alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
  SECTION
            906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 I,
        Kenneth L. Johnson, Treasurer of St. Joseph, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of St. Joseph, Inc.,
        for the
        fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, 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 that information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of St. Joseph, Inc.
 Date:
                  April 11, 2007By:*/s/*Kenneth L. Johnson
                
                Name:
                  Kenneth L. JohnsonTitle:
                  Treasurer
  28
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD THEN ENDED AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         311,151
<SECURITIES>                                    49,183
<RECEIVABLES>                                  249,851
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                    135,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,166,828
<PP&E>                                       3,571,441
<DEPRECIATION>                                 272,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             155,518,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,916,719
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,472,247
<OTHER-SE>                                (43,907,324)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               155,518,129
<SALES>                                        175,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,378
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,200,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             750,425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,994,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (21,994,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (21,994,682)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.71)
        

</TABLE>
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 26934.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 2, 1954.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the-State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is the sale of whisky in a dry area, with two prior convictions for an offense of like character; the punishment, a fine of $400.

The record is brought forward without statement of facts or bills of exception. The proceedings appear regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.9 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS The Board of Directors
Paramount Energy Operating Corp., as Administrator
Paramount Energy Trust We
consent to the use of our report dated February 26, 2004 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Paramount Energy Trust as at
December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the consolidated statements of earnings and accumulated
earnings and cash flows for the years then ended and our report dated
February 26, 2004 on the related supplemental note entitled
Reconciliation of
Financial Statements to Accounting Principles Generally Accepted in
the United States, included in this annual report on Form 40-F.  (Signed) KPMG LLP Calgary, Canada
May 19, 2004
SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT

            THIS SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment"), dated as of November 12, 2007, is among ELIZABETH ARDEN, INC., a Florida Corporation (the "Borrower"), the banks listed on the signature pages hereto (the "Banks"), JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (formerly JPMorgan Chase Bank), as the administrative agent (the "Administrative Agent"), and Bank OF AMERICA, N.A. (successor in interest by merger to Fleet National Bank), as the collateral agent (the "Collateral Agent").

RECITALS:

            The Borrower, the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent and the banks party thereto have entered into that certain Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of December 24, 2002 (as the same has been modified by that certain First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated February 25, 2004, that certain Second Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated June 2, 2004, that certain Third Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated September 30, 2004, that certain Fourth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated November 2, 2005, that certain Fifth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated August 11, 2006 and that certain Sixth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of August 15, 2007, the "Agreement").  The Borrower and the Guarantors have requested that the Agents and the Banks amend certain provisions of the Agreement and the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent, and the Banks party hereto have agreed to do so on and subject to the terms set forth herein.

            NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows effective as of the date hereof unless otherwise indicated:

ARTICLE I
#### GREEN v. STATE.

No. 22265.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13,1943.

Mel Janes, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with violation of the liquor laws and assessed a fine of $200.

The record is before us without bills of exception and statement of facts. It ap-eare to be regular in every respect and we

find nothing for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

The judgment of conviction was upon the verdict of a jury. The conviction was had at the March term, 1942 of the trial court, which adjourned on April 30. Appellant filed no motion for new trial, but gave notice of appeal from the judgment. On May 26 appellant sought and secured an order of extension for filing bills of exception and statement of facts for 30 days after said extension date. Appellant files in this court his affidavit setting out a telegram received from his attorney on June 28 which telegram is set out in our opinion on rehearing in 167 S.W.2d 183, against this same appellant. There is no showing why bills of exception and statement of facts could not have been secured during the 60 days from the adjournment of court to the expiration of the extension order. If appellant’s attorney made any effort during this time to prepare the record for appeal it is not so shown to this court.

Appellant’s present attorneys are not responsible for the situation, but the circumstances present no ground for further indulgence.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
|                                       |                 | Exhibit 99(a) 
|-------------------------------------- | --------------- | --------------
|Household Mortgage Loan Trust 2002-HC1 |                 |               
|                                       |                 |               
|                                       |                 |               
|Original Principal Class A             | $892,791,000.00 |               
|Number of $1,000 Class A Bonds         | 892,791         |               
|Original Principal Class M             | $158,216,000.00 |               
|Number of $1,000 Class M Bonds         | 158,216         |               
|                                       |                 |               
|Payment Date                           |                 | Total 2003    
|                                       |                 |               
|                                       |                 |               
|CLASS A                                |                 |               
|Principal Payment                      |                 | 325,604,093.01
|Class A Interest Payment               |                 | 9,141,665.34  
|                                       |                 |               
|CLASS M                                |                 |               
|Principal Payment                      |                 | 57,701,945.02 
|Class M Interest Payment               |                 | 1,987,341.31  
|                                       |                 |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10297 Conference Calendar

TERRY GALE PARNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CV-204-C

- - - - - - - - - - August 14, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Texas state prisoner Terry Gale Parnell, No. 641594, filed a
pro se , in forma pauperis (IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Wayne Scott, the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), complaining that his sentence had not been properly computed to reflect the amount of time he spent in a halfway house prior to his return to prison. Parnell requestsNo. 97-10297 - 2 - that his sentence be credited for that time. This complaint calls into question the validity of his sentence. His only remedy lies in a petition for habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey , 577 U.S. 477, 487 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The district court did not err by dismissing Parnell’s action. Because Parnell has failed to raise an issue of arguable merit on appeal, the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Parnell is warned that any additional frivolous appeals filed will invite the imposition of sanctions, and he is further cautioned, in order to avoid sanctions, to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50286 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHARLES EDWARD MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-99-CR-92-1

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Charles Edward Murphy has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Murphy has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSEPH DIEUVIL,

Appellant,

v.

