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

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Stephen R. Theroux, is the Executive Vice
President, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc. (the Company). This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report
so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended
that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes 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



|                     |  |                                                                
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2010 |  | /s/ Stephen R. Theroux                                         
|                     |  | Stephen R. Theroux                                             
|                     |  | President, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350**








In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10Q-SB of Rotoblock Corporation
      (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the Report), I, Matthias Heinze, Chief Executive Officer, hereby
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





(1)
      the
      quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Registrant.










Date:
      March 17,
      2007 ROTOBLOCK
      CORPORATION





/s/
      Matthias Heinze


By:
      Matthias Heinze, President, Chief
      Executive Officer and Director
The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2398

___________ John D. Lockhart, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United State s v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri . Donna G. Adams, Registered * [UNPUBLISHED] Nurse; Christian Kolom, * Health Services Administrator, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 27, 1997 Filed: March 10, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. John D. Lockhart, an inmate at Farmington Correctional Cente r, appeal s from the order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction enjoining the disclosure of his psychiatric records in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Findingno error in the district court’s finding tha t 1 Lockhart has waived any psychiatrist-patient privilege by putting his psychological condition into issue, we affirm the order.-2--3-

See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. A true copy. Attest: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Robert Renzi and Roger Dunlap, Appellants.

County Court, Wayne County,

February 25, 1959.

*James 8. Hurley*for appellants.

*Roger E. Davis, District Attorney,*for respondent.

G-eorge B. Parsons, J.

This case was a case of the People of the State of New York against Robert Renzi and Roger Dunlap. They were brought before Justice of the Peace William Benedict, and brought before me on a charge of petit larceny in violation of section 1299 of the Penal Law for the alleged stealing of certain tires. This was in the Justices’ Court of the Town of Ontario.

This matter was brought up on appeal to this court after Judge Benedict had found the defendants guilty, and although according to their own affidavits they did not have counsel, they both have said in their affidavits that they were informed of their legal and constitutional rights and entered a plea of guilty to the charge. Judge Benedict sentenced both defendants *653to a term of 60 days in the county jail. The appeal was brought up not on the point of law strictly speaking but on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

This court in considering this matter, of course, was not the court of original jurisdiction. It did not have the defendants before the court in the first instance and, therefore, all of the surrounding circumstances and facts which Judge Benedict had this court presumes and took into consideration are merely before us by affidavits and oral arguments. It is not the jurisdiction or duty of this court to retry the case even though the defendants were present. That was done in the lower courts and it was before this court on appeal.

On the question of whether the sentence was excessive or whether it was not this court is not going to venture an opinion of what it might have been or what might have been better for the protection of society as well as control of the defendants in the lower courts because it is not the duty of the appellate court to decide whether an alternative sentence would have been better or whether probation would have been better or not. The fact remains that the sentence was passed down by Judge Benedict for petit larceny, a crime which could have been punished by a considerably heavier sentence than it was. There were several conferences with all the parties concerned including the attorney for the defendants and as a result this court holds that it could not consider that a sentence for petit larceny of 60 days in the county jail is of itself excessive and, therefore, the motion on appeal for setting aside the sentence as excessive is denied in both cases of the People versus Robert Renzi and People versus Roger Dunlap.
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 Defense

###### Defense Acquisition Regulations System

          - 48 CFR Part 203

# AGENCY:

Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

# ACTION:

Final rule.

# SUMMARY:

DoD is making a technical amendment to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add a reference for reporting suspected lobbying violations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         March 30, 2012.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Ynette R. Shelkin, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6089; facsimile 571-372-6101.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule amends the DFARS by adding text at 203.806 to provide guidance to explain how and where to report violations or potential violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (31 U.S.C. 1352).

# List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 203

      - Government procurement

Ynette R. Shelkin,

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

Therefore, 48 CFR part 203 is amended as follows:

# PART 203—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 203 is revised to read as follows:

Authority:41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 2.

2. Add subpart 203.8 consisting of section 203.806 to read as follows: 

# Subpart 203.8—Limitations on the Payment of Funds To Influence Federal Transactions

203.806 

Report suspected violations to the address at PGI 203.8(a).

[FR Doc. 2012-7439 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
**Exhibit 10.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the use in the Annual Report on Form20-F of Repsol YPF, S.A. and in Registration Statements Nos. 333-12254 and 333-10668 of our report dated February 26, 2007, except for Note 40, as to which the date is May 29, 2007, relating to the consolidated annual accounts of GasNatural, SDG, S.A. and its group companies, consisting of the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, the consolidated income statements, the consolidated statements of incomes and expenses recognized in the consolidatednet equity, the consolidated cash flow statements and the consolidated notes for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores, S.L. 

Barcelona, Spain 

June 25, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Income  Partners  1988-C,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement  of  operations
contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         16,158
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  36,622
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               52,780
<PP&E>                                         4,834,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,289,778)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 606,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,868
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     561,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   606,682
<SALES>                                        168,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,410
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,409<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (99,924)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (99,924)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (99,924)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Order entered June 5, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01536-CR

MOISE MARTINEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-62885-Y

ORDER

 In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The 

record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs 

assessed in this case.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization 

of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court 

appointed attorney fees. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a 

document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick F.Wolfe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Frederick F. Wolfe  |         |   |
|-------------------------|--------------|--------|
| Frederick F. Wolfe      |         |   |
|                    |         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |         |   |
|                    |         |   |
|                    | May 08, 2007 |   |   |
|                         |              |        |  |

 

----
#### Maslousky Unemployment Compensation Case.

