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**

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Timothy Hart                                            |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy                Hart                                                |
| Chief                Financial Officer                                     |
| Date:                      November 14, 2005 |

----
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.2

          Summary of the Executive Bonus Plan under which some of the
          executive officers of the Parent Company are eligible to receive a
          bonus each year. 
     43
<PAGE>
BRENTON BANKS, INC. (Parent Company)
EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN

The Executive Bonus Plans for 1995 cover certain executive officers.  The
specific provisions of each plan differs somewhat by executive; however, the
following general structure exists for all plans:

A.  Executives can earn up to a maximum of 32.5% of their salary.

    Bonus percentage potential tied to consolidated earnings threshold of
    $14,250,000.  No bonus potential if earnings do not reach the thresholds,
    except where individually negotiated discretionary bonuses exist.  

B.  The bonus is based on meeting certain pre-established financial or
    personal goals, the most significant of which are as follows:

    1. Net income of the Company or Division;

    2. Net interest income/margin;

    3. Noninterest income;

    4. Noninterest margin;

    5. Core deposit growth;

    6. Commercial and consumer loan growth;

    7. Asset quality; and

    8. Key personal financial objectives tied to the area of responsibility.
C.  Bonus amounts are earned ratably based on tiered achievement scales.
     44
United States Department of Agriculture 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Reasonable Accommodation Reassignment 

Request 

Name: RA Request Number: 

Agency/Program: Work Phone Number: 

Email Address: Series and Grade: Current Duty Station: 

1. A reassignment may be available as an accommodation of last resort. Do you want to be considered for a 

reassignment as a reasonable accommodation if there is a vacant, funded position for which you are qualified? 

 Yes No 

2. If you are willing to relocate, please indicate the geographic area where you are willing to be reassigned. 

 Headquarters (Washington, DC; Riverdale, MD) Eastern Region (Raleigh, NC) 

 Western Region (Fort Collins, CO) Minneapolis, MN Metro Area 

List Specific States: 

 

List Specific Cities: 

3. If there is no position available at your current grade level, what is the lowest grade 

level you will consider for a reassignment? 

Lowest Grade: 

By signing this form, I am confirming that I have received an explanation of the reassignment process orally and in writing. I have 

specified the geographic area(s) where I am interested in working. I understand that if I relocate, the agency is not obligated to pay 

relocation costs. I understand that if there are no vacant or soon to be vacant positions at my current grade level, I may be offered a 

lower graded position. If I am offered a position(s) and I decline the position(s) or if there are no positions available within 45 calendar 

days from the signature/date on this form, I may be separated from Federal Service. 

Employee’s Signature: Date Signed:

MRP Form 30 

MAR 2011 

Send this completed form to : 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Human Resources (Attn: Reasonable Accommodation Specialist) 

4700 River Rd., Unit 4 

Riverdale, MD 20737
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. MIGUEL LEON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-10396 D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00452-JMS-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 8, 2013 Honolulu, Hawaii Before: KOZINSKI , Chief Judge, FISHER and WATFORD , Circuit Judges. As appellant acknowledged in his br iefs, and at oral argument, the application of the good-faith exception to this case is controlled by United States v. Pineda-Moreno , 688 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2012), which held that officers who placed and monitored a GPS device on a su spect’s car reasonably relied on then

# FILED
JAN 31 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.page 2 binding precedent. As a three-judge panel, we are bound by Pineda-Moreno . See generally Millerv. Gammie , 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Thus, although the government conceded below that the placement and use of a GPS device on Leon’s vehicle was unconstitutional under United States v. Jones , 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), the district court did not err in ruling that the fruits of these searches were nevertheless admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Pineda-Moreno , 688 F.3d at 1090–91.
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19



                     AMENDED SCHEDULE TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT



                              SEVERANCE AGREEMENTS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
             OFFICER OR EXECUTIVE                           MULTIPLE
             --------------------                           --------
<S>                                                         <C>
             James D. Lightner                                 2.5
             Thomas W. Dyk                                     2
             Peter R. Scherer                                  2
             Bruce R. DeBoer                                   2
             Daniel G. Blanchard                               2
             Clifford C. Drescher                              2
             Hilary G. Dussing                                 2
             Rodney G. Mellott                                 2
             Douglas R. Harris                                 2
</TABLE>
62%

