alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cutter &Buck Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the third quarter offiscal year 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8,2006 (“the Report”), I, Ernest R. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of myknowledge and belief, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respectsthe financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|        |   | /s/ ERNEST R.  JOHNSON                         |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Ernest R. Johnson                              |
|   |   | *Chief Financial Officer*                      |
|   |   | *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
oeage eg iin ae

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABGR-BUREAU OF THE CENSUS {eienaers ‘sine ho,
THIRTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED. STATE: 1B10--RORULAT! oun,

{Simones garner

Historic census

records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.qov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. ¥
Ley
sf
apeta aca ies
Be |wiie a2 bela
fila Woe 20 Viel 6
{ele

¥

ss
PRR RERD

Sek
SOF
ss

Ess SSE
#### Robert Lee ADAMS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. O-279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 12, 1971.

Robert Lee Adams, in pro. per.

No appearance for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. See Adams v. State, 236 So.2d 19 (Fla.App. 1970).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### COATING SPECIALISTS, INC., et al. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 2805.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 9, 1968.

*112See also La.App., 206 So.2d 106.

Schoemann, Gomes & Ducote, Monte J. Ducote, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants-appellees.

James C. Murphy, Jr., of Sessions, Fish-man, Rosenson, Snellings & Boisfontaine, New Orleans, for defendant-third party defendants-appellees.

Ben C. Toledano, of Porteous & Johnson, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee John E. Wilkinson and Third-Party defendant-appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

Before YARRUT, CHASEZ and JAN-VIER, JJ.

YARRUT, Judge.

This suit, consolidated for trial with suit No. 2806, Viator v. Gilbert, La.App. 206 So.2d 106, handed down this day, was brought by Coating Specialists, Inc. and its insurer, Westchester Fire Insurance Company, for damage done to the vehicle owned by Coating Specialists, Inc. in a collision which occurred February 5, 1965, fully described in suit No. 2806.

In suit No. 2806 we found that the employee of Coating Specialists, Inc. and the insured of one of the Defendants in the instant suit, Travelers Insurance Company, were joint tort-feasors. Because the employee of Coating Specialists, Inc. was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time, his negligence could not be imputed to that corporation and therefore damages are recoverable from Travelers Insurance Company. However, in their brief, Plaintiffs admitted that the only damage for which Defendant would be liable was that to the rear end of the vehicle. Since the only appraisals introduced into evidence were for damage to the entire car, both front and rear; this case is remanded to give Plaintiffs an opportunity to prove only the extent of the damage to the rear of the vehicle involved, as this is the only award to which they are entitled. Each party is taxed its own costs on appeal; other costs to await final determination.

Remanded.
#### STUART PLASTERING COMPANY and American Fire & Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. Richard T. ASBURY, Vulcan Materials Company and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 36649.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 11, 1967.

B. C. Pyle, of Whittaker, Pyle & Wood, Orlando, for petitioners.

L. C. Schowe, St. Petersburg, for Richard T. Asbury, Gilman, Cooper & Eubanks, Winter Park, for Vulcan Materials Co.; Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date July 21, 1967.

*164We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition for certiorari is therefore denied.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
THE UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF INCOME  FOR THE SIX MONTHS  ENDED  JUNE 30,  1999 OF
TALK.COM INC. AND  SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         000948545
<NAME>                        TALK.COM
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                     $37,114,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               47,358,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,342,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            91,906,000
<PP&E>                                      67,113,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,434,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             156,130,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       56,684,000
<BONDS>                                     94,285,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       669,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (52,149,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               156,130,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           227,711,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              148,116,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            52,261,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,092,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             26,372,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         26,372,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             18,997,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                45,369,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72


</TABLE>
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1396 

To authorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency to award mitigation 

financial assistance in certain areas affected by wildfires. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2013 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

to award mitigation financial assistance in certain areas 

affected by wildfires. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. WILDFIRE MITIGATION ASSISTANCE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 420 of the Robert T. 

