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





CERTIFICATE 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 Report of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the period indicated. This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.








Dated: June 23, 2011




/s/ Steven R. Blake


Steven R. Blake


Chief Financial Officer
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust III and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended December 28, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary Carlin, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of
the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    (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 Partners

                       MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.

                       By:     MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                       By:     /s/ GARY CARLIN
                              -----------------------------------------
                           Name:   Gary Carlin*
                           Title:  Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.



Dated: March 25, 2008
-----------------------
* Gary Carlin functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Kenneth D. King and Judith King, by and through Judith King, 

Independent Executor of the Estate of Kenneth King, deceased v. 

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee, on 

behalf of the Owners of Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-4 Asset 

Backed notes, By its Attorney-In-Fact and Servicer in-fact, select 

Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-13-01091-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-36457

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

Appellants have filed a Motion to Supplement Appellants’ Brief, requesting that we 

permit the supplementation of their brief and take judicial notice of records filed in the 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals. Appellee has filed a response in opposition.

Appellants’ motion is granted in part; Appellants may file a supplemental brief with 

records, as described in their motion, within 10 days of the date of this order. Appellants’ 

request that we take judicial notice of the records to be attached is carried with the case, and 

will be determined upon submission. 

Should appellee wish to file a responsive supplemental brief, any such brief will be due 

no later than 30 days from the date appellants’ supplemental brief is filed.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 24, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27344]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-54-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Transportation Service 
Agreement

October 19, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 13, 2000, El Paso Natural Gas Company 
(El Paso) tendered for filing an amended and restated firm 
Transportation Service Agreement (TSA) between El Paso and MGI Supply, 
Ltd. (MGI).
    El Paso states that it is submitting the TSA for Commission 
approval since the TSA revises the rate provisions of an executed 
service agreement on file with the Commission. The TSA is proposed to 
become effective on October 8, 2000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before October 26, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27344 Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Ex parte STRAWN.

No. 22673.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1943.

Randolph Pierson, of Galveston, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint in Justice Court, Precinct No'. 1 of Galveston County, with felony theft. On June 15, 1943, an examining trial was held and the justice bound appellant over to the grand jury, fixing bond at $1,000. The grand jury for the June term of the District Court was impanelled on June 14, 1943, and was discharged on July 23, 1943. Appellant was not indicted by the grand jury then in session, but the matter was “passed to the incoming grand jury” which would not be organized until the October term of the District Court.

Appellant sought release by habeas corpus in August, 1943, contending that the June grand jury having adjourned without returning an indictment, he was being illegally held. From the order remanding him he prosecutes this appeal.

*418It is made known