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

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                  AS CREATED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned officer of Stratagene Corporation ("Stratagene" or the
"Company") hereby certifies that:

     (i) the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"); and

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

Date: August 16, 2004      By: /s/ Reginald P. Jones
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Reginald P. Jones
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act.
In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall
not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or
otherwise subject to the liability of that section and (B) shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 131 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 5-year extension 

for the real property standard deduction and to adjust such deduction 

for inflation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a 5-year extension for the real property standard deduction and to adjust such deduction for inflation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF REAL PROPERTY STANDARD 

4 DEDUCTION. 

5 (a) EXTENSION.—Subparagraph (C) of section 

6 63(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘in 2008 or 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘after De8 cember 31, 2007, and before January 1, 2015’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 131 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION.—Subparagraph 

2 (B) of section 63(c)(4) of such Code is amended by strik3 ing ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (i), by striking the period 

4 at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by 

5 inserting after clause (ii) the following: 

6 ‘‘(iii) ‘calendar year 2010’ in the case 

7 of dollar amounts contained in paragraph 

8 (7)(B).’’. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<Page>

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 Annual Report of Dalrada Financial Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending June
30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, David Lieberman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do
each hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: October 13, 2006


/s/ David Lieberman
---------------------
David Lieberman
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23





Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Merchants Bancshares, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements, Form S-3 (No. 333-41051), Form S-8 (No. 333-34869), Form S-8 (No. 333-34871), and Form S-8 (No. 333-18845) as amended by Post Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8/A of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 8, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Albany, NY

March 10, 2004



<PAGE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1522 

To repeal the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2011 

Mr. MACK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Small 

Business, Oversight and Government Reform, Science, Space, and Technology, Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial Services, House Administration, Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs, Education and the 

Workforce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SE4 CURITY ACT OF 2007. 

5 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

6 (Public Law 110–140) is repealed, and the laws amended 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1522 IH

1 by that Act shall be read as if the amendments made by 

2 that Act were not enacted. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23
                                                                ----------

                    CONSENT OF LAZAR, LEVINE & FELIX LLP

            We consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated December 29, 2000, except for the second paragraph of
Footnote 21 as to which the date is January 2, 2001, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of
Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc. included in its Annual
Report (Form 10-KSB) for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2000
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission into (i) the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (SEC File No. 333-27659), (ii)
the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No.
333-424), and (iii) the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (SEC File No. 333-75377).


                        LAZAR, LEVINE & FELIX LLP


New York, New York
January 29, 2001
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 3, 2015

d0223 

# Order

Clerk March 3, 2015

148814(35)(36)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148814

COA: 319151

Wayne CC: 08

- 008639

- FC

DERRICK LEE SMITH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issues is GRANTED. The motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s July 29, 2014 order is co nsidered, and it is DENIED,

because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OR? TEXAS 

AUSTIN. TEXAS 

Hon. L. A. Wood 

State Superintendent 

Opinion No. V-737 

Department of Education Re: The legality of paying the 

Austin, Texas expenses of State business 

travel when the employee 

also attends a Convention 

meeting in the evening. 

Dear Sir: 

Your request for an opinion upon the above 

subject matter is as follows: 

"On October 31 Dr. H. E. Robinson 

went to Waco at the request of several 

individuals to assist with special education problems in their schools. He 

was involved in eight or ten such individual conferences from noon on the 31st 

until noon on November 1. He did not go 

to Waco to attend a convention, but at 

7:30 p.m. on October 31 he did attend a 

meeting at which Dr. John Lee of Wayne 

University spoke to a group on "What Is 

Special Education?" I feel that attending this meeting at an evening hour does 

not invalidate his claim for expenses 

for transacting necessary official business. 

"I am enclosing a copy of his expense 

account claims covering the details of 

this situation and would appreciate your 

opinion as to whether or not he is entitled to reimbursement for his expenses incurred." 

