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 on Form 10-Q of Sara Lee Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended December 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, L.M. (Theo) de Kool, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 7, 2007                                                
|                                                                       
|/s/ L.M. (Theo) de Kool,                                               
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2362 

To provide interim appropriations for the Coast Guard Retired Serviceman’s 

Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans for each fiscal year after 

fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2021 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To provide interim appropriations for the Coast Guard Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2020, 

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 Gold Star 

5 Spouses Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2362 IH

1 SEC. 2. INTERIM APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE COAST GUARD 

2 RETIRED SERVICEMAN’S FAMILY PROTEC3 TION AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS PLANS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are hereby appropriated, 

5 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro6 priated, for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2020, such 

7 sums as necessary for payment of the Coast Guard Re8 tired Serviceman’s Family Protection and Survivor Bene9 fits Plans, as are described in the provision regarding 

10 Coast Guard retired pay in title II of division F of the 

11 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116– 

12 260), at a rate for operations and under the terms and 

13 conditions provided by the most recent law making full14 year appropriations for such Coast Guard Retired Service15 man’s Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans. 

16 (b) EFFECT OF ENACTMENT OF SUBSEQUENT AP17 PROPRIATIONS.—If an appropriation for such Coast 

18 Guard Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection and Sur19 vivor Benefits Plans, or a general appropriation bill pro20 viding appropriations for the Coast Guard without provi21 sion for such Coast Guard Retired Serviceman’s Family 

22 Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, is enacted into 

23 law on any date after the date of the enactment of this 

24 Act that provides for appropriations during a fiscal year 

25 following the expenditure of funds during such fiscal year 

26 pursuant to this Act— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2362 IH

1 (1) such expenditure shall be charged to such 

2 appropriation (if any); and 

3 (2) appropriations made available for such fis4 cal year pursuant to this Act shall not be available 

5 after the date of enactment of such appropriation or 

6 general appropriation bill. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
No. 9615.

#### The Ohio Telephone & Telegraph Co. *v.*Graham.

(Decided December 11, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin County.

*Messrs. Williams, Taylor & Pretzman,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Fred C. Rector,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Si-iauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2135 

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to prohibit debt collectors 

from collecting, or attempting to collect, on a debt of a consumer with 

respect to which the statute of limitations has expired, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2021 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Ms. BONAMICI, and Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to prohibit 

debt collectors from collecting, or attempting to collect, 

on a debt of a consumer with respect to which the 

statute of limitations has expired, 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 ‘‘Fair Debt Collection 

5 Improvement Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2135 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON COLLECTING TIME-BARRED DEBT. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Fair Debt Collection Prac3 tices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.) is amended by inserting 

4 after section 811 the following: 

5 ‘‘§ 811A. Prohibition on collecting time-barred debt 

6 ‘‘A debt collector may not collect, or attempt to col7 lect, any debt of a consumer with respect to which the 

8 statute of limitations has expired.’’. 

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

10 for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is amended by 

11 inserting after the item relating to section 811 the fol12 lowing: 

‘‘811A. Prohibition on collecting time-barred debt.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
256 La. 908

#### STATE of Louisiana v. J. C. CURRY et al.

No. 50930.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1970.

In re: J. C. Curry et al. applying for writs of certiorari and mandamus.

Writs refused. Relators have an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of their conviction.
#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucas Guadalupe Leon REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50480.

D.C. No. CR 99-1216 NMM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 6, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 9, 2002.

*205Before REINHARDT, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case appropriate for decision without oral argument.

MEMORANDUM **

Lucas Guadalupe Leon Reyes appeals his convictions and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Reyes was sentenced to 85 months imprisonment, four years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $200. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not recited in our disposition, except as necessary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

Reyes’ argument that the penalty provisions in the drug statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), are facially unconstitutional in light of the constitutional rule recognized in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), was recently rejected by this court. *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc). Accordingly, this argument is foreclosed.

