alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Southern Connecticut Bancorp 10-KA





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 Amendment No.1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Southern Connecticut Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company“) for the period ended December 31, 2011(the “Report“), I, Stephen V. Ciancarelli, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, The Bank of Southern Connecticut, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of December 31, 2011 (the last date of the period covered by the Report).





Date: May 1, 2012





By:
/s/ STEPHEN V. CIANCARELLIStephen V. Ciancarelli

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of Trunkbow International Holdings Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ye Yuan Jun, the ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.

 

 

July 3, 2012
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2258 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit the award of 

Federal funds to institutions of higher education that employ instructors 

funded by the Chinese Communist Party, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2021 

Mr. STEUBE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit 

the award of Federal funds to institutions of higher 

education that employ instructors funded by the Chinese 

Communist Party, 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 ‘‘Protecting Higher 

5 Education from Foreign Threats Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2258 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF INSTRUCTORS 

2 FUNDED BY THE CHINESE COMMUNIST 

3 PARTY. 

4 Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 

6 117 the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 117a. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF INSTRUC8 TORS FUNDED BY THE CHINESE COMMUNIST 

9 PARTY. 

10 ‘‘(a) RESTRICTION ON ELIGIBILITY.—Notwith11 standing any other provision of law, no institution of high12 er education shall be eligible to receive funds or any other 

13 form of financial assistance under any Federal program 

14 for an award year in which the institution employs an 

15 CCP-funded instructor. 

16 ‘‘(b) RESUMPTION OF ELIGIBILITY.—An institution 

17 of higher education that loses eligibility to receive funds 

18 for an award year as described in subsection (a) may re19 gain eligibility to receive such funds in a subsequent award 

20 year by demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Sec21 retary, that the institution no longer employs a CCP-fund22 ed instructor. 

23 ‘‘(c) CCP-FUNDED INSTRUCTOR DEFINED.—In this 

24 section, the term ‘CCP-funded instructor’ means a pro25 fessor, teacher, or any other individual who— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2258 IH

1 ‘‘(1) provides instruction directly to the stu2 dents of an institution of higher education; and 

3 ‘‘(2) received funds, directly or indirectly, from 

4 the Chinese Communist Party while employed by 

5 such institution.’’. 

6 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect 

8 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
IW17PF_392
IW17PF_393
IW17PF_394
IW17PF_395
IW17PF_396
IW17PF_397
IW17PF_398
IW17PF_399
IW17PF_400
IW17PF_401
IW17PF_402
IW17PF_403
IW17PF_404
IW17PF_405
IW17PF_406
IW17PF_407
IW17PF_408
IW17PF_409
IW17PF_410
IW17PF_411
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-170504 on Form S-8 of our report dated May 3, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Charm Communications Inc., its subsidiaries and its variable interest entities as of December
31, 2009 and 2010 and for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the financial statement schedule of Charm Communications Inc. appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Charm Communications Inc. dated May 3, 2011.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.  
|Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.      
|Beijing, the Peoples Republic of China
|May 3, 2011
256 La. 352

#### Nola Abshire BROUSSARD et vir v. NATIONAL FOOD STORES OF LA., INC.

No. 50592.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Nola Abshire Broussard and Leroy Broussard applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 233 So.2d 599.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### RADICE REALTY AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. and Edgewater Park Sales, Inc., Petitioners, v. Emery D. SPURR, Respondent.

No. 71-243.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 12, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1971.

Henry M. Schmerer, of Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Schuster & Schmerer, Fort Lau-derdale, for petitioners.

Guy C. Hill, of Heuer & Albury, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied. See Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. Hill, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 233.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
#### Robert Louis OAKES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-551.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1966

CONSUELO MARIA ROMERO

- AREVALO

,

Petitioner

,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND

,
Respondent

.

On Appeal from a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted : March 14, 2023 Decided: May 11, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Jose Rafael Campos, LAW OFFICES OF CAMPOS & ASSOCIATES, Wheaton, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Dep uty Assistant Attorney General , Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Abigail E. Leach, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Divis ion, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1966 Doc: 24 Filed: 05/11/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Consuelo Maria Romero

- Arevalo, a native and citizen of El Salvador , petition s for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal

from the Immigration Judge’s d enial of her applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have

thoroughly reviewed the recor d and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling

contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and

that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S.

478, 481 (1992) . Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by

the Board. In re Romero

- Arevalo (B.I.A. Aug. 18 , 2022). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1966 Doc: 24 Filed: 05/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Aurelio QUINTANA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-569.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 5, 1974.

David B. Javits, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Lance R. Stelzer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by information with aggravated assault. He was tried non-jury, found guilty and sentenced to the state penitentiary for two years.

The sole point for our consideration is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to prove the requisite intent by the appellant to commit an assault.