Dr. Robinson's account may be approved for 

payment. The State has a just claim upon the working 

hours of its employees, but it is not monitor of their 

evenings. The prohibition against paying travel expenses of employees to conventions does not operate to 
Hon. ,L. A. Wood - Page 2 (V-737) 

forbid payment when the employee in fact is traveling 

on State business, notwithstanding, while upon such 

trip he does actually attend a convention. Each case 

such as you put presents a question of fact as to 

good faith discharge of the State's business. It is 

primarily the duty of the head of the department, and 

the issuance and payment of warrant by the accounting 

officers of the State to solve such questions. We 

may add, however, that the nature of the business transacted, and the character of the convention attended may 

be considered in this fact finding as to good faith intention. 

It is within your power and official discretion to approve the claim involved. 

A State employee may lawfully be paid 

travel expense incurred in making a trip 

in good faith upon State business,notmithstanding in the evening ho attends a convention. 

Yours very truly, 

ATTOiWEY qGERE.XAL OF TEXAS 

0S:wb By 5%$Yk&+ 

Assistant
#### Bobby Kenneth HEMMELINE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30005.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 28, 1958.

Biddle, Hight & Thompson, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Our able State’s Attorney agrees that the conviction herein should be reversed. We adopt his brief as the opinion of the Court.

“Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Tarrant County for the unlawful possession of morphine, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of fifteen years.

“In view of the State’s confession of error, the facts are not discussed.

“Formal Bill of Exception No. 1-Tr. P. IS

“The bill shows that the Assistant District Attorney argued, ‘It’s a fact that (narcotic) users are pushers in order to get narcotics’; that such argument was made and was objected to on the grounds that the same injected new facts into the case and was un-sworn testimony on the part of the Assistant District Attorney, and that it was prejudicial and inflammatory; that there was no evidence to support the argument here-inbefore set out; that the argument was not invited by appellant’s counsel; that the court overruled his objection and refused to instruct the jury not to consider the same. The bill was qualified by the court and the qualification was excepted to above the court’s signature, and there is no court’s bill of exception.

“Where there is an exception to the court’s qualification the Court of Criminal Appeals must consider the bill as though approved without qualification, for exception to the court’s qualification destroys the *834same. Appellant’s bill will be considered as if approved without qualification. Lovett v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 483, 228 S.W.2d 855; Palmer v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 226 S.W.2d 634.

“Since the bill shows that unsworn testimony was injected into the trial, it constitutes reversible error. Sparks v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 111, 261 S.W.2d 571.

“Other matters relied upon by appellant will probably not occur on another trial.”

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit No. 15

                   Awareness Letter from Independent Auditors

August 6, 2002

Armstrong Holdings, Inc.
Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Re:  Registration Statement No. 333-74501; 33-91890; 33-18996; 33-18997;
33-65768; 333-74633; 333-79093; 333-43872

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated August 6, 2002 related to our
review of interim financial information of Armstrong Holdings, Inc.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), such report
is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
#### Junior Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27675.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 12, 1955.

*240Perry Davis, Jr., Donald S. Owen, John L. Camp, Bay City, Texas, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is rape; the punishment, death.

This conviction must be reversed because of the failure of the trial court to grant appellant’s motion for change of venue. Therefore the facts will not be recited.

The voir dire examination of the members of the jury selected to try this case reveals that at least five members thereof had read newspaper accounts of the appellant’s connection with the crime for which he was tried. The nature of the news accounts must be specifically noted. Those who had read them learned the following facts which, since the appellant did not testify in his own behalf, were not admissible in the trial of this cause:

1. That the appellant was an unemployed ex-convict who had been out of the penitentiary only five months.

2. That the appellant, in addition to confessing to the instant crime, had also confessed that within two months prior to the commission of this crime he had raped a 47-year old Bay City grandmother and had robbed her of $140.

3. That the appellant had been indicted for these two other offenses.

4. That after the appellant’s arrest he had been spirited out of town by the officers who had him in charge because a crowd in which there was at least one armed man had gathered at the jail and that the sheriff had stated that “it looked bad for a while.”

