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

                                                                    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 Form 10-Q of Autocam Corporation (the "Company") for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as delivered on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Warren A. Veltman, 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:

3.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: May 12, 2005                                      /s/ Warren A. Veltman
                                                      --------------------------
                                                          Warren A. Veltman
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
# C_2016202EN.01006901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/69

---

Article 55

(ex Article 294 TEC)

(ex Article 294 TEC)

Member States shall accord nationals of the other Member States the same treatment as their own nationals as regards participation in the capital of companies or firms within the meaning of Article 54, without prejudice to the application of the other provisions of the Treaties.

---
SCPW-15-0000236

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

KAIULA KALAWE ENGLISH and ROBIN WAINUHEA DUDOIT, Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH E. CARDOZA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT 

COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge,

and

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CR. NO. 14-1-0819(3); CR. NO. 14-1-0820(3))

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioners Kaiula Kalawe English

and Robin Wainuhea Dudoit’s petition for a writ of mandamus,

filed on March 27, 2015, the documents attached thereto and

submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that

Petitioners fail to demonstrate that they have a clear and

indisputable right to have their criminal cases dismissed or that

the Respondent Judge committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion in denying the motions to dismiss. Petitioners,

therefore, are not entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema v.

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-15-0000236

20-APR-2015

10:39 AM
Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a

writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue

unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right

to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately

the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; where a court

has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or

control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has

acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her

jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before

the court under circumstances in which he or she has a legal duty

to act). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 20, 2015. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
# INITIAL

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREAgricultural Marketing ServiceFederal Grain Inspection ServiceUGMA Moisture Meter Test

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.083 hours per response and 0.001 hours of record keeping, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Send Comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Agriculture, OIRM, AG Box 7630, Washington, D.C.  20250; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C.

CURRENT: DJ GAC2500-UGMA, DJ GAC2700-UGMA, and PERTEN AM5200-A    9180 61 08-01-2023

# FO

# AGENCIES

# CAL DATE

# MODEL

# results

# TW

# image1.png
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7855

CHAUNCEY A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES E. PARKS, Manager Offender SRV.; M. VARGO, Warden; 

Sussex II; JORDAN, Mental Health; Senior,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00683-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chauncey A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chauncey A. Williams appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) (2012), and denying his motion for leave to file an 

addendum. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, while we grant Williams’ motion for leave 

to file an addendum, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Williams v. Parks, No. 1:14-cv-00683-TSE-IDD 

(E.D. Va. filed Dec. 1, 2014; entered Dec. 2, 2014). Williams’ 

motion for reconsideration is denied as moot. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>




                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                   Consent of Independent Public Accountants


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports dated January 29, 2001 included (or incorporated by reference) in
this Form 10-K into Dole Food Company, Inc.'s previously filed Registration
Statements on Form S-3 Registration Nos. 33-41480, 33-64984, 333-07849 and
33-61689; Form S-8 Registration Nos. 2-87475, 33-594, 33-28782, 33-60641,
33-60643, 33-42152, 333-06949 and 333-13739; and Form N-2 Registration Nos.
333-325 and 811-7499.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Los Angeles, California
March 29, 2001
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the Fund) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010 (the Report), I, LSheryl D. Hudson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, 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 or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                    |  |  |  |                                           
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ LSheryl D. Hudson                    
|                    |  |  |  | LSheryl D. Hudson
Chief Financial Officer
# FILED
December 21, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE SUPREME COUR T OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

FREDA G. MOON, EXEC UTOR OF ) No. 01S01-9710-CV-00218 THE ESTATE OF R UTH GARRETT, ) ) PLAINTIFF/A PPELLANT, ) ) v. ) DAVIDSON CIRCUIT No. 8 7C-239 ) ST. THOMAS HOSPITAL, ) ) DEFENDANT/APPELLEE. ) REVERSED AND REMAND ED



### J U D G M E N T

This cause came on to be heard upon the r ecord on appeal from the Court of Appeals, briefs and arg ument of counsel; and upon considerati on thereof, this Court is of the opi nion that the conflicting ex pert testimony as wel l as the inferences to be drawn from the record create genuine issues o f material fact as to the standard of care and whether a deviation from the standard of care occurred.
In accordance with the opi nion filed herein, it is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this Court that the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment be and the same is hereby reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
The costs of this appeal are tax ed to the defendant for which exec ution may issue if neces sary.
# L_2007328EN.01004901.xml

| 13.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 328/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 328/49

---

Corrigendum to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 38/1999 of 30 March 1999 amending Annex XIII (Transport) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 266 of 19 October 2000
  )

On page 27, Article 1 of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 38/1999 is replaced by the following text:

‘1.   In Annex XIII (Transport) to the Agreement, “APPENDIX 1” shall be renamed “APPENDIX 2”, “APPENDIX 2” shall be renamed “APPENDIX 3”, “APPENDIX 3” shall be renamed “APPENDIX 4” and “APPENDIX 4” shall be renamed “APPENDIX 5”.

2.   In Annex XIII (Transport) to the Agreement, in adaptations (d) and (e) of point 26a (Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92) the words “Appendix 1” shall be replaced by “Appendix 2”.