The evidence revealed that the victim, Henry Gonzalez, was shot in the groin while at his service station on November 25, 1972. Gonzalez testified that the shot was fired by the appellant, after the latter called him to his car, which had just pulled into the station. Gonzalez stated he was shot as he walked towards the appellant’s car, approximately six to eight feet away.

Another eyewitness, Luis Delavin, testified that he saw the appellant aim a revolver, after putting his arm on the window of the car, and shoot the victim.

The appellant then testified in his own behalf. He stated that he purchased the pistol for his personal defense. On the date in question, appellant testified he went *134to the station to show Mr. Gonzalez his weapon, and he did not know how the gun had discharged.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge entered his finding of guilt. On appeal, the finding of the trial judge is entitled to the weight of a jury. Padron v. State, Fla.App. 1953, 153 So.2d 745. In this case, the trial judge believed those facts most damaging to the appellant as established by the evidence, and he reached a conclusion unfavorable to him. See- Spataro v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 873.

Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 The Connecticut Light and Power
Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we,
Cheryl W. Grise, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and John H. Forsgren,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Northeast Utilities
Service Company, agent for the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.


/s/ Cheryl W. Grise
    (Signature)
    Cheryl W. Grise
    Chief Executive Officer


/s/ John H. Forsgren
    (Signature)
    John H. Forsgren
    Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer of
    Northeast Utilities Service Company,
    as Agent for the Company


November 7, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF CRACKER BARREL FOR THE 9 MONTHS ENDED MAY 2, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           AUG-1-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              AUG-3-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                MAY-2-1997
<CASH>                                          33,121
<SECURITIES>                                     1,095
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,824
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     76,267
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,352
<PP&E>                                         808,102
<DEPRECIATION>                                 150,942
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 784,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,498
<BONDS>                                         62,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,477
<OTHER-SE>                                     595,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   784,028
<SALES>                                        801,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               801,818
<CGS>                                          279,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  390,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,011
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 88,533
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,178
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,355
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,355
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.90
        

</TABLE>
#### Madison Lee REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-423.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

July 2, 1969.

*773Walter Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner* Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

This appeal differs from Case No. 68-506, 224 So.2d 769, only in that it is taken from an order entered after a second petition. Both were disposed of summarily, and the invocation of that part of CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A., which provides that the court need not entertain a second or successive petition presupposes adequate consideration of the first. Archer v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 163.

Reynolds’ petitions were handwritten and he did not have counsel until this court relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for appointment of counsel. His first petition in DeSoto County was thus not properly considered and does not bar the second.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion and that filed in Case No. 68-506.

HOBSON, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
#### Jimmie Carl CARTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1138.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 4, 1971.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was the petitioner in a proceeding under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. He came up for trial in 1963, on three counts of robbery. At the trial, he withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty and received three consecutive two-year terms. Pursuant to a CrPR 1.850 petition filed in October of 1970, he argues that his guilty pleas were coerced because he was promised a lighter sentence than the one he received. The trial judge denied the petition without evidentiary hearing. We affirm upon authority of the principle stated in Plymale v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So.2d 85, 86.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31996]



[[Page 64582]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-69-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Settlement Compliance 
Filing

December 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 28, 1997, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective 
January 1, 1998:

Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 14A
Twenty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 15A
Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 16A
Twenty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 17A
Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 18A

    Southern asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's Order issued on September 29, 1995, which approved the 
Stipulation and Agreement (Settlement) filed by Southern on March 15, 
1995 in Docket Nos. RP89-224-012, et al. In accordance with Article VII 
of the Settlement, Southern has made this filing to recover a GSR 
volumetric surcharge based on an estimate of its unrecovered GSR costs 
as of December 31, 1997 and its projected 1998 costs.
    Paragraph 17 of Article VII of the Settlement provides for Southern 
to file by December 1 of each year to collect unrecovered gas supply 
realignment (GSR) costs through its GSR volumetric surcharge, to be 
effective for the parties supporting the Settlement beginning January 1 
of the following year. The proposed GSR volumetric surcharge of $.002/
Dth reflects a reduction from the $.0084/Dth surcharge currently in 
effect.
    Southern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Southern's customers, intervening parties and interested state 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Section 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of Southern's filing are on file 
with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the 
Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31996 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR CONSOLIDATED
EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000023632
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   10,902,056
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    359,957
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,524,458
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     1,573,592
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,360,063
<COMMON>                                       588,720
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      857,737
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          4,056,978
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               4,541,343
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           37,050
<PREFERRED>                                    212,563
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         4,716,901
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 164,969
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  150,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     32,184
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 2,720
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               4,502,333
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               14,360,063
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    6,107,202
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           251,184
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   5,061,785
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   5,312,969
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        794,233
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               5,956
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 800,189
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       274,256
<NET-INCOME>                                   525,933
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     10,194
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  515,739
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       346,754
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      243,532
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         713,288
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>