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-Q, 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, 2007, 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 Chief Financial OfficerDate:

August 10, 2007


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.
<PAGE> 51



Exhibit 23 - Consent of Certified Public Accountant

Board of Directors
Highlands Bankshares, Inc.


   We consent to the use of our report,  dated January 14, 2000, relating to the
consolidated  balance  sheets of Highlands  Bankshares,  Inc. as of December 31,
1999 and 1998, and the related  statements of income,  changes in  stockholders'
equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the three  year  period  ended
December  31,  1999,  which  report  appears on page 24 in the December 31, 1999
Annual Report to Shareholders of Highlands Bankshares,  Inc. and page 46 of this
10KSB.

                                    S. B. Hoover & Company, L.L.P.





Harrisonburg, VA
March 27, 2000
Exhibit 32.1


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 Annual Report of Congoleum Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger S. Marcus,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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, and

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

March 13, 2007


/s/ Roger S. Marcus
-----------------------
Roger S. Marcus
Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Congoleum Corporation and will be retained by Congoleum Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES – OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Richard J. Kasper, Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative, (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to
his knowledge:



1.     The Company’s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2011 (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.     Information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument
to be executed this 12th day of January, 2012.



|    |                                                   | 
|--- | ------------------------------------------------- | 
|By: | /s/ RICHARD J. KASPER                             | 
|    | Name: Richard J. Kasper                           | 
|    | Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | 



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.









21
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Lorin Lee FURLONG, Relator, v. The Honorable Murray GOODMAN, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-515.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 14, 1971.

Miller & Russell, Miami, for relator.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce L. Scheiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment in prohibition of this court was entered on July 28, 1970 (238 So.2d ISO) making absolute the rule nisi heretofore rendered against the respondent as judge of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed April 21, 1971 (247 So.2d 47), and mandate dated May 7, 1971, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment with instructions to discharge the rule nisi and to dismiss the prohibition proceeding;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the judgment of this court heretofore issued in this cause on July 28, 1970 is withdrawn and vacated, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the rule nisi heretofore issued in this cause is discharged and the Suggestion for a Writ of Prohibition is dismissed. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the Criminal Court of Record (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
#### PENSACOLA CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, INC. v. COSTA.

No. 36334.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 195 So.2d 250.
#### Lewis COLE, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-1100.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 6, 1972.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Carl V. M. Coffin, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Having considered petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus and the state’s response thereto and having considered the merits of petitioner’s claim for such relief, we find the petition to be without merit and thus same is

Denied.

WALDEN, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-83-2018]

On May 30, 2018, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 38, on behalf of Black & Decker, Inc., in Fort Mill, South Carolina. Black & Decker, Inc. indicates that it will conduct the same activity as currently authorized by the FTZ Board at its Subzone 38E.

                    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (83 FR 26255-26256, June 6, 2018). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 38M was approved on July 20, 2018, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 38's 2,000-acre activation limit.                

Dated: July 20, 2018.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-15973 Filed 7-25-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
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, 2007

PETER W. KNITT

Peter W. Knitt

President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Stephen N. LIPTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1437.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
NO. 07-07-0039-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

OCTOBER 15, 2008

______________________________

JOHNNY RODRIGUEZ, JR., 

Appellant

v.

ICON BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS, INC., 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2006-598,648; HON. PAULA LANEHART, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Johnny Rodriguez, Jr., appeals from a final summary judgment favoring Icon Benefit

Administrators, Inc. His two issues involve the application of res judicata and due process.

Since our resolution of the former disposes of the appeal, we turn to that issue and affirm

the judgment. 
Sommers relied on the Supreme Court decision in Segrest v. Segrest, 649 S.W .2d 610, 612 (Tex.

1

1983), wherein the court stated that “[a] final judgment settles not only issues actually litigated, but also any

issues that could have been litigated. That the judgment may have been wrong or premised on a legal

principle subsequently overruled does not affect application of res judicata.” Id. at 612.

2

This appeal is the second involving these parties and the underlying dispute. The

first involved the trial court’s judgment enforcing a mediation agreement and dismissing

Rodriguez’ claims against Icon “with prejudice.” Though Rodriguez appealed, he did not

contest the inclusion of the phrase “with prejudice” in the decree. Furthermore, we

affirmed the order. Thereafter, he filed the suit from which this appeal arose. The claims

included causes of action previously alleged as well as new ones. In response, Icon

moved for summary judgment on the affirmative defense of res judicata. That motion was

granted.

As previously mentioned, the trial court dismissed the first suit between the parties

“with prejudice.” Moreover, no one asked either the trial or appellate court to redact the

latter phrase from the decree. Thus, the determination became final for purposes of

applying the doctrine of res judicata. Labrie v. Kenney, 95 S.W.3d 722, 728-29 (Tex.

App.–Amarillo 2003, no pet.). This is true even though the trial court should not have

dismissed the cause “with prejudice.” Id.; Sommers v. Concepcion, 20 S.W.3d 27, 40 (Tex.