GAVIN D. CADDY, et al.,

Appellees.

No. 4D22-704

[March 30, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-18-

026967(14).

Scott M. Behren of the Behren Law Firm, Weston, for appellant.

Nicholas M. Vicente of Marcus Law Center, LLC, Coral Gables, and 

Bryce Gilbert of Gilbert Law Group, P.A., Hollywood, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
File a ttach ed to email : Gol d sborough _Marin_PM25_ Monitoring_20 10 - 11

_ MemoFigs.doc
---

Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Standard Microsystems Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2011 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By:
/s/ CHRISTINE KING(signature)Christine King

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





By:
/s/ KRIS SENNESAEL(signature)Kris Sennesael

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)


Dated: June 30, 2011
##### 



AMENDMENT   Mountain National Bank
Amended and Restated Executive Salary Continuation Agreement
 THIS AMENDMENT
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 The Following Articles Amended in their Entirety:
 ARTICLE IV: DEFINITIONS
 I. Disability
  ARTICLE V: RETIREMENT BENEFIT AND POST-RETIREMENT DEATH BENEFIT
 th




---



##### 



ARTICLE X: CHANGE OF CONTROL
 th
 IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE
 WITNESS:
    
    FOR MOUNTAIN NATIONAL BANK:Michael Patterson
    
    /s/ Michael L. Brown(name)
    
    (signature of authorized officer of Plan Sponsor)/s/ Michael Patterson
    
    Michael L. Brown(signature of witness)
    
    (print name)VP/HR
    
    Executive Vice President(title if any)
    
    (title of signing officer)THE EXECUTIVE:/s/ Devon McKinzie(signature)Devon McKinzie(print name)
MEMORANDUM TO DOCKET Docket No. : EPA - R09 - OAR - 2013 - 0588 Date: January 2 7 , 2014 Subject: Summary of Communications and Consultation between EPA, Phoenix Cement Company (PCC) , and Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) Regarding Potential Reasonable Progress (RP) Controls for Phoenix Cement Clarkdale Plant Date Description 2012 - 11 - 06 Email from Colleen McKaughan, EPA, to Verle Martz, PCC, providing contractor rep ort (initial draft RP analysis) and seeking additional information 2012 - 11 - 28 Email from Verle Martz, PCC, to Colleen McKaughan, EPA, seeking clarification on EPA 2012 - 11 - 06 email 2012 - 12 - 14 Email from McKaughan, EPA, to Martz, PCC, responding to 2012 - 11 - 28 email 2012 - 12 - 20 Letter from Diane Enos, SRPMIC to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, regarding potential impacts of EPA’s proposed partial disapproval of Arizona SIP on SRPMIC 2013 - 01 - 29 Email from Colleen McKaughan to Gary Bohnee, SRPMIC, and Martz, PC C, et al. regarding extension of Public Comment Period 2013 - 02 - 04 Email from McKaughan to Bohnee , Martz, et al. regarding extension of public comment period and request for information. 2012 - 02 - 11 Email from McKaughan to Bohnee , Martz, et al. regarding c onsultation 2013 - 02 - 26 Email from McKaughan to Bohnee and Martz regarding extension of public comment period and request for information. 2013 - 02 - 28 Letter from Blumenfeld to Enos regarding EPA’s proposed partial disapproval of Arizona SIP and consultation 2013 - 03 - 06 Letter from Martz to Greg Nudd, EPA, commenting on EPA’s proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of Arizona SIP 2013 - 06 - 19 Letter from Martz to Nudd commenting on EPA’s supplemental proposal 2013 - 09 - 25 Letter from Bl umenfeld to Enos re garding c onsultation 2013 - 10 - 18 Letter from Enos to Blumenfeld re garding c onsultation 2013 - 11 - 06 In - person consultation between Enos, Blumenfeld, et al 2013 - 11 - 14 Phone call between SRPMIC, PCC and EPA staff 2013 - 11 - 25 Email from Charlotte Withey, EPA, to Jennifer Giff, SRPMIC, et al. regarding draft regulatory text 2013 - 1 2 - 10 Email from Withey to Giff , et al. regarding draft regulatory text 2013 - 12 - 11 Email from George A. Tsiolis , Counsel to SRPMIC - PCC to Withey, et al. regarding draft regulatory text and cost analysis 2013 - 12 - 11 Email from Withey to Tsiolis, et al. regarding cost analysis 2013 - 12 - 17 Phone call between Brett Lindsay, PCC, and Eugene Chen regarding cost analysis 2013 - 12 - 20 Email from Tsiolis to Withey, et al. regarding RP analys i s 2013 - 12 - 21 Email from Withey to Tsilois , et al. regarding RP analysi s 2014 - 01 - 09 Email from Withey to Tsilois , et al. regarding RP analysi s 2014 - 01 - 10 E mail from Tsilois to Withey, et al. regarding RP analys i s
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.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, Telephone 703-518-6304.

Becky Baker, 

Secretary of the Board

[FR Doc. 00-26717 Filed 10-13-00; 11:06 am]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AS REPORTED ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         325,492
<SECURITIES>                                12,325,167
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,904,119
<PP&E>                                         267,413
<DEPRECIATION>                                 258,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,903,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,618,082
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  6,150,052
<COMMON>                                       145,177
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,989,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,903,080
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,079,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (364,612)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,714,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,714,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (4,240,000)<F1>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,954,827)<F1>
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.56)<F1>

<FN>
<F1>
Reflects preferred stock preference amounts equal to $4,240,000, and (0.30) per
share.
</FN>

</TABLE>