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-QSB, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, of The First Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, DeeDee Lowery, the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ DeeDee LoweryName:

DeeDee LoweryTitle:

Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate:

May 10, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The First Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The First
Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Albert GREEN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Mrs. Linda M. PRATTINI v. James W. BENNETT, Sr. and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin.

No. 53959.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: James W. Bennett, Sr. and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 281 So.2d 187.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the judgment is correct.
II 

Calendar No. 138 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1316 

To repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2013 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JULY 18, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board. 

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 Seniors’ 

5 Access to Medicare Act of 2013’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1316 PCS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVI2 SORY BOARD. 

3 Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protec4 tion and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), sec5 tions 3403 and 10320 of such Act (including the amend6 ments made by such sections) are repealed, and any provi7 sion of law amended by such sections is hereby restored 

8 as if such sections had not been enacted into law. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 138 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1316 

A BILL 

To repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection 

pendent Payment Advisory Board. and Affordable Care Act providing for the IndeJULY 18, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 00-1145.

#### Thorstad *v.*Wisconsin.

Ct. App. Wis. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Blakely *v.*Board of Sup’rs of Grenada County.

(Division B.

Jan. 14, 1935.)

[158 So. 483.

No. 31526.]

*653W. M. Mitchell, of Grenada, for appellant.

*654S. C. Mims, Jr., of Grenada, for appellee.

Ethridge, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant, Blakely, filed a bill in the chancery court of Grenada county seeking to enjoin the board of supervisors from laying out and opening up a public road in said county, challenging the sufficiency of the proceedings therefor, and alleging that he was a resident citizen, landowner, and taxpayer of said supervisors’ district. The petition for the road, the order of the board appointing the road commissioners, and the final order approving the road, were made exhibits to the bill. Appellant did not allege that the road would enter 'any lands belonging to him, or in which he had any in*655terest, nor did he allege that he had applied to any public authority having power to represent the public to file such suit.

The chancellor did not grant the preliminary injunction, but set a day for a preliminary hearing at which the board of supervisors appeared and answered, and among other things, setting up in its answer that the road had been completely opened, all expenses incurred therein paid, and that they had acted in good faith in dealing with said matter. The chancellor sustained a demurrer made a part of the answer and granted an appeal to settle the principles of the' cause.

Section 6345, Code 1930-, provides that: “All proceedings of the board of supervisors, in laying out, altering, or changing any public road, and assessing damages therefor, may be reviewed by the.circuit court in respect to any matter of law arising on the face of the proceedings; and on the question of damages-the cause maybe tried-anew, and the damages may be assessed by a jury if the owner of the land so desire, ’ ’ etc.’ This section grants a'remedy at law, and, consequently, an injunction should not have been, granted. In addition to- this, the appellant did not show, by his bill, any right to challenge the action.of the board of supervisors in said matter.. No property of his was invaded by the laying out of said road,, and it was shown that ’the road had been laid out and all expenses therefor paid out of the public funds; consequently,, there was no burden upon the appellant’s property, or himself, in reference thereto-.

Furthermore, the public interest" would suffer by' the undue meddling of private citizens in matters of this hind. Before the appellant should be permitted to maintain a suit of this character, he should-apply to an appropriate public authority to institute such suit in his behalf and that of the public generally. See McKee v. Hogan, 145 Miss. 747, 110 So. 775, where questions of *656this kind are discussed and authorities reviewed. See, also, American Oil Co. v. Interstate Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 138 Miss. 801, 101 So. 70.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Affirmed and remanded.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

# **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Theundersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee,Inc. (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of his knowledge:

 

•                  the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 24, 2003 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

•                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: | November 6,  2003                                | /s/  Martin A. Lynch |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|   |                                                  | Martin A.  Lynch          |
|   | Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

Note:  A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich Coffee, Inc. andwill be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  J OSE P EREZ , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 02-1393



