alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") by Cash Systems, Inc. ("Registrant"), I,
David S. Clifford, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 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
Registrant.

                                           By:   /s/ David S. Clifford
                                                ------------------------------
            Dated: March 31, 2005          David S. Clifford
                                           Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
      31.2**




Certification
      (pursuant to Rule 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended)




I,
      Barry
      I. Regenstein certifying individual, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K of Command Security Corporation;




2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;




3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this annual 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 annual report;




4.
      I am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
      we
      have:




a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
      is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this annual report is being prepared;




b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
      report (the “Evaluation Date”); and




c)
      presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the
      disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
      Date;




5.
      I have
      disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and
      the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing
      the equivalent function):




a)
      all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize
      and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s’ auditors any
      material weakness in internal controls; and




b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and




6.
      I have
      indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes
      in
      internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
      controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
      corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
      weaknesses.




Date:
      June 28, 2006




By: /s/
      Barry I. Regenstein


Barry
      I.
      Regenstein


Principal
      Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Export Administration


Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Open 
Meeting

    A meeting of the Material Processing Equipment Technical Advisory 
Committee will be held March 18, 1997, 9 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover 
Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution 
Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical 
questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to 
materials processing and related technology.

Agenda

    1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.
    2. Presentation of papers or comments by the public.
    3. Update on The Wassenaar Arrangement.
    4. Update on the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
    5. Discussion on guaranteed machine tool positioning accuracy.
    The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of 
seats will be available. To the extent that time permits, members of 
the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written 
statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. 
However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to 
Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the 
public presentation materials two weeks prior to the meeting date to 
the following address: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, OAS/EA MS: 3886C, Bureau 
of Export Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 
20230.
    For further information or copies of the minutes, contact Lee Ann 
Carpenter on (202) 482-2583.

    Dated: February 18, 1997.
Lee Ann Carpenter,
Director, Technical Advisory Committee Unit.
[FR Doc. 97-4362 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4600]



[[Page 8237]]

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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Sunshine Act Meeting

February 19, 1997.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section 
3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5 
U.S.C. 552b:

agency holding meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
date and time: February 26, 1997, following adjournment of the 
Commission's 10:00 a.m. open meeting.
place: Room 2C, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
status: Closed.
matters to be considered: Koch Gateway Pipeline Company.
contact person for more information: Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, 
Telephone (202) 208-0400.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4600 Filed 2-20-97; 11:25 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40297

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LORENZO GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-1074-3

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lorenzo Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea 

conviction of conspiring to harbor and transport illegal aliens, in violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B). Garcia argues that the district court erred 

in calculating his offense level under U.S.S.G. §§ 2X1.1 and 2L1.1 by holding 

him accountable under relevant conduct for harboring and transporting two 

aliens approximately three months prior to his offense of conviction. He 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40297 Document: 00512883551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2014
No. 14-40297

asserts that the incident, which involved different co-conspirators, was 

insufficiently similar to the offense of conviction to constitute relevant conduct. 

Because Garcia did not raise this argument in the district court, we will review 

the district court’s sentencing decision for plain error only. Puckett v. United 

States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009).

In determining Garcia’s sentence, the district court was allowed to 

consider, as relevant conduct, “all acts and omissions . . . that were part of the 

same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). The district court found that both Garcia’s offense of 

conviction and the prior transporting offense involved schemes to forcibly 

detain aliens who had illegally entered the United States, extort money from 

those aliens and their families to pay for transportation, and subsequently 

abandon those aliens on the side of the road in Brooks County, Texas. Those 

findings warranted a conclusion that the two episodes shared a common 

purpose and modus operandi and were part of a common scheme or plan. See

United States v. Williams, 610 F.3d 271, 293-94 (5th Cir. 2010). Moreover, the 

distinct similarities between the two episodes, which occurred within months 

of one another, warranted a conclusion that they were part of the same course 

of conduct. See United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 888 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Garcia has not shown that the district court committed error, much less plain 

error, by concluding that his prior alien transporting episode was conduct

relevant to his offense of conviction. See Puckett, 129 S. Ct. at 1429.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-40297 Document: 00512883551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2014
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 16-3648

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v. Franklin Alberto Mendez Alvarado lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________ Submitted: May 10, 2017 Filed: May 15, 2017 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Franklin Alberto Mendez Alvarado pled guilty to illegally re-entering the United States as a previously deported a lien, subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S .C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging his sentence, suggesting that an error under Federal Rule of CriminalProcedure 11(b)(1)(B) occurred during the cha nge-of-plea hearing, and asserting that the district court 1 did not use the correct Guidelin es Manual for sentencing purposes. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the issues raised by counsel lack merit . See United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004) (plain-error standard applies where Rule 11 error was not preserved by timely objection; defendant must show that, but for such error, he would not have entered plea); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 (court shall use Guidelines Manual ineffect on date defe ndant is sentenced, unless that edition violates ex post facto cl ause). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Un ited States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-
#### Jeanne WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Sidney WEINSTOCK and Moore McCormack Lines, Inc., a foreign corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-782.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 13, 1971.

Colson & Hicks, Podhurst, Orseck & Parks and Stephen F. Rossman, Miami, for appellant.

Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Compare Anno. 7 A.L.R.2d 704, p. 714; Vol. 1 A.L.R.2d, Later Case Service, p. 696 and supplement thereto.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 27, 2017

a0619

Order 

Clerk

June 27, 2017

154690

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154690

COA: 332937 

Wayne CC: 12-011169-FC

ZACKARY WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2016 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Beulah B. BIENVENU, Wife of James F. DONNELLY v. DREXEL HOMES, INC.

No. 4556.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Sept. 10, 1971.

