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

                                                                     EXHIBIT 99

         CERTIFICATIONS OF THE REGISTRANT'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
         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 Annual Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael J. Callahan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (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.




May 15, 2003                         By:  /s/ Michael J. Callahan
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Michael J. Callahan
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer


     In connection with the Report, I, James J. Waclawik, Sr., Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (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.



May 15, 2003                         By:  /s/ James J. Waclawik, Sr.
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          James J. Waclawik, Sr.
                                          Vice President,
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Under Section 302

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Peter W. Knitt, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PSB Holdings, Inc. (the registrant);



2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3.

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



4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and



(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  November 14, 2006

PETER W. KNITT

Peter W. Knitt

President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                                                    Exhibit 32.0

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of BostonFed Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certify, pursuant to 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.    To our knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

Dated: November 10, 2004                  /s/  David F. Holland
                                          ---------------------
                                          David F. Holland
                                          Chief Executive Officer

                                          /s/  John A. Simas
                                          ---------------------
                                          John A. Simas
                                          Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 36968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16436]



[[Page 36968]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

[F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 7-18]


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open 
meetings as follows:
    Thursday, August 9, 2018: 10:00 a.m.--Issuance of Proposed 
Decisions in claims against Iraq.
    11:00 a.m.--Issuance of Proposed Decisions under the Guam World War 
II Loyalty Recognition Act, Title XVII, Public Law 114-328.
    Status: Open.
    All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
601 D Street NW, Suite 10300, Washington, DC. Requests for information, 
or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be 
directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
601 D Street NW, Suite 10300, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 
616-6975.

Brian M. Simkin,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-16436 Filed 7-27-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P
261 La. 310

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony LEE.

No. 52047.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 8, 1972.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1972.

Carl H. Hanchey, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank H. Salter, Jr., Dist. Atty., Charles W. Richard, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Anthony Lee, was tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of simple burglary for which he was sentenced to be confined in the Louisiana State Penitentiary for two years. La.R.S. 14:62.

The defendant reserved and perfected one bill of exceptions based on the trial judge’s denial of his motion for a new trial and motion in arrest of judgment.

The bill of exceptions was taken to the overruling of a motion for new trial. *335It is essentially based upon an allegation that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence, presents nothing for review. State v. Grey, 257 La. 1070, 245 So.2d 178 (1971). The hearing on the motion shows that, in fact, there was some evidence upon which the jury could convict.

The defendant points out no grounds sufficient under Article 859, La. Code of Criminal Procedure, to sustain the motion in arrest of judgment. The allegations that the peremptory challenges were used to exclude Negro jurors from the trial jury (State v. Richey, 258 La. 1094, 249 So.2d 143, 152-153), and that conviction by a non-unanimous jury should be set aside (State v. Fink, 255 La. 385, 231 So.2d 360, 1970), have been rejected by this court. See the decisions cited.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
S. 1206

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

An Act

To redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in Waltham,

Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

The Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in Waltham,

Massachusetts, and known as the Waltham Federal Center, shall

be known and designated as the ‘‘Frederick C. Murphy Federal

Center’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Frederick

C. Murphy Federal Center’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Veranda Nation, Inc. v. Preston Julian, Jr.

Appellate case number: 01-22-00200-CV

Trial court case number: 1122091

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

Appellant, Veranda Nation, Inc., filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s 

December 13, 2021 “Order Denying Veranda Nation, Inc.’s Second Motion for Contempt.” 

On July 15, 2022, Veranda filed its appellant’s brief. On August 16, 2022, appellee, 

Preston Julian, Jr., filed a “Motion to Dismiss Based on Mootness and Want of 

Jurisdiction.” 

In his motion, Julian argues that the order appealed by Veranda is interlocutory and 

not appealable, leaving this Court without jurisdiction over the appeal. Julian further 

argues that “the issues on appeal are no longer in controversy [and] the parties no longer 

have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the case.” On August 24, 2022, 

Veranda filed a response to Julian’s motion to dismiss. 

Appellee’s “Motion to Dismiss for Based on Mootness and Want of Jurisdiction” 

will be carried with the case. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Amparo Guerra_______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __October 18, 2022____
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  First Quarter:  2005 and 2006
         (in percent)
                                    90-percent
                    First    First  confidence    90-percent confidence
Age of householder Quarter  Quarter interval      interval (&plusmn;)<sup>a</sup>
                    2005     2006   of 2006 rate   of difference

United States.....    69.1     68.5      0.5           0.4

 Under 25 years...    25.2     23.6      1.5           1.4
 25 to 29 years...    41.5     41.0      1.5           1.4
 30 to 34 years...    57.2     56.5      1.4           1.3
 35 to 39 years...    67.4     66.5      1.3           1.2
 40 to 44 years...    72.5     71.2      1.2           1.1
 45 to 49 years...    75.3     74.6      1.1           1.2
 50 to 54 years...    77.8     77.1      1.1           1.2
 55 to 59 years...    81.1     80.5      0.8           0.9
 60 to 64 years...    82.6     82.2      0.9           0.9
 65 to 69 years...    83.3     81.9      1.4           1.2
 70 to 74 years...    83.0     83.1      1.5           1.3
 75 years and over.   78.5     78.2      1.1           1.0

   Under 35 years.    43.3     42.3      0.9           0.8
   35 to 44 years.    70.1     68.9      0.9           0.8
   45 to 54 years.    76.5     75.8      0.8           0.8
   55 to 64 years.    81.8     81.2      0.6           0.6
   65 years and over. 80.8     80.3      0.8           0.7
   
aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliablilty.  The larger the confidence interval is,
in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.
#### Vernon David EDWARDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-77.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 8, 1974.