Reyes’ further argument that, if § 841 is unconstitutional, so also must be his 85-month guideline sentence, is similarly unavailing. Reyes argues that his sentence was somehow “driven by” the five-year mandatory minimum sentence in the allegedly unconstitutional statute. The Supreme Court recently held, however, that *Apprendi*did not render mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional. *See Harris v. United States,*— U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002). Moreover, even if there were any *Apprendi*error in Reyes’ sentence, the error would be harmless because the sentence is below the statutory maximum. *See United States v. Garcia-Sanchez,*238 F.3d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 11.2

CPI CORP.Computation of Per
Common Share Earnings (Loss)  Basic(Unaudited)

|                                                                 | 12 Weeks Ended | 24 Weeks Ended
|---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------
|
|Basic:                                                           |                |               
|Net earnings (loss) applicable to common shares:                 |                |               
|From continuing operations                                       |                |               
|From discontinued operations                                     |                |               
|                                                                 |                |               
|Net loss                                                         |                |               
|                                                                 |                |               
|Shares:                                                          |                |               
|Weighted average number of common shares                         |                |               
|outstanding                                                      |                |               
|Less:  Treasury stock - weighted average                         |                |               
|                                                                 |                |               
|Weighted average number of common and                            |                |               
|common equivalent shares outstanding                             |                |               
|                                                                 |                |               
|Net earnings (loss) per common and common     equivalent shares: |                |               
|From continuing operations                                       |                |               
|From discontinued operations                                     |                |               
|                                                                 |                |               
|Net loss                                                         |                |               
|                                                                 |                |
#### Rick D. MERCHANT et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George B. MOWAD, M. D., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 6580.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 3, 1978.

Preston N. Aucoin, Ville Platte, for defendants-appellants.

Ernest R. Eldred, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before DOMENGEAUX, WATSON and FORET, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

George B. Mowad, M. D., the defendant-appellant, moves for leave of this court to abandon his appeal and obtain its dismissal. The motion is unopposed.

We grant the motion to dismiss.

Rule VII, Section 3 of the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal provides in pertinent part that:

> “In the absence of a timely answer to the appeal or other formal action to amend or modify the judgment appealed, the appellant alone may, by his formal Motion to Dismiss, on leave of the court, forthwith abandon his appeal and obtain a dismissal.”

Since an answer to the appeal has not been filed, nor has any other formal action to amend or modify the judgment appealed been taken, the appeal is hereby dismissed at defendant-appellant’s costs.

*APPEAL DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          19,099
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,649
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   779
<PP&E>                                          39,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,391
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,577
<OTHER-SE>                                     256,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   343,805
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,282
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,936
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (266)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,935)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,692)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,243)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,243)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
Corning Natural Gas Corporation Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act-filed as part of the 10-Q for Quarter Ended March 31, 2008.

Presented on signature page of 10-Q

 

 

CERTIFICATION

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Corning Natural Gas Corporation (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

Dated: May 14, 2008
EXHIBIT11.2

|                                                            |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| in      thousands, except share and per share data              |   | 12      Weeks Ended |   |
|                                                            |   | May      2, 2009 |   |   | April      26, 2008 |   |
| Basic:                                                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net      income (loss) applicable to common shares:             |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| From      continuing operations                                 |   | $ | 2,329 |   |   | $ | (92 | ) |
| From      discontinued operations                               |   |   | - |   |   |   | (164 | ) |
|                                                            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net      income (loss)                                          |   | $ | 2,329 |   |   | $ | (256 | ) |
|                                                            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Shares:                                                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted      average number of common and                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| common      equivalent shares outstanding                       |   |   | 9,600,580 |   |   |   | 17,047,354 |   |
| Less:      Treasury stock - weighted average                    |   |   | (2,651,781 | ) |   |   | (10,595,319 | ) |
|                                                            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted      average number of common and common               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| equivalent      shares outstanding                              |   |   | 6,948,799 |   |   |   | 6,452,035 |   |
|                                                            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net      income (loss) per common and common equivalent shares: |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| From      continuing operations                                 |   | $ | 0.34 |   |   | $ | (0.01 | ) |
| From      discontinued operations                               |   |   | - |   |   |   | (0.03 | ) |
|                                                            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net      income (loss)                                          |   | $ | 0.34 |   |   | $ | (0.04 | ) |
|                                                            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
#### Milton L. HELIN, Appellant, v. Royonelle M. HELIN, Appellee.

Nos. 70-135, 70-259.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 19, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1970.

*534Edward C. Vining, Jr., and R. M. MacArthur, Miami, for appellant.