5. That sentiment was running high in Bay City and the sheriff had requested the newspapers not to publish a picture of the appellant.

6. That the appellant had been denied bail and was being held in some unidentified jail outside the county.

7. That many prowlings and peepings had been reported in the area where the two rapes had occurred.

8. That the press considered the case against the appellant to be one of the most vicious in recent Texas history.

After the appellant had exhausted his last challenge, he was required to accept a juror who also had read these news accounts, knew that the officers had linked the appellant with the other rape and “did not think” that he had an opinion as to the appellant’s guilt and “did not believe” that his knowledge that the appellant was charged with the other rape would cause him to inflict a greater punishment.

As stated, none of these facts contained in the newspaper accounts were admissible in the appellant’s trial, and yet at least five members of the jury had read such accounts prior to going into the jury box to try the appellant.

However guilty this accused may be, he is entitled to a trial by a jury who enter the jury box with an open mind.

Upon a re-trial of this case in another county, it is suggested, that appellant’s requested charge on temporary insanity be given.

We have carefully examined appellant’s motion to quash the indictment and fail to find any merit therein.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
#### RED BALL MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., et al., Appellants, v. The SOUTHERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, Appellee.

No. 4005.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

June *7,*1962.

*956Allen P. Schoolfield, Jr., Dallas, Eugene D. Biddle, Ft. Worth, Charles D. Mathews, Dallas, for appellants.

Mullinax, Wells, Morris & Mauzy, L. N. D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, for appellee.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

The Southern Conference of Teamsters, as plaintiffs, brought this suit to declare null and void a certain collective bargaining agreement entered into by the defendants Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., and the Union of Transportation Employees, Inc. The Trial Court granted the relief sought. Both defendants appealed and the cause is pending for disposition. On 27 April 1962 appellee (plaintiff) filed motion to dismiss appellants’ (defendants’) appeal on the ground that the appeal was moot, inasmuch as the collective bargaining agreement declared void by the Trial Court had, during pendency of the appeal, expired by its own terms, and a new collective bargaining agreement had been entered into by defendants which is not subject to the complaints of plaintiff, as was the original agreement.

Thereafter, both defendants filed motions to dismiss the *entire case*rather than dismissing the appeal only.

 When a case has become moot, the proper order to be entered by the appellate court is one dismissing the case, and not one dismissing the appeal. To dismiss the appeal would leave undisturbed the judgment of the lower court, and thereby in effect, affirm same without according to the appealing parties a hearing on the merits of their appeal. International Ass’n. of Machinists Local Union No. 1488 et al. v. Federal Ass’n of Accessory Workers et al., 133 Tex. 624, 130 S.W.2d 282, 283.

Accordingly, defendants’ motions to dismiss this cause are granted. Costs are taxed *l/z*each against appellee and the two appellants.

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,918,548
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  103,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,026,738
<PP&E>                                          46,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,081,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          702,471
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,298
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,299,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,081,929
<SALES>                                        616,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               616,639
<CGS>                                          611,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  611,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,305,588
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (11,200)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,289,217)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,289,217)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,289,217)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.79)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Joseph P. Ciavarella, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Langer, Inc.on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such AnnualReport on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Langer, Inc.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| Date: March 30, 2006 |   |   |   | /s/ JOSEPH P.  CIAVARELLA                    |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                      |   |   |   | Joseph P. Ciavarella                         |
|                      |   |   |   | *Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1387 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1387

 To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to give the 
  Special Inspector General oversight over the Small Business Lending 
                                 Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2011

Mr. McHenry (for himself, Mr. Issa, and Mr. Ross of Florida) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to give the 
  Special Inspector General oversight over the Small Business Lending 
                                 Fund.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Lending Fund 
Accountability Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. TARP SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT.

    Section 121(c)(1) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
2008 (12 U.S.C. 5231(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``section 101, and'' and inserting 
        ``section 101,''; and
            (2) by inserting ``and activities under section 4103, 4104, 
        or 4105 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-
        240),'' before ``including''.
                                 <all>
```