlkellnertwordfilestiocal80S\pulling app suspension 80S 17 (002).docx =
----

**EXHIBIT      32.5**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of § 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:   November                8, 2007 | By:    | /s/                Patricia K. Vincent        |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |   | Patricia                K. Vincent            |
|                                                   |   | President                and CEO              |
|                                                   |   | Texas-New                Mexico Power Company |

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63161-63162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31135]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5927-8]


Request for Great Lakes Preproposals Through ``FY 98-99 Great 
Lakes Priorities and Funding Guidance''

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of funding availability.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) is now 
requesting the submission of preproposals for GLNPO funding. This 
request is part of the FY98-99 Great Lakes Priorities and Funding 
Guidance (Funding Guidance). The Great Lakes Funding Guidance 
identifies Great Lakes priorities, solicits preproposals for assistance 
projects, and describes other Federal Great Lakes funding 
opportunities.

DATES: The deadline for submission of Preproposals is January 15, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the document are available by calling Larry Brail 
at 312-886-7474. It is also available through the GLNPO Internet home 
page (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Russ, EPA-GLNPO, G-17J, 77 West 
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312-886-4013/
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98eaedebebb6f5f1fbf0f9fdf4d8fde8f9f5f9f1f4b6fde8f9b6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c6e696f6f3271757f747d79705c796c7d717d757032796c7d327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Great Lakes Funding Guidance, 
Preproposals are requested for a total of up to $3.7 million in funding 
targeted to: Contaminated Sediments ($1.4 million), Pollution 
Prevention $700 thousand), Assessment/Indicators ($200 thousand), 
Habitat Protection and Restoration ($1.1 million), and Exotic Species 
($300 thousand). A ``roadmap'' section describes some of the other 
Great Lakes Federal funding available through USEPA, the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 
Army Corps of Engineers.


[[Page 63162]]


    Dated: November 18, 1997.
Gary V. Gulezian,
Director, Great Lakes National Program Office.
[FR Doc. 97-31135 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Neita ALLINGHAM, Appellant, v. William ALLINGHAM, Appellee.

No. 69-350.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 12, 1969.

David S. Yost, of Cramer, Robinson, Ginsburg & Ross, Sarasota, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

William Allingham met someone at work he liked better than Neita, and at the final hearing on her complaint for divorce he griped about his agreement to pay $50 per week for the support of their two children, but elected to allow her to proceed to final decree rather than undergo the expense and delay of the full contest which would follow his repudiation of the stipulation. He earns more than $150 per week, but fell behind by $600. Figuring that a strong offense is *629the best defense, he sought modification. The trial judge arrived at what he thought was a sensible solution to the matter, and perhaps it would have been if both parties had accepted it. He warned Allingham that he would be sentenced to sixty days in jail upon the next failure to pay, but allowed him to attribute five dollars of the weekly fifty to the arrearage, thus modifying the judgment. She appeals, as she has a right to, and we must reverse, of course, there being no evidence of a lowered income or need.

The order modifying the judgment for support is reversed and remanded with directions to deny the petition. Such provision as the able circuit judge may make to allow for purging from contempt remains within his sound discretion.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2824MN

_____________ Chris Kapp, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Zumbrota Area Ambulance Association, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: March 2, 1998

Filed: March 4, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Chris Kapp appeals the district court's denial of Kapp's motion under Federa l Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal . After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Metropolitan Fed. Bank v. W.R. Grace & Co. , 999 F.2d 1257, 1259 (8th Cir. 1993). We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R . 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of China Nuokang Bio-Pharmaceutical Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Baizhong Xue, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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



|                   |  |                                     
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: June 3, 2011
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/ Baizhong Xue                    
|Name:              |  | Baizhong Xue                        
|Title:             |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
| (a) | any      claim, issue, or matter as to which such person is finally adjudged to be      liable for negligence or misconduct in the performance of his or her duty      to the Corporation unless and only to the extent that the court of common      pleas or the court in which such action or suit was brought determines      upon application that, despite the adjudication of liability but in view      of all the circumstances of the case, such person is fairly and reasonably      entitled to indemnity for such expenses as the court of common pleas or      such other court shall deem proper; |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b) | any      action or suit in which the only liability asserted against a director is      pursuant to Section 1701.95 of the Ohio Revised  Code. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b) | if      the quorum described in division (a) of this Section 3 is not obtainable      or if a majority vote of such quorum so directs, in a written opinion by      independent legal counsel other than an attorney, or a firm having      associated with it an attorney, who has been retained by or who has      performed services for the Corporation, or any person to be indemnified,      within the past five years; or |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (d) | by      the court of common pleas or the court in which such action, suit or      proceeding was brought; or |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (e) | if      the person seeking indemnification is neither a director nor an officer of      the Corporation, by the Chairman of theBoard. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1757 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1757

To permit shuttered venue operators to receive shuttered venue operator 
 grants and paycheck protection program loans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2021

  Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permit shuttered venue operators to receive shuttered venue operator 
 grants and paycheck protection program loans, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Boosting Revenue Assistance for 
Venue Operators Act'' or the ``BRAVO Act''.

SEC. 2. SHUTTERED VENUE OPERATOR PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM LOAN 
              ELIGIBILITY.

    Section 324 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, 
Nonprofits, and Venues Act (Public Law 116-260) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A)(vi)--
                    (A) by striking subclause (III);
                    (B) by redesignating subclause (IV) as subclause 
                (III); and
                    (C) in subclause (III), as so redesignated, by 
                striking ``(I), (II), and (III)'' and inserting ``(I) 
                and (II)'';
            (2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
        (f) and (g), respectively; and
            (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(e) Non-duplication.--A recipient of a loan guaranteed under 
paragraph (36) or (37) of section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 
U.S.C. 636(a)) may receive a grant under this section only if such 
grant is used for purposes other than paying payroll costs and other 
obligations described in section 7(a)(36)(F) of the Small Business Act 
(15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)(F)).''.
                                 <all>
```