App.–Houston [14 Dist.] 2000, pet denied). Consequently, the trial court did not err in th 1

granting summary judgment on Icon’s affirmative defense.

There are opinions suggesting that the verbiage used in the judgment (i.e. with

prejudice) is irrelevant if it nonetheless appears that the cause was truly not an adjudication

of the merits. E.g., Stubbs v. Patterson Dental Laboratories, 573 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. Civ.

App.–Eastland 1978, no writ) and Haliburton v. Riley, 589 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. Civ.
3

App.–Waco 1979, no writ). However, those opinions have been seldom cited by other

courts. They also conflict with Labrie, Sommers, and the Supreme Court authority on

which the latter relied.

Accordingly, the summary judgment is affirmed.

Per Curiam
#### SHERWOOD FOREST CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, R. J. Louden, O. H. Robertson, Jr., J. F. McElderry, J. L. McCrary, D. L. Latil, Sr., and R. W. Jackson v. Basil LEPP and Nita Lepp.

No. 62492.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Basil Lepp and Nita Lepp applying for writs of review, prohibition, certiorari, and mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.
800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

November 2, 2015

Mr. Michael Stanski

10961 Burnt Mill Road Apt. 433

Jacksonville, FL 32256

Dear Mr. Stanski:

This is in response to your letter dated September 9, 2015, posted to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-3808) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate 

rulemaking to amend §§ 61.73 and 61.129 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR). In your petition, you request §§ 61.73 and 61.129 be amended to exclude military 

pilots or former military pilots holding a Commercial Pilots License for Helicopters and 

500 hours of total flight time from the 50 hour pilot in command requirement for a 

Commercial Pilots License in single engine airplanes. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when 

making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition 

for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise;

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues.

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to 

the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers 

the most value to the aviation system. 

After reviewing your request based on the current priorities for the FAA and the 

guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria 

to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, your comments and arguments for the 

proposed rule change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will 

examine when we consider future rulemaking. 
2

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find 

out and track it through one of the two following websites:

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) website (http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-onsignificant-rulemakings). 

 For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semiannual regulatory agenda, through the Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified 

Agenda website (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain). 

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 

14 CFR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
3

AAS-14-108-P

ARM-1/200/210

Doc #:

ARM-200/BR/9/5/14

ERICK N. GRACIA-GALIANO

PALACIOS DEL MONTE

1645 DENALI ST.

TOA ALTA, PR 00953-5232
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of First Investors Financial Services, Inc., (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bennie H. Duck,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Actof 1934; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  Sept 13, 2007
|        | By: /s/ Bennie H. Duck  |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Bennie H. Duck          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Ronald W. MATLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1973.

John J. Duffy, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

*490PER CURIAM.

Appellant Matlock was charged with assaulting a police officer with intent to commit murder and was jointly tried with others who were charged with lesser degrees of felonious assault. The charges all arose out of a fracas with two Tarpon Springs police officers. Matlock appeals from a judgment and sentence imposed after a jury finding of guilt as to him of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree.

At first blush this case gave us pause, especially because of the able arguments and brief of counsel for appellant. The points raised are that the state improperly injected the issue of likely narcotic involvement by appellant, thus improperly attacking the character of appellant which had not been put in evidence, and, secondly, that the prosecuting attorney improperly, though indirectly, alluded to the failure of appellant to take the stand and testify. Upon a meticulous reading of the entire record, however, we have concluded that the issue of narcotic involvement was injected into the case *within the scope of proper cross-examination of a defense witness*and tended both to corroborate animosity, thus motive for the assault, by confirming prior difficulties involving narcotics which one of the defendants had with one of the officers assaulted, and to show possible bias or prejudice on the part of the witness who also had a prior unhappy experience with that officer on the same occasion. At the same time, such testimony tended to rebut a principal defense theory that the officers were the aggressors in the fracas because of *their*animosity toward today’s r youth in general, and to one or more of the co-defendants in particular, by showing that it was really the other way around. In this regard the case differs from the recent decision of our sister court in the Fourth District in Machara v. State1 relied upon by appellant.

As to . the alleged improper comments of the prosecution in summation, we have concluded that while perhaps they could have been more carefully worded they did not constitute a sufficient direct or indirect allusion to the failure of appellant to testify as to constitute prejudicial error.

Suffice it to say, that while perhaps appellant did not have a perfect trial, to which he is indeed not entitled, he had an extremely fair one. He can neither expect nor demand more.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and they are, hereby affirmed.

LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

1

. (Fla.App.1973), 272 So.2d 870.
(5—128.).

CENSUS of the-

by

-—-——

NO. INDIAN NAME. ENGLISH NAME. | SEX. | RELATION, | AGE,

a H. , af , 4: l.

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

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

aa 55

A Viton $6
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 20, 2016

No. 04-16-00681-CR

Demoria HARRIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR3824

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The court reporter’s notification of late record is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to 

January 12, 2017. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court