5 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

6 (42 U.S.C. 5187) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub8 section (e); and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1396 IS

1 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(d) POST DISASTER MITIGATION ASSISTANCE.— 

4 The President may provide hazard mitigation assistance 

5 in accordance with section 404 in any area in which assist6 ance was provided under this section, whether or not a 

7 major disaster had been declared.’’. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Robert T. 

9 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

10 (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) is amended— 

11 (1) in section 404(a) (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a))— 

12 (A) by inserting before the first period ‘‘, 

13 or any area in which assistance was provided 

14 under section 420’’; and 

15 (B) in the third sentence, by inserting ‘‘or 

16 event under section 420’’ after ‘‘major disaster’’ 

17 each place that term appears; and 

18 (2) in section 322 (e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 

19 5165(e)(1)), by inserting ‘‘or event under section 

20 420’’ after ‘‘major disaster’’ each place that term 

21 appears. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Succession of Nannie Poole CARDONE

No. 53211.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re: Margaret Scott Dordan Campbell applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 271 So.2d 338.

Writ denied. No error of law in the judgment.
# Fourth Court of Appe als

San Antonio, Texas

January 12, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00417

- CR

Geovanni Jesus ALVAREZ

- RODRIGUEZ

,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court

, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7830

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Exte n sion of Time to File Brief is granted in part for 30 days.

The appellant ’ s brief is due on or before March 7, 2022.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

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

court on this 12th day of January, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
oon DEPARTMIINT-CF COMM UREAU OF-THE CENSUS /- 289. oH-m
FOURTEENTH OENSUS OF THE !D STATES: 1920—-POPULATION
nunc Liason etetipitavusssurenoianr MIME OF NCORERAED HACE... Ahn d Cadel tseeagc waaay —— WH oF ot ae
MAKE OF WSTTUTION —-speareasver aan msyeatscieors rune EMMERATED BY WE ON THE ie DAY OF [sana ars : [
oe a Saye ee ST
AARC nunenotngn
A Al
AEA =] "
4 - EL
brady fucijak|
a A hee |
census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census 8
» Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.
i 2 =<
4 thane UAT
spol Rectan 4
oY pak ip af
eae th Aue push |
EGLO gh ES F
ty =
i ed a or ea
laut bia) Ei La wa =
ADMIT pinay :
Pacer aal feet Zs
%
relaetasiae bai eA ——— le
baad, Al pape J
eal a Rome
AWAY , Prusue Arend, Masaka
slat Fon ano a Aiianand
i [75 er Pricracr
raat genta Lp
ies a Waar
banarA Nn poorer
Leelee Baa",
a :
rae, I Poawe!
alaciasli de
ty ly} ae Ba UL
Elaiz. I fn Ds
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000947986
<NAME>                        ICON Cash Flow Partners L.P. Seven

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          3,264,973
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 189,624,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                      327,222
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                      0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                220,295,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                                0
<BONDS>                                       151,737,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     68,221,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  220,295,824
<SALES>                                         6,538,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,713,788
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,612,482
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  150,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,067,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      633,640
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .74
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>

        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of John Hancock Variable Life Insurance Company of our report dated February 18,
1998, included in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registration
Statement (Form S-1 No. 33-62895) and the related Prospectus of John Hancock
Variable Life Insurance Company.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedules of John Hancock
Variable Life Insurance Company listed in Item 14(a). These schedules are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedules
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects the information set
forth therein.

                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1998
Exhibit
10.26


 


lease
agreement


 


Party
A : Liu Zhixin (hereinafter referred to as Party A)


 


Party
B : Heilongjiang Xunrui Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Party B)


 


Both
parties negotiated and reached this agreement:


 


1.
Party A will assign No. 17 and 19, Floor 32-33, Building C , Chennengxishu Courtyard, No. 8, Nanxing Street, Nangang District, Harbin
City The area of structure is 150 square meters. The real estate is rented to Party B for use.


 


2.
During the lease period, Party B must ensure the integrity of the house and shall not rent the house to others. Party B undertakes the
housing During the rental period, Party A is not responsible for the property fee, elevator fee, heating fee, water and electricity fee,
etc. All expenses during the rental period.


 


3.
Party B pays the rent by transfer payment , the rent is 94,500.00 yuan, and the payment date is April 2022. Before
March 30 , Party A is also required to provide formal invoices, and the property tax will be paid by Party B.


 


4.
The lease term of the house is 7 months, from October 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022.


 


5.
Party A shall not take back the house during the lease period.


 


6.
During the rental period of Party B, in case of accidents such as theft, fire, personal injury and death, and debts in the course of
operation All rights and debts shall be the responsibility of Party B.


 


7.
This agreement is made in duplicate, each party A and B shall deposit one copy.


 


8.
This agreement will take effect from the date of signature.


 


9.
What is not covered in this agreement: Both parties negotiate and resolve. Party A:


 


		 	
	 	 	 
	Party B: Heilongjiang Xunrui Technology Co., Ltd.	day Expect: 2021 year 9 March 30 day
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DIEDRICH
COFFEE, INC. UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED AND AS
OF APRIL 30, 1997 CONTAINED IN COMPANY'S 1ST QUARTER 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>   
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                         143,809
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  199,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,521,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,282,749
<PP&E>                                      10,278,328
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,325,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,655,745
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           53,917
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,882,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,325,538
<SALES>                                      5,867,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,867,720
<CGS>                                        3,041,815
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,041,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,367,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,382,819)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,382,819)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Louis Oscar FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

No. 41886.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 11, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1973.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Robert H. Mackenzie, of the Law Offices of Henry Gonzalez, Tampa, for respondent.

ADKINS, Justice.

By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District (Fernandez v. State, 255 So.2d 567, 568-570 (Fla.App.) which allegedly conflicts with prior decisions of this Court (Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla.); State v. Smith, 240 So.2d 807), as well as with prior decisions of the District Court of Appeal, First District (Alderman v. State, 167 So.2d 635 (Fla.App.); McPhee v. State, 254 So.2d 406, (Fla.App.) ) on the same point of law. Fla. Const., art. V, § 4, F.S.A.

Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as defendant) was charged with the offense of aiding and assisting in the setting up, promoting, or conducting of a lottery or lottery draw for money in violation of Fla.Stat. § 849.09(1) (d), F.S.A. He was convicted and entered his appeal.

The information did not specifically allege any overt act by which defendant was supposed to have aided and assisted in conducting a lottery, but during the trial evidence was presented to show that defendant sold lottery numbers. At the conclusion of the trial, defendant requested a charge on the lesser included offense of selling a share in a lottery. This was refused by the trial court, and on appeal the District Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Judge Liles, affirmed the conviction.

While petition for rehearing was pending, the case of Anderson v. State, 255 So.2d 550 (Fla.App.) was considered by the District Court of Appeal and a different result reached. To be consistent, the District Court granted rehearing in the case *sub judice*and reversed the judgment on the authority of Anderson v. State, *supra.*

We have considered Anderson v. State, *supra,*and this day rendered our opinion *359quashing the decision of the District Court of Appeal. See State v. Anderson, Fla., 270 So.2d 353, opinion filed Oct. 11, 1972.

The original opinion of Judge Liles in the case *sub judice*is approved and the opinion and decision reached on rehearing granted is quashed.

This cause is remanded to the District Court of Appeal with instructions to enter an order confirming the judgment of the lower court.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
i
THIRTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1910-4 POPULATION
elerosid

Eset

menaealer we on we 2928-2 or

Se

ne

C

sale

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Burea

Visit http://www archives.gov for more information about publicly available records lke the one shown here.

UE
ran
#### Maxwood Clarence BRUMLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 17, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ruth BESNER, et al., Appellants, v. ACE RELIABLE SERVICES, INC., Appellee.

No. 70-754.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 26, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.