#  M ARK E LRICH ; T HOMAS W. A NDERSON ; T HE C ITY OFT AKOMA P ARK , M ARYLAND ,

Defendants-Appellees. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-01-2648-PJM) Submitted: November 20, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Ralph T. Byrd, Laytonsville, Maryland, for Appellant. John F. Breads, Jr., Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Jose Perez filed a complaint in Maryland state court alleging common law defamation, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), arising out of several comments made by the chief of policeand a city council member from Takoma Park, Maryland. The Defendants removed the action to federal court, which denied Perez’s motion to remand and dismissed the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for the reasons stated from the bench. Perez appeals. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s statements from the bench, and the parties’ briefs. The district court properly found, first, that Perez failed to state a claim under § 1983 and that, in any event, the Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The district court also properly found that none of the statements underlying Perez’s claims were defamatory under Maryland state law. See Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg’l Med. Ctr. , 665 A.2d 297, 317 (Md. App. 1995). Finally, because the district court had jurisdiction at the time it rendered final judgment, we will not disturb its decision to deny Perez’s motion to remand to state court. Aqualon v. MAC Equip. , 149 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis , 519 U.S. 61, 64 (1996) ("[A] district court’s error in failing to remand a case improperlyremoved is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered"). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2 P EREZ v. E LRICH
#### Mark A. MUNDY, Petitioner, v. David PATTERSON, Judge Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Fla., Respondent.

No. 73-330.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 16, 1973.

Prohibition dismissed.
#### In re Leon H. BRUSH.

No. 41142.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 21, 1971.

Leon H. Brush, in pro. per.

Richard C. McFarlain, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for leave to resign from The Florida Bar pursuant to Rule 11.08(2), Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A., and the response of The Florida Bar.

The Florida Bar has made a preliminary investigation regarding petitioner’s han*854dling of funds and it appears that any mishandling has been corrected through the efforts of others. Further, the Bar in its response states that Mr. Brush has left the state and intends to live in Mexico. The Bar supports the petition for resignation without leave for reinstatement and states that the granting of the petition will not adversely affect the public interest, the purity of the Courts and will not hinder the administration of justice.

Accordingly, the petition of Leon H. Brush to resign from The Florida Bar without leave to apply for reinstatement is hereby accepted and the name of Leon H. Brush is hereby stricken from the roll of attorneys of The Florida Bar.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ„ concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Fitzgeralds Gaming
Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended June 29, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael E. McPherson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 of the Company as of
the dates indicated and result of operations of the Company for the
periods indicated.



| | /s/ Michael E. McPherson
Michael E. McPherson
Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
August 8, 2003
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Elwyn COPELAND v. SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION OF HATTIESBURG.

No. 49725.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 16, 1977.

Kepper & Leggett, Lee S. Leggett, Karl W. Kepper, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

Larry 0. Norris, Hattiesburg, for appel-lee.

Before INZER, P. J., and WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Forrest County; Michael Sullivan, Chancellor.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*1339PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
#### FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK OF CORAL GABLES, Appellant, v. Kenneth D. ROSEN and Greater Miami Realty, Inc., Appellees.

No. 77-1378.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1978.

Robertson & McLeod and Addison E. Walker, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Shevin, Shapo & Shevin, Miami, for ap-pellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order allowing only Ten Dollars to appellant-garnishee for costs and attorney fees claimed as a result of services rendered and costs expended in connection with a writ of garnishment is*1281sued to the garnishee-bank seeking funds to satisfy a judgment debt owed to the appel-lee by one Van Bruce, a depositor of the bank.

Appellant contends that the court committed reversible error in refusing to tas. costs and awarding a reasonable attorney fee to appellant-garnishee.

We agree and reverse. See *Buyer Finance Corporation*v. *Oliveros,*196 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) and *Jefferson National Bank of Miami Beach v. Cloverleaf Hospital, Inc.,*194 So.2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Amended and Restated Quarterly Report of Hemispherx
Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles T.
Bernhardt, Chief Financial 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.