*586Argued March 12, 1962.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

*Francis*Maslousky, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.

*Sydney Reuben,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *David Stahl,*Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

April 12, 1962:

Opinion by

Woodside, J.,

The evidence in this unemployment compensation case supports the finding of the board that the claimant refused suitable work without good cause. lie is thus ineligible for benefits under §402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. §802(a).

After the claimant was discharged from the military service, he registered for employment and was referred to a job opportunity with a store as a manager-trainee at $65 per week. He refused the referral without offering any reason for doing so except an expressed intent to enter college, which he did immediately thereafter.

We have passed upon similar cases many times and there is nothing more to be said about the law governing them.

Decision affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7426]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Efficiency and Renewables Advisory Committee (ERAC); Correction

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), on March 15, 2012, published a 
notice of open meeting announcing an open meeting of the Efficiency and 
Renewables Advisory Committee (ERAC). The meeting date has been 
extended to include April 18, 2012. As a result, the language is being 
corrected in this notice.

Corrections

    In the Federal Register of March 15, 2012, in FR DOC. 2012-6270, on 
page 15362, please make the following corrections:
    In the DATES heading, first column, first line, before the existing 
text, please add ``Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 1 p.m.-4:30 p.m. (EDT).
    In the ADDRESSES heading, first column, second line, please remove 
``Room 8E-089'' and add in its place ``Room 1E-245 and Room 8E-089, on 
April 18 and April 19 respectively''.
    In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION heading, Public Participation, 
second column, first paragraph, fifth line, correct the second sentence 
to read ``The public comment period will take place between 2:30 p.m. 
and 3 p.m. on the second day of the meeting, Thursday, April 19, 
2012.''

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 22, 2012.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-7426 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### STATE ex rel. Byron JOHNSON v. CLERK OF COURT, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS.

No. 87-KH-0383.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 23, 1987.

In re Johnson, Byron; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 280-463.

Granted. The district court is ordered to act, if it has not already done so, on the motion for production of documents submitted on or about May 1, 1986, if it has been filed.
----- Original Appointment

-----

From: Echols, Mabel E.

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:35 PM

Subject: E.O. 12866 Meeting on the Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP and NSPS

-- Proposed

Amendments as a Result of Reconsideration Rule

When: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 1:00 PM

- 1:30 PM (UTC

- 05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Room 10103 New Executive Office Building

This meeting was requested by Andrew O’Hare, Portland Cement Association.



### (See attached file: 2060AQ93_2012_5_22_PCA_Handout2.p df)(See attached file:

2060AQ93_2012_5_22_PCA_Handout1.pdf)
#### Reinaldo BORGES, Appellant, v. Lucila BORGES, Appellee.

No. 88-462.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 11, 1988.

Harold M. Braxton and Patricia Ann Ash, Miami, for appellant.

Jose M. Rodriguez-Gomez, for appellee.

Before NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ., and M. IGNATIUS LESTER, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the appellant husband that this case is controlled by *Satanonchai v. Satanonchai,*522 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The effect of awarding the marital home — the parties’ sole asset — to the wife as lump sum alimony was to force the disabled husband from a state of bare survival to relative impoverishment. A distribution of marital property that creates such an inequitable impact constitutes an *1061abuse of discretion. *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

On remand the court should award the wife exclusive use and possession of the home until the minor child reaches majority and order Mr. Borges to pay $25 per week as child support.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Dismissed; Opinion Filed April 26, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00010

- CV

BRIAN WEST , Appellant

V. READY ROOFING AND RE NOVATION, LLC , Appellee
On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401

- 01846

- 2018


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Nowell The clerk’s record in this appeal was due on April 5 , 2019. On April 8, 2019, the Collin
County District Clerk notified the Court that the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant
had not yet paid for the record. In light of this, we directed appellant to provide the Court, by April
19, 2019, w ith written verification that payment or payment arrangements had been made with the

district clerk or written documentation that appellant had been found to be entitled to proceed
without payment of costs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(a)(2)

. We cautioned ap pellant that the failure
to do so might result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
37.3(b). Three days later, appellant ’s attorney filed a letter stating that “Appellant has not paid the

fees and costs associated wi th this appeal to date, or delivered those funds to counsel to make
payment from.”– 2

–

Because appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or shown
he was entitled to proceed without payment of costs , we dismiss this appeal for wa nt of
prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

190010F.P05 /Erin A. Nowell/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BRIAN WEST, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 00010

- CV V.
READY ROOFING AND RENOVATION, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401

- 01846

- 2018. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, Justices Bridges and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

It is ORDERED that appellee READY ROOFING AND RENOVATION, LLC recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant BRIAN WEST.

Judgment entered this 26 th day of April, 2019.
#### Edith Reed Keyworth, Wife of/and Charles L. KEYWORTH v. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITALS, INC. a/k/a Southern Baptist Hospital.

No. 88-C-1042.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re Southern Bapt. Hospitals, Inc. a/k/a; Southern Baptist Hospital; apply-*1059mg for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-7622; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “K”, No. 83-4061.

Prior report: La.App., 524 So.2d 56.

Denied.

MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### Rosemary SERAFINO, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, Appellee.

No. 88-479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 22, 1988.

Whitelock and Moldof and Charles T. Whitelock, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Karen A. Brodeen, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the joint stipulation of the parties, the order of January 24, 1988, is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the appellee for a new administrative hearing.