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

Certification of the 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 Quarterly Report of American Apparel, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William Gochnauer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.

(2) 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.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                              
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: August 15, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    WILLIAM T. GOCHNAUER  
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | William T. Gochnauer         
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1996 AND SUCH IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          14,316
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  220,864
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,601
<INVENTORY>                                    129,860
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               695,543
<PP&E>                                         481,438
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,464
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,536,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          344,499
<BONDS>                                      1,138,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           705
<OTHER-SE>                                   (195,283)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,536,480
<SALES>                                      1,055,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,055,931
<CGS>                                          867,257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  867,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   113
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   899
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 57,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,442
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,111
<DISCONTINUED>                                  14,323
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (6,610)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,824
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
#### Anna Rizzo, as Administratrix of the Estate of Pasquale Vaglio, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Richard Mataranglo et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

November 1, 1954.

*Braisted & Braisted*for appellant.

*Philip Weiss*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with $25 costs; no opinion.

Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Hart, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of the 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 Quarterly Report of American Apparel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Adrian Kowalewski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.


(2) 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.





Date:November 9, 2010By:/s/ ADRIANKOWALEWSKIAdrian KowalewskiChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### John ROMANO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1985.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 23, 1988.

Michael D. Lebedeker, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Amy L. Diem, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without prejudice as concerns appellant’s right to file a proper motion under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We express no opinion as to the substantive merits of such allegation.

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
aDIg- ?IlxcxAs Overruled by amendment to Aus- 11. .rEzsas Art. 

### 45.04, C.C.P. and to Arta. 

### 998 and .--60th Lang., 

### 1967, 999, ah* V.C.S., 523, 

### Pmphlet No. 4, 

### Pagea ‘
. March 28, 1961 1171-1172

Honorable J. Edward Line CountyAttorney Deaf Smith County Hereford,Texas

DearMr. Line: Re: Whether a police officer of a city has the authority to execute a warrant of anrest issued out of the corporation court, outside of the city but within the county in which the city is located? You have asked the followingquestions: "Can a police officer of the City of Hereford,Texas, execute a warrant of arrest issued out of the corporation court of Hereford, Texas, outside of the city limits of Hereford, Texas, within Deaf Smith County." The City of Hereford is locatedwithin Deaf Smith County. Article 998, Vernon's Civil Statutes, concerning the powers and duties of police officers, states that:

11

... such officers shallhave like powers, rights and authority as are by said title vested in city uiarshals." Article 999, Vernon's Civil Statutes, on the powers and duties of niarshals

states:

at

... he shallhave like power, with the sheriff of the county to executewarrants; ... In the prevention and suppressionof crime and arrest of offenders, he shallhave, possess and execute like power, authority,and jurisdictionas the sheriff

...nIn Newburn v. Durham,.88 Tex. 288, 31 S.W. 195, 196 (1895) the Supreme Court stated:

"Since the jurisdictionof the marshal is measured by that of the sheriff in the 'prevention and suppressionof crime and arrest of offenders' against the laws of the state, it must be co-extensivewith the limitations of the county."\

Hon. J. Edward Line, Page 2 (~~-1028)

.

. However, 'in#Minor v. State, 219 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. Crim. 1949) a majority of the court of CriminalAppeals specifically stated that they do not agree. Judge Beauchamp, in his concurringopinion stated:

"I cannot subscribeto the implicationthat a city policemauhas authority equal to that of the sheriff co-extensivewith the bounds of the county." This view was also expressedby Judge Hawkins in his dissenting opinion. See also 28Tex. maw Rev. 862,(note' 1950). We must therefore concludethat a police officer may not execute a warrant of arrest outside the limits of the city of which he is an officer unless there is a specific statutegiving him authority in a specific case. See Hurley v. State, 234 S.W.2d 1006 (Tex. Crim.1950).
SUMMARY A police officer of a city does not have the authority to executeawarraritofarrest issued out of the corporationcourt,outside of the city but within the county inwhich the city is located. Very truly 'yours, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas 

# ,Wk--=+$?
Cecil Cammack. Jr. AssistantAttorney General CC:br APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMlTTFE W.V. Geppert, chairman W. Ray Scruggs Jerry Roberts Dudley McCall-a John Phillips REVIEWEBFORTHF.ATTORNEYGENERAL BY: Morgan Nesbitt
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000
18 12 06 00 06/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.06 N 76.88 WMeters AGL
#### Lord Electric Company, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

*Lord Electric Co.*v. *City of New York,*160 App. Div. 344, affirmed.

(Argued January 14, 1916;

decided February 1, 1916.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 28, 1914, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and directing a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover upon a contract for public work. It is conceded that the contract was completed and that all moneys due thereon have been paid except a sum reserved by the city because it claimed it was damaged in that amount by reason of two fires which occurred on the work through the carelessness of plaintiff, its agents and servants.

*Frederick Hulse*for appellant.

*Lamar Hardy, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Seabury and Pound, JJ.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: November 5, 2007 | By:                                                                                                          | /s/ Craig Hodgkins |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                    | Craig              HodgkinsPresident                and Director(Principal                Executive Officer) |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, George Moore hereby certifies as follows:

     (a)  I am the Chief Executive Officer of Baxx Systems Inc. (the "Company");

     (b)  To the best of my knowledge, the Company's Annual Report on form 10K
          for the year ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report") complies in all
          material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (c)  To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Report, the
          information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.


                                        Baxx Systems Inc.