Date:
February 11, 2011





/s/Charles T. BernhardtCharles
      T. Bernhardt, CPAChief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 3.2

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

OF

RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

DIEDRICH COFFEE, INC.,

a Delaware
corporation

It is hereby certified that:



|1. | The name of the corporation is Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Corporation).
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended by deleting Article IV thereof and by substituting in lieu thereof the following new Article IV:
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARTICLE IV

AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK

The corporation is authorized to issue two classes of shares of stock to be designated, respectively,
Common and Preferred; the total number of such shares shall be 20,500,000; the total number of Common shares shall be 17,500,000, each having a par value of one cent ($.01); and the total number of Preferred shares shall be
three million (3,000,000), each having a par value of one cent ($.01).

The Preferred shares may be issued from time to time in one or more
series. The Board of Directors is hereby vested with authority to fix by resolution or resolutions the designations and the powers, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights, and qualifications, limitations or
restrictions thereof, including without limitation, the dividend rate, conversion rights, redemption price and liquidation preference, of any series of Preferred shares, and to fix the number of shares constituting any such series, and to increase
or decrease the number of shares of any such series (but not below the number of shares thereof then outstanding). In case the number of shares of any such series shall be so decreased, the shares constituting such decrease shall resume the status
which they had prior to the adoption of the resolution or resolutions originally fixing the number of shares of such series.



|3. | The amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation herein certified has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation
Law of the State of Delaware.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment has been duly executed by a duly
authorized officer of the Corporation on the 26 day of January, 2009.



DIEDRICH COFFEE, INC.By:

/s/ J. Russell PhillipsName:

J. Russell PhillipsTitle:

President and CEO
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1


                             NORDSTROM CREDIT, INC.
                 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR
                         FIXED CHARGES TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
FISCAL YEAR                               2004        2003        2002        2001        2000
------------------------------------     -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
<S>                                      <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Earnings before income taxes             $72,353     $71,738     $75,306     $23,429     $15,265

Fixed charges
  (interest cost)                        $23,456      22,022      23,786      25,012      29,339
                                         -------     -------     -------     -------     -------

Earnings available for fixed charges     $95,809     $93,760     $99,092     $48,441     $44,604
                                         =======     =======     =======     =======     =======

RATIO OF EARNINGS AVAILABLE
  FOR FIXED CHARGES TO FIXED CHARGES        4.08        4.26        4.17        1.94        1.52
                                         =======     =======     =======     =======     =======
</TABLE>
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 784 

Designating December 20 of each year as a national day of remembrance 

for victims of anti-police violence. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 2, 2015 

Mr. STOCKMAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Designating December 20 of each year as a national day 

of remembrance for victims of anti-police violence. 

Whereas, on December 20, 2014, NYPD officers Wenjian Liu 

and Rafael Ramos were shot and killed in an anti-police 

attack. 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of a day of remembrance for victims of 

3 anti-police violence. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SERVED: AUGUST 1, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PREMIER JETS, INC. 

·FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS FAA-2012-0470 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

.. 

On May 17, 2012, the Eederal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") filed 

a Complaint. On May 3, 2012, Premier Jets, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") had requested a 

hearing. By motion dated July 27, 2012, Complainant withdrew its Complaint, citing settlement 

of the matter. · 

14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an: agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or 

a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge 

shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Complaint having been read and 

considered, it is ORDERED that: 

1. Complainant's Withdrawal of Complaint is hereby GRANTED; and 
2 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachments - Service List 

/lr~C- Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

...... 

., 
.. 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Roger B. Kelsay, President 

Premiere Jets, Inc., Respondent 

P. 0. Box 91430 

2140 N.E. 25th Avenue 

Hillsboro, OR 97124 

TEL: 503-640-2927 

FAX: 503-681-3064 

ONE COPY 

Michael F. McKinley, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-7100 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Qoodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0470 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by'expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S; W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430: 

-2-
#### P. C. UTILITIES CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, an Administrative Agency of the State of Florida, et al., Appellee.

No. 72-880.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 10, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Robert S. Hewitt, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.