3.   The Annex to this Decision shall become the new “APPENDIX 1” of Annex XIII (Transport) to the Agreement.’

---
Southwestern Cooperative Marketing Agency

Via email 

Dana.coale@usda.gov

Ms. Dana Coale, April 27, 2020

Deputy Administrator

USDA

Dear Ms. Coale, 

RE: Freeze the Class I Price Mover in All Federal Milk Orders 

In the wake of the unprecedented decrease in dairy commodity prices due to the COVID 19 crisis 

we, the members of Southwestern Cooperative Marketing Agency hereby request that the USDA 

set a minimum Class I Price Mover for all Federal Milk Orders at $15.00 per CWT in an 

effort to help maintain milk prices necessary to save our dairy farmers. We ask that the USDA 

make this change expeditiously and consider these needed changes as an emergency provision

needed to maintain orderly marketing and to assure that an adequate supply of milk remains 

available. 

 

The Class I Price Mover is based on a combination of Class III and Class IV prices, plus $.74. The 

Class III and Class IV prices are calculated by using the surveyed commodity prices for butter, 

cheese, skim milk powder, and whey. When this system was established, nobody thought we 

would ever be in a situation where all commodity prices would collapse at the same time to the 

levels we are seeing today. Due to this unprecedented collapse of the commodity prices, we 

believe the Market Administrators must set a minimum level for the Class I Price Mover.

 

We feel the Federal Order system has some “emergency action” leeway that would allow for 

Market Administrators to take dramatic actions to assure the objectives of the Federal Order 

System are met. The COVID 19 crisis certainly constitutes an “emergency” causing us to consider 

the actions proposed above. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

The members of the Southwestern Cooperative Marketing Agency:

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.

Lone Star Milk Producers, Inc.

Select Milk Producers, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income, statement of retained earnings and
statement of cash flows contained in Form 10-K of Canal Electric Company for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016906
<NAME> CANAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         YEAR
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          191,951
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          2,800
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>             327,368
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            24,585
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     546,704
<COMMON>                            38,080
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            8,321
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                241,965
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     288,366
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                     0
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                       0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>            0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>         10,551
<LEASES-CURRENT>                       568
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     247,219
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      546,704
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          181,833
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 8,168
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         152,803
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         160,971
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             20,862
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                 186,523
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>     207,385
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             8,268
<NET-INCOME>                       199,117
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>      199,117
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>            10,282
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            7,854
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              14,063
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### ROY SMITH *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 19248)

Foti, Hennessy and Pellegrino, Js.

Submitted on briefs June 14

officially released July 11, 2000

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Craig E. Benson, Appellant.

—Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Siedlecki, J.), rendered January 19, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court, entered September 27, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred by allowing defendant to proceed *pro se.*The court made the requisite inquiry as to satisfy itself that defendant "competently, intelligently and voluntarily” waived his right to counsel *(People v McIntyre,*36 NY2d 10, 17; *see, People v Sawyer,*57 NY2d 12, 21, *cert denied*459 US 1178; *People v White,*56 NY2d 110, 117). Not only did the court inform defendant of the risks involved in representing himself, but it continued to advise defendant at various court appearances that he should *899have counsel. In fact, prior to the entry of his plea, defendant requested and was granted an appointment of counsel who was present during defendant’s plea and sentencing. We also find no basis in the record before us for County Court to have ordered an examination pursuant to CPL article 730 to determine defendant’s competency to stand trial *(see, People v Harrington,*163 AD2d 327, 328, *lv denied*76 NY2d 940; *People v Clickner,*128 AD2d 917, 918). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           7,633<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,107
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          16,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         37,074
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            80
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,021
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,425
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,496
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,434
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,357
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,017)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,374
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,374
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18
<FN>
<F1>Includes $884 restricted.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                               9,339
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          828
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                          8,864
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    22,360
<PP&E>                                              15,487
<DEPRECIATION>                                       5,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      33,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               12,978
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                2,009
<PREFERRED>                                          5,775
<COMMON>                                            22,374
<OTHER-SE>                                          15,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        33,997
<SALES>                                             32,831
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    32,831
<CGS>                                               16,585
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       39,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (6,662)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            48
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (6,710)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (6,710)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (1.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.47)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

CARROLS RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                      |  |                       
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name                                  |  | State of Incorporation
|                                      | 
|Carrols Corporation                   |  | Delaware              
|                                      | 
|Carrols Realty Holdings               |  | Delaware              
|                                      | 
|Carrols Realty I Corp.                |  | Delaware              
|                                      | 
|Carrols Realty II Corp.               |  | Delaware              
|                                      | 
|Carrols J.G. Corp.                    |  | Delaware              
|                                      | 
|Quanta Advertising Corp.              |  | New York              
|                                      | 
|Pollo Franchise, Inc.                 |  | Florida               
|                                      | 
|Pollo Operations, Inc.                |  | Florida               
|                                      | 
|Taco Cabana, Inc.                     |  | Delaware              
|                                      | 
|TP Acquisition Corp.                  |  | Texas                 
|                                      | 
|T.C. Management, Inc.                 |  | Delaware              
|                                      | 
|Get Real, Inc.                        |  | Delaware              
|                                      | 
|Texas Taco Cabana, L.P.               |  | Texas                 
|                                      | 
|TC Lease Holdings III, V and VI, Inc. |  | Texas                 
|                                      | 
|Cabana Bevco, LLC                     |  | Texas                 
|                                      | 
|TC Bevco, LLC                         |  | Texas                 
|                                      | 
|Cabana Beverages, Inc.                |  | Texas                 
|                                      | 
|TPAQ Holding Corporation              |  | Delaware