Barrett, Christie, Shepard & Diliberto, Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellee sued his wife for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. Judgment for divorce was granted in his favor. The defendant was awarded alimony in the amount of $900 per month, and allowed to continue in possession of the jointly owned residence until sold. The husband was ordered to support the minor child of the parties, a son aged 17 years, who is in his custody. The plaintiff-husband appealed from the judgment (appeal No. 70-135), contending the wife was not entitled to receive alimony, and that the alimony payments ordered were excessive.

During the pendency of the cause the court had ordered the husband to pay items amounting to approximately $475 per month for temporary support of the defendant. After appealing from the final judgment without a supersedeas, the husband paid only the alimony which had been in effect pendente lite, rather than the larger alimony payments provided for in the final judgment. On the wife’s motion a rule to show cause was issued, following which an order was entered holding the husband in contempt, with provision that he could purge the contempt by payment within ten days of the additional amounts required by the judgment which he had failed to pay. From that order the husband filed interlocutory appeal No. 70-259.

We affirm the latter order. It is clear beyond the need for elaboration that the trial court was entitled to enter orders appropriate for the enforcement of payment of alimony as provided for in the final judgment, and that the husband’s appeal from the judgment without superse-deas did not affect its enforceability pending the appeal.

On appeal No. 70-135, we reject as unsound the appellant’s contention that the wife was not entitled to be awarded alimony because it was for her misconduct (extreme cruelty) that the divorce was granted. Randolph v. Randolph, 146 Fla. 491, 1 So.2d 480.

We find merit in the appellant’s contention that the alimony awarded was excessive, on consideration of the needs of the wife balanced against the husband’s financial status and ability to pay as disclosed in the record. An inspection of the items and their amounts which were listed by the wife as making up the sum needed by her monthly for support shows inclusion of some items not reasonably to be regarded as necessary for her support and some unrealistic sums for certain of the items listed. On consideration thereof, in the light of the record and briefs and the applicable law, we hold that the alimony allowance of $900 per month was more than *535justified on the record, and that it should be and hereby is reduced to $750 per month, retroactive to the date of the final judgment.

It is so ordered.
CONTACT REPORT

Date/Time Project Name Project Number

December 14, 2011 3:30pm Ferroalloys RTR MME-411

Originator Contact Phone Number

Jonathan Averback Amy Lincoln, Beveridge & Diamond, 

Counsel for Felman Production, Inc. N/A

General Subject

Today at about 3:30 PM, I received a telephone call from Amy Lincoln, counsel for Felman, 

regarding the company's request for an extension of the comment period deadline for an 

additional 45 days. She highlighted information in the company's request, and 

acknowledged receiving EPA’s confirmation letter verifying receipt of their request. I 

indicated EPA is still considering the request. No new significant information was presented 

in this call.
EXHIBIT A

The following modifications are hereby made the incorporated into this
agreement:

PART B, SECTION 5.4, is hereby modified to read:

"Borrower will not, without Bank's prior written consent, declare any dividends
in excess of 10% of its annual net (after tax) profit on shares of its capital
stock ..."

PART B, SECTION 9.1 AND SECTION 10:

The venue in both sections is hereby modified to read "Spokane County,
Washington".

Initials ______


<PAGE>


                           THE COEUR D'ALENES COMPANY

                        QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

                        AS OF _____________________, 19__



1.       Minimum working capital of $1,500,000, measured quarterly.

         Working Capital = $________     Met______       Not Met _____



2.       Minimum Current Ratio of 1.50:1, measured quarterly.

         Current Ratio = $________       Met______       Not Met _____

3.       Maximum total indebtedness shall not exceed 2.30 times borrower's
         tangible net worth, measured quarterly.

         Debt/ TNW = $________           Met______       Not Met _____

4.       Minimum tangible net worth shall be $2,400,000, measured quarterly.

         Tangible Net Worth = $________  Met______       Not Met _____


These and other covenants and conditions of the Loan Agreement between Borrower
and Bank of America N.W., N.A., doing business as Seafirst Bank, dated March 1,
1999 have been reviewed and Borrower is in compliance with all covenants and
conditions as set forth in the agreement.



THE COEUR D'ALENES COMPANY

By:    ____________________________________

Title: ____________________________________

Date:  ____________________________________