Date:   December 10, 2007               /S/ George Moore
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                            George Moore
                                            Chief Executive Officer

     This certificate accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

     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.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2323-2324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-679]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on November 8, 2011, Siegfried 
(USA), 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of 
controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (2010)...........  I
Dihydromorphine (9145).....................  I
Hydromorphinol (9301)......................  I
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Amobarbital (2125).........................  II
Pentobarbital (2270).......................  II
Secobarbital (2315)........................  II
Codeine (9050).............................  II
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II
Hydromorphone (9150).......................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
Methadone (9250)...........................  II
Methadone intermediate (9254)..............  II
Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms)  II
 (9273).
Morphine (9300)............................  II
Oripavine (9330)...........................  II
Oxymorphone (9652).........................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than March 19, 2012.


[[Page 2324]]


    Dated: January 6, 2012.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-679 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Mose HOUSTON v. AVONDALE-SHIPYARDS, INC., et al.

No. 87-C-1475.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Certain Undwrts. Lloyds London; applying for supervisory writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5628; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “K”, No. 82-8515.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 149.

Denied.

CALOGERO, LEMMON and COLE, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### Ruth CAMBRE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ST. LANDRY PARISH POLICE JURY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-1061.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 14, 1988.

Alex Andrus, Opelousas, for St. Landry Parish Police Jury.

James Dauzat, Dauzat, Falgoust, Caviness & Bienvenu, Frank Trosclair, Jr., Taylor & Trosclair, Robert Dejean, Jr., Opelou-sas, G. Thomas Arbor, Glusman, Moore, Wilkinson, Arbour, Broyles & Glusman, Port Allen, A. Gerard Caswell, Winston *1290Ardoin, Jackson Burson, Eunice, Kenneth Dejean, Baton Rouge, G. Douglas Dean, Otis Lomenick, Jr., Opelousas, for Ruth Cambre, et al.

Before STOKER, LABORDE, and KING, JJ.

LABORDE, Judge.

This case was consolidated for trial and appeal with a companion suit, *St. Landry Parish Police Jury v. Clerk of Court of St. Landry Parish, et al.,*536 So.2d 1283 (La.App. 3d Cir.1988), also decided on this date.

For reasons assigned in the aforesaid case, the judgment appealed from in the instant suit is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed to appellant.

AFFIRMED.
#### Torrence LAWTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-577.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 28, 1989.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Sheryl J. Lowenthal, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Steven T. Scott and Michael Neimand, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

*1370PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Tor-rence Lawton from judgments of conviction and sentences for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and robbery based on an adverse jury verdict. We find no merit in the defendant’s three points on appeal and affirm.

First, the trial court committed no reversible error in recessing the trial below for a brief period after the state had presented all but one of its witnesses. We reach this conclusion because (a) the purpose of the recess was an important one, namely, for the state to locate a vital subpoenaed witness who had mysteriously disappeared during trial after the state had allowed the witness to remain on call;1 (b) the recess ordered covered the Thanksgiving holidays and involved only four working court days (twelve calendar days); (c) the trial court properly cautioned the jury not to discuss the case with anyone or to hear or view any media reports concerning the case; and (d) no showing of prejudice to the defendant has otherwise been made. *Compare McDermott v. State,*383 So.2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Second, the trial court properly granted the state’s motion in limine and precluded the defendant from (1) establishing that he had no prior criminal record as proof of his good character, and (2) impeaching certain of the state’s witnesses with juvenile delinquency adjudications. This is so because it is clear that the above evidence is patently inadmissible in Florida. *McCartney v. State,*510 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); *Bishop v. State,*438 So.2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); § 90.610(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1987).

Finally, the trial court properly departed from the sentencing guidelines in imposing the sentences below based on an unscored first-degree murder conviction. *See McPhaul v. State,*496 So.2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); *Smith v. State,*454 So.2d 90, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The defendant’s further attack on the *extent*of the sentencing guidelines departure herein is not subject to appellate review. *Booker v. State,*514 So.2d 1079 (Fla.1987).

The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.

1

. Although we recognize that the state may have been ill-advised in allowing this witness to remain on call in view of the close familial relationship between the witness and one of the codefendants in the case, and that the trial court was in no sense required to grant such a continuance, we cannot say that the continuance did not serve an important purpose, notwithstanding the state’s possible fault in allowing this vital witness to slip away.
Exhibit 32.1



APD ANTIQUITIES, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the periodic report of APD ANTIQUITIES, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, CINDY K. SWANK, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date:  November 19, 2008



By: /s/ Cindy K. Swank



Cindy K. Swank, President

Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 21.1

New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc.

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                       |  |                        |     |   |                        |                                                 
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------- | --- | - | ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary             |  | Percentage ofOwnership |     |   | State of Incorporation
|Lake Sunapee Bank, fsb |  |                        | 100 | % |                        | Incorporated under the laws of the United States
|                       |  |                       
|NHTB Capital Trust I   |  |                        | 100 | % |                        | Delaware                                        
|                       |  |                       
|NHTB Capital Trust II  |  |                        | 100 | % |                        | Connecticut                                     
|                       |  |                       
|NHTB Capital Trust III |  |                        | 100 | % |                        | Connecticut                                     

Subsidiaries of Lake
Sunapee Bank, fsb



|                                      |  |                        |     |   |                       |  |               | 
|------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | --- | - | --------------------- |  | ------------- | 
|Subsidiary                            |  | Percentage ofOwnership |     |   | State ofIncorporation | 
|Lake Sunapee Group, Inc.              |  |                        | 100 | % |                       |  | New Hampshire | 
|                                      |  |                       
|Lake Sunapee Financial Services Corp. |  |                        | 100 | % |                       |  | New Hampshire |