1%

13%

5%

9%

8% 2% 13%

47%

3%

24%

1%

9%

3%

United States Department of Agriculture

Organic Integrity Dashboard – 10/1/2020

 A quarterly review of National Organic Program (NOP) enforcement activities

Investigations & Inquiries by Fiscal Year

One Government at the Border: Strengthening Enforcement Partnerships

In July 2020, Andrew Regalado, a senior National Organic Program 

analyst, began working as part of the interagency Commercial Targeting and 

Analysis Center (CTAC) based at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

CTAC is an operational extension of One-U.S. Government at the Border that 

works to prevent, deter, and investigate violations of U.S. import and export 

laws by facilitating information and resource sharing among participating 

government agencies. Andrew represents NOP and other Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) programs as part of a collaborative governmentwide team. This collaboration gives NOP a direct line to CBP stakeholders and 

data, and unique insights into how other Federal enforcement agencies work.

Andrew’s strong analytical skills and hands-on experience come from 

more than 17 years’ work with AMS marketing enforcement programs.

For additional details on the National Organic Program visit www.ams.usda.gov/Organic.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Completed Investigations 129 127 279 260 285 390 360 470 335 413 448

Resolved Inquiries 30 197 248 386

New Investigations 194 183 278 215 411 548 508 395 370 374 391

Total Incoming 194 183 278 215 411 548 508 425 567 622 777

Percentage completed 66% 69% 100% 121% 69% 71% 71% 118% 94% 106% 107%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

*

* Fiscal Year 2020 

numbers as of 9/30/2020

Percentage Completed 

includes cases from

prior years

NOTES: Open cases are based on allegations, complaints and surveillance, and are not in themselves proof of wrongdoing. Administrative 

Actions are warnings/notices to businesses, often uncertified, and are critical in establishing that violators are aware of the rules, to support 

future enforcement action, if needed. 

* This category includes miscellaneous items, such as operations that were found to be selling as organic while suspended from certification.

412 Cases in Progress

As of 9/30/2020

448 Closed Cases by Outcome

12 Months ending 9/30/2020

Voluntary

Compliance

Referred for Criminal

Investigation

No Violation

Referred for Investigation

Settlement, Civil Penalty, Appeal

Administrative Actions

Fraudulent Certificates Posted

Uncertified 

Operations Making

Organic Claims

Labelling Error

Other * 

Prohibited Substance

Fraud

Prohibited Practice

Pesticide Residue
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, Courtney C. Smith, certify that:
 **1.**  **I have reviewed this quarterly report on****Form 10-Q****of Specialty Underwriters’Alliance, Inc.;**  **2.**  **Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;**  **3.**  **Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;**  **4.**  **The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-****15(e)****and 15d-****15(e)****) for the registrant and have:**
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)  [Intentionally Omitted];  (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
 

 

 **5.**  **The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):**
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: May 16, 2005                                 /s/ Courtney C. Smith   Courtney C. Smith   President and Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN HO, an individual, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NICK FLOUTSIS, in his individual capacity 

and as trustee of the Floutsis Family Trust; 

ANGIE FLOUTIS, in her individual capacity 

and as trustee of the Floutsis Family Trust, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-56017 

D.C. No. 

8:20-cv-00472-JLS-JDE 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 10, 2022**

Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH, BADE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff John Ho appeals the district court’s order declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over his California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim under 28 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 13 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). We lack jurisdiction to address the merits of this appeal and

dismiss the case on those grounds. 

Even when not briefed by the parties, “this court has an independent 

obligation to address sua sponte whether we have subject matter jurisdiction.” 

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004). This court lacks 

jurisdiction over the immediate appeal because Ho filed a notice of voluntary 

dismissal without prejudice before later attempting to file another voluntary 

dismissal with prejudice. The first dismissal is operative and deprives this court of 

jurisdiction. 