Walter R. Fitzpatrick, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Daniel A. Post, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and BOUTALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment casting it for the cost of repairing certain defects in a house it constructed for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs answer the appeal, seeking correction of an alleged error as to amount of judgment and inclusion of one additional item.

The judgment awarded $325. Written reasons assigned $200 and $125 for replacement of a formica countertop and cracked sidewalk.

Screws underneath the formica pushed up two quarter-inch mounds in its surface. The only evidence is that the one remedy is replacement, and that cost would be $260. Defendant’s argument that this *358cost is grossly disproportionate to the defect is a matter which would have been pertinent in compromise negotiations, but does not address itself to the sole questions in issue, namely whether'there is a defect and what is the cost of remedy. A homeowner might voluntarily accept the defect in consideration of a lesser reduction in price, but the court cannot force such a compromise. The owner is entitled to a countertop without defect.

There was conflicting testimony on whether the sidewalk was cracked. At the time the trial judge inspected the premises he obviously saw that it was “badly” cracked, as he described it in reasons for judgment. Defendant argues plaintiff did not prove the cause of the cracking, nor that it was attributable to defendant. In our opinion plaintiff’s burden is met by showing the mere existence of “badly cracked” sidewalks, since this kind of defect is not one that might result from the owner’s use of the sidewalk. The only evidence on repair cost was that it would be $125.

The owners seek to add to their recovery the $335 cost of replacing a bathtub with a chip in its finish. Their lender’s building expert testified that he would not require replacement because the porcelain can be repaired so competently (“there’s only one or two people”) that “even when I look at it, I can’t tell it’s been repaired.” Disregarding the question whether the chip pre-existed the owners’ moving into the house, we conclude the building expert’s testimony sufficiently justified the trial court’s rejection of the replacement claim. There was no evidence on which to base an allowance for cost of competent repair, which might otherwise have been allowable.

Since the only evidence on formica replacement cost was $260, the allowance of only $200 was apparently inadvertent and must be corrected.

The judgment appealed from is amended to increase its principal amount to $385 and as amended is affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Otis JONES v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 60983.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: Otis Jones applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Evangeline.

*1035Writ denied. Based on evidentiary hearings, no merit in relator’s application to this court.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. MG96-13-004]


K N Interstate Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Filing

February 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 7, K N Interstate Gas Transmission 
Company (KNI) submitted a response to the Commission's December 24, 
1996 order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FERC para.61,309 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    KNI states that copies of this filing have been mailed to all 
parties on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this 
proceeding. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said 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 Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to 
intervene or protest should be filed on or before February 28, 1997. 
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 this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4127 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Edsel POSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-192.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 29, 1970.

M. H. Myerson, Jacksonville and Philip D. Beall, Pensacola, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Horace A. Knowlton, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The order denying appellant’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. asserting irregularities relating to the venire from which the grand and petit jury were drawn is affirmed on authority of House v. State, 199 So.2d 134 (Fla.App.1967). See also this court’s opinion affirming appellant’s conviction on direct appeal reported in 214 So.2d 750, cert. denied Fla., 222 So.2d 747.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 96-3512

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas

Robert J. Gray, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: January 7, 1997

 Filed: January 21, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, HENLEY and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert J. Gray appeals his nine-month sentence imposed by the

District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas after he pleaded

1

guilty to aiding and abetting in wrecking a train, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 1992 and 2. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and was granted leave to withdraw. Gray

did not avail himself of the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Although Gray argues that his sentence should have included

probation, an option authorized by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 5C1.1(c)(3) (1995), the district court was within its
-2-

discretion to impose imprisonment. The district court specifically

noted at sentencing its options under Guidelines § 5C1.1(c)(2) and

(3), and also stated that the sentence should be fair and just,

reflect the seriousness of the crime, and deter others from similar

conduct in the future. Thus, contrary to Gray's contention, the

district court considered the sentencing options and stated reasons

for the sentence. The district court was not required to state its

reason for choosing the particular point within the sentencing

range, because the applicable range did not span more than 24

months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1); United States v. Garrido, 38

F.3d 981, 986 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Ehret, 885 F.2d

441, 445 (8th Cir. 1989) (same), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1062

(1990). 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no other

nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT 14**

 

**CASCADE MICROTECH, INC.**

**CODE OF ETHICS**

 

# **INTRODUCTION**

 

# **This Code of Ethics has been adoptedby the Board of Directors of Cascade Microtech, Inc. to promote honest andethical conduct, proper disclosure of financial information in the Corporation’speriodic reports, and compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulationsby the Corporation’s employees, officers and directors.**

 

# **APPLICABILITY**

 

# **This Code applies to every employee,officer and director of the Corporation.**

 

# **PRINCIPLESAND PRACTICES**

 

# **In performing his or her duties, eachemployee, officer and director must:**

 

1.               Maintain high standards of honest and ethical conductand avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest;

 

2.               Report to the Audit Committee of the Board ofDirectors any conflict of interest that may arise and any material transactionor relationship that reasonably could be expected to give rise to a conflict;

 

3.               Provide, or cause to be provided, full, fair,accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports and documents thatthe Corporation distributes to shareholders and in other public communications;

 

4.               Comply and take all reasonable actions to cause othersto comply with applicable governmental laws, rules, and regulations; and

 

5.               Promptly report violations of this Code to the AuditCommittee.

 

Employees, officers and directors must also complywith the Code of Business Conduct applicable to the Corporation’s Directors,officers, and employees generally.

 

# **WAIVER**

 

# **Any request for a waiver of anyprovision of this Code must be in writing and addressed to the Audit Committee**

 

# **COMPLIANCEAND ACCOUNTABILITY**

 

The Audit Committee will assess compliance with thisCode, report material violations to the Board of Directors, and recommend tothe Board appropriate action.

 

1

----