Stephens & McMillen, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State ex rel. Manucy v. Wadsworth, Fla.1973 (Case No. 43,042, Released February 14, 1973).
#### Madge F. CISINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12175.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Nov. 13, 1973.

Taylor W. O’Hearn, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Booth, Lockard, Jack, Pleasant & Le-Sage, by John R. Pleasant, Shreveport, Cook, Clark, Egan, Yancey & King, by Benjamin C. King, Shreveport, for defendants-appellees.

Before AYRES, PRICE and HALL, JJ.

PRICE, Judge.

This case having been called for argument in the manner and at the time prescribed in the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal, Rule V, Section 4, and the appellants having neither appeared nor filed a brief prior to the time the case was called for argument, the appeal is considered abandoned and is dismissed at appellant’s cost. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, Article 2162 and Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule VII, Section 5(b), as revised June 1, 1971.
Stephen F. Brown, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2014

No. 04-14-00635-CV

STATE OF TEXAS ON BEHALF OF THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR 

BEXAR COUNTY, Jonathan Watkins, and Thomas Velez, all in their official capacities,

Appellants

v.

Stephen F. BROWN, Jr,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-05810

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellants’ motion for extension of time to file a brief is granted in part. We order 

appellant’s brief due December 24, 2014.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 21st day of November, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Company),
for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 8, 2006 (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
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                                            
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: April 21, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Sean M. McCarthy                                       
|                      |  |  |  | Sean M. McCarthy Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich
Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Albert Walter ANDRAE et al. v. Milton JONES.

SC 2618.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 22, 1977.

James D. Turner of Turner, Turner & Turner, Tuscaloosa, for appellants.

William J. Donald of Zeanah, Donald & Hust, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The principal issue in this case is whether the Andraes and their predecessors in interest acquired a private easement by prescription over Jones’ land. Evidence was heard orally in open court, and the trial judge found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title did not have a prescriptive easement or right of way across the defendant’s property. We affirm.

Whether an easement by prescription was created was a question of fact for the trial court. And, where the evidence is given ore tenus, the judgment and findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly and palpably wrong. We have reviewed the evidence and, in our opinion, the trial judge was correct in his findings. The evidence is insufficient to establish an easement by prescription.

Under the ore tenus rule, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131298 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

P.T. TODAY, INC., BRAD PUTVIN, GORDON Marilyn Kelly 

ALLEN, MICHAEL BEAUVAIS, ELAINE Maura D. Corrigan 

COOPER, WILLIAM ROTH, LANA BAUM, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, TIMOTHY BONDY, DAVID GILBOE, DIANA Justices INCH, SANDRA JENKINS, RICHARD FEBY, 

MARY ANN KOENIG, JEFFREY GREEN, OSA 

JACKSON-WYATT, RICHARD KOHLER,

JEROME MALONE, SHEILA ISLES, PARUL 

SHAH, and MARTIN KATENBERG,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and 

BARBARA JOHNSON, ROBERT BAKER,

KAREN LEHMAN BORIN, MARGARET 

KAMENEC, TERENCE HEATON, TERESA 

HERRLINGER, RICHARD MILDER, JIM

SIMPSON, JANET WISENIEWSKI, 

TIMOTHY STEGEMAN, MARK BEISSEL, 

BARBARA HERZOG, and JOHN CZARNECKI,

Plaintiffs, 

v SC: 131298 

 COA: 259964 

COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF Ingham CC: 01-093039-AZ 

FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES 

and BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 

MICHIGAN, 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Intervening Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 28, 2006 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
#### Roger Lee HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 42522.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 5, 1973.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree without recommendation of mercy in the Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, and received a sentence of death. Subsequently, under the authority of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), the Supreme Court of Florida in Anderson et al. v. State, 267 So.2d 8 (Fla.1972), reduced appellant’s sentence from death to life imprisonment. At the time the notice of appeal was filed in this cause, this Court had jurisdiction because, at such time this case was a capital case. Since our jurisdiction attached, we retained jurisdiction for all purposes. Anderson et al. v. State, supra.

In the exercise of our discretion, we have dispensed with oral argument pursuant to Rule 3.10(e), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.

We have examined and considered the record in this case in the light of briefs filed and have also, pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 6.16(b), reviewed the evidence to determine if the interests of justice require a new trial, with the result that we find no reversible error is made to appear and the evidence does not reveal that the ends of justice require a new trial to be awarded.

*549Accordingly, the conviction, as previously modified by reduction of appellant’s sentence from death to life imprisonment, is hereby affirmed.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.