First, a “voluntary dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not a final 

judgment from which the plaintiff may appeal.” Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 

1507 (9th Cir. 1995). No exception to the general rule is present here, which means

Ho is incorrect to assert that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Second, Ho’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) “automatically terminates the action, and thus federal 

jurisdiction, without judicial involvement.” Com. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 

193 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1999). “The action is terminated at that point, as if 

no action had ever been filed.” Id. at 1080. The second notice of dismissal, which 

Ho claims vests our court with jurisdiction, therefore had no effect and is not 

appealable. See 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and 
3 

Procedure § 2367 (4th ed. 2022) (“After the filing of a dismissal, the action no 

longer is pending, and generally no further proceedings in the action are proper.”). 

Ho’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
##### 



I, Harry C. Hagerty, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc.;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 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 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; andc)
    
    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.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 the 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;
andb)
    
    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.
 Dated: August 14, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Harry C. HagertyHarry C. HagertyChief Financial Officer
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 TOMMY SOWARDS and 

3 BARBARA SOWARDS

4 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

5 v. NO. 34,373

6 BIOTRONIK, INC. and

7 EDWARD TAGUE,,

8 Defendants-Appellees.

9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY

10 Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge

11 McGinn, Carpenter, Montoya & Love, PA

12 Randi McGinn

13 Kathy Love

14 Michael Sievers

15 Albuquerque, NM

16 for Appellants

17 Cervantes Law Firm

18 Joseph Cervantes

19 Las Cruces, NM
2

1 Holland & Knight, LLP

2 William F. Gould

3 Kelly Krystyniak

4 Washington, D.C.

5 Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.

6 Alex C. Walker

7 Albuquerque, NM

8 for Appellee Biotronik, Inc.

9 Silva & Associates, P.C.

10 Benjamin Silva, Jr.

11 Michael Hughes

12 Albuquerque, NM

13 for Appelle Edward Tague

14 MEMORANDUM OPINION

15 WECHSLER, Judge.

16 {1} Plaintiffs filed an appeal following the judgment entered in this case. We

17 proposed to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. In response, the

18 parties have filed a joint memorandum supporting the proposed dismissal. Therefore,

19 for the reasons discussed in the notice of proposed disposition, we dismiss this appeal

20 without prejudice. This Court will retain the record proper for a reasonable period of

21 time for use in any subsequent appeal that might result from this case once a final,

22 appealable order is filed. The parties are hereby ordered to notify the Court
3

1 immediately should the case be resolved in mediation or otherwise, or once the parties

2 are aware that no further appeals will be filed in this case.

3 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 ________________________________

5 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

6 WE CONCUR:

7 ________________________________

8 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

9 ________________________________

10 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 70 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 70

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
    prohibiting the delegation of the legislative powers granted to 
                               Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2019

Mr. Perry submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
    prohibiting the delegation of the legislative powers granted to 
                               Congress.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Congress may not delegate any of the legislative 
powers granted to Congress under article I or any article of amendment 
to any other authority of the United States, any State, or any private 
authority.
    ``Section 2. Congress may enact such legislation as it considers 
appropriate, and the President may rescind or terminate any rule, 
regulation, or order as the President considers appropriate, to address 
the treatment of any legislative power delegated by Congress prior to 
the ratification of this article.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21.1

BRIDGFORD FOODS
CORPORATION

SUBSIDIARIES OF
REGISTRANT



|Name of
      Subsidiary                                    |  | State in which Incorporated
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Bridgford Marketing Company                                 |  | California                 
|Bridgford Meat
      Company                                |  | California                 
|Bridgford Food Processing Corporation                       |  | California                 
|Bridgford Food Processing
      of Texas, L.P.**            |  | Texas                      
|A.S.I. Corporation                                          |  | California                 
|Bridgford Distributing
      Company of Delaware (inactive) |  | Delaware                   
|American Ham Processors, Inc.*                              |  | Delaware                   
|Bert Packing Company
      (inactive)                       |  | Illinois                   
|Moriarty Meat Company (inactive)                            |  | Illinois                   

* - No shares have been issued.

** - Limited Partnership.

---