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


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                       NORTH COUNTRY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C ss. 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, (the "Form 10-Q") of North Country
Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, William T. Fitzgerald Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer,
certify that:

     1.   The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     2.   The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Issuer.

/s/ William T. Fitzgerald, Jr.
---------------------------------------------------------------
William T. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
August 11, 2003
#### Vincent DELINO and Carol Delino, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-61.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 5, 1971.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Robert Buchard, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Alan M. Medof, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Treverrow v. State, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 250; and Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 332.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ernest L. FELTON.

No. 60803.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1978.

Jim W. Wiley, Winnfield, Robert L. Kennedy, Colfax, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., B. G. Lutes, *986Dist. Atty., Philip G. Hunter, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On April 1, 1977, Ernest Felton was charged by bill of information with simple burglary in violation of La.R.S. 14:62. After a trial by jury, he was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to serve six years at hard labor. On this appeal, defendant relies upon four assignments of error for reversal of his conviction and sentence.

We have reviewed the record and find no merit to defendant’s assignments of error. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction and sentence.

DECREE

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000034501
<NAME>                        FDS2Q97
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
<CURRENCY>                    US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-04-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,267
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                       945
<INVENTORY>                                     68,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,752
<PP&E>                                          60,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 163,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,694
<BONDS>                                          1,663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,026
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,017
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   163,875
<SALES>                                        132,709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,709
<CGS>                                           95,962
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    419
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (837)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,256
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.4

                              HPL LETTERHEAD


To:

From:

Date: __________, 2001


HPL Technologies, Inc. is pleased to grant you an option to purchase ______
shares of Common Stock of HPL Technologies, Inc. at an exercise price of $__
per share, as of ___________, 2001 (the "Grant Date"). Each year for _____
years, _______ percent (__%) of the option shares will become exercisable on
the anniversary of the Grant Date. The option to purchase these shares
expires _____ years from the Grant Date. The option is [an incentive stock
option] [non-statutory stock option] for tax purposes.

This stock option is governed by the terms of the 2001 Equity Incentive Plan,
(the "Plan"), a copy of which can be obtained from the Human Resource
department.

[This stock option may be exercised prior to the dates of exercise provided
above; however all shares so acquired will be subject to Reverse Vesting, as
defined in the Plan.]

[Stock purchased under the option may be subject to re-purchase rights and
re-sale restrictions, as provided in the Plan and in the option exercise
documents, copies of which may be obtained from the Human Resources
Department.]

We appreciate your efforts and thank you for your continued contribution.

___________________________________


[President]

_____________________

OPTIONEE ACCEPTS, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
PLAN.


________________________________     _____________________________
Optionee                             Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      598
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,300
<PP&E>                                          28,210
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              355
<BONDS>                                          2,295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           164
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,249
<SALES>                                          1,793
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,819
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (118)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (495)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DANIEL ROBERT MILLER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3723 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 9, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; William H. Burgess, III, Judge. N. Adam Tebrugge of Tebrugge Legal, Bradenton, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### Johnie A. McLEOD, Appellant, v. Kermit H. BURGIN and Raymond Stites, Appellees.

No. 72-71.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 8, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 21, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00803

- CV

Armando BENAVIDES

, Appellant

v.

Anselmo BENAVIDES , Antonio Benavides, and A.T. Trucking, L.L.P., Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06

- 03

- 44411

- CV Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is granted. We order appellant’s brief due May 2, 2016. Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) prov ides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affi xed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-07707) pertaining to the Cell Genesys, Inc. 1989 Incentive Stock
Plan and the 1992 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated January 27,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cell Genesys,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1996.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Palo Alto, California
March 28, 1997
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7736 

To require elementary schools and secondary schools to provide an option 

for safe, in-person attendance during school year 2020–2021. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2020 

Mr. ALLEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To require elementary schools and secondary schools to provide an option for safe, in-person attendance during 

school year 2020–2021. 

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 ‘‘Educational Flexibility 

5 for Families Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR SAFE, IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE 

7 OPTION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date of enact9 ment of this Act, no amounts are authorized to be appro10 priated for school year 2020–2021 to any elementary 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7736 IH

1 school or secondary school, or any local educational agency 

2 or State educational agency that serves an elementary 

3 school or secondary school, that does not provide an option 

4 for students to attend classes, safely and in-person, at the 

5 school during such school year. 

6 (b) DEFINITIONS.—The terms ‘‘elementary school’’, 

7 ‘‘secondary school’’, ‘‘local educational agency’’, and 

8 ‘‘State educational agency’’ have the meanings given the 

9 terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary 

10 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

__________________________________________________________________ No. DA 22 - 0696 **IN THE MATTER OF D.A**  **., L.A., and F.A.,** 

Youths in Need of Care .

_________________________________________________________________ **ORDER**

__________________________________________________________________ Upon consideration of Appellant’s Father’s one week motion for extension of time, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant Father is granted an extension of time to and including March 31 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve his opening brief on appeal. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 20 2023

03/20/2023
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7895 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial 

review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2020 

Mr. ARMSTRONG (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mr. 

BURGESS, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. CLINE, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. PALMER, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. WALKER, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. YOHO, 

and Mr. BUCK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature 

of judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory 

and regulatory provisions. 

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 ‘‘Separation of Powers 

5 Restoration Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7895 IH

1 SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGU2 LATORY INTERPRETATIONS. 

3 Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, is amend4 ed— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘To the extent necessary’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘(a) To the extent necessary’’; 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘decide all relevant questions of 

8 law, interpret constitutional and statutory provi9 sions, and’’; 

10 (3) by inserting after ‘‘of the terms of an agen11 cy action’’ the following ‘‘and decide de novo all rel12 evant questions of law, including the interpretation 

13 of constitutional and statutory provisions, and rules 

14 made by agencies. Notwithstanding any other provi15 sion of law, this subsection shall apply in any action 

16 for judicial review of agency action authorized under 

17 any provision of law. No law may exempt any such 

18 civil action from the application of this section ex19 cept by specific reference to this section’’; and 

20 (4) by striking ‘‘The reviewing court shall—’’ 

21 and inserting the following: 

22 ‘‘(b) The reviewing court shall—’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1397 KA 10-00200 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
JOSE PRATTS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KAREN RUSSO-MCLAUGHLIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (J. MICHAEL MARION OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered January 15, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed ( see People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & CONSERVATION DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL WILLIAM R. SNODGRASS TENNESSEE TOWER 312 ROSA L. PARKS AVENUE 15 TH FLOOR NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243
February 8, 2016 Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region 4 Office Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 Re: SIP Submittal Revising Tennessee’s Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements

– Withdrawal and Re-Submittal for Parallel Processing Dear M s. Toney: On November 12, 2015 , the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board approved changes to Tennessee Comprehensive Rules and Regulations 1200-03

- 18 -.24 (Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

– Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery). Because these changes are not state-effective as of this letter date, Tennessee requests that EPA process this revision to the State Implementation Plan via parallel processing and hereby withdraws the version submitted on December 17, 2015. Tennessee expects the final rule to be state-effective on or about July 1, 2016 and will submit the package as final at that time. A copy of the SIP submittal is enclosed with supporting documentation. If you have any questions or comments concerning the enclosed materials, please contact Travis Blake at (615) 532-0617 or via e

mail at travis.blake@tn.gov
. Sincerely,
Michelle W. Owenby Division Director Air Pollution Control
<PAGE>

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                      OF
                     RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                       CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

          The undersigned corporation, in order to amend its Restated
Certificate of Incorporation, hereby certifies as follows:

     FIRST:   The name of the corporation is:

              Catellus Development Corporation

     SECOND:  The corporation hereby amends Article 4 of its Restated
              Certificate of Incorporation as follows:

          Article 4 of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, relating to
          ---------
          Capital Stock, is hereby amended by inserting the following as clause
          (2) of paragraph (b)(ii) (preceding the "or" which appears between the
          present clauses (1) and (2) and with the present clause (2) becoming
          clause (3)):

              , (2) as required by any national securities
              exchange on which the Preferred Stock is or
              may be listed for trading


     THIRD:   The amendment effected herein was authorized by the affirmative
              vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares
              entitled to vote thereon at a meeting of stockholders pursuant to
              Sections 222 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
              of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereunto sign our names and affirm that the
statements made herein are true under the penalties of perjury this 18/th/ day
of May, 1993.

                                                ________________________________
                                                Vernon B. Schwartz, President

Attest:


____________________________
Maureen Sullivan, Secretary
#### Charles A. MARTINO v. AETNA LIFE & CAS. CO. and William Bevan et al. Joseph T. CARRILES v. Succession of William BEVAN, Lena Bevan and Aetna Life Ins. Co.

No. 61188.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1978.

In re: Joseph T. Carriles applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 351 So.2d 204; 351 So.2d 206.

Writ denied.

TATE and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APR 06, 2001 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK PUBLISH IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 98-8830

________________________ TRACY LEE HOUSEL, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus FREDERICK J. HEAD, Respondent-Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________ (April 6, 2001) ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before DUBINA, CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Tracy Lee Housel has petitione d this court for rehearing and has suggested rehearing en banc. Among other arguments, he points out that the court2 misspoke in describing the concurring opinion in Devier v. Zant , 3 F.3d 1445 (11th Cir. 1993), and that the court did not discuss the large body of state-court authority concerning the treatment of unadjudicated crimes in capital sentencing. We GRANT the petition for panel rehearing to maketwo changes to our opinion, which is published at 238 F.3d 1289. First, the sentence “But it has never b een accepted in any fo rm by a majority of this court or the Suprem e Court,” found on pa ge 1297, is replaced with “But no Supreme Court majority has ever accepted it, and two judges of this court espoused it only in dicta.” Second, the sentence that begins “Perhaps since last a court visited the question . . .,” also found on page 1297, should begin “Perhaps since last this court or the Supreme Court visited the question . . . .” The petition is otherwise DENIED. No member of this panel nor any other judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, the suggestion of rehearing en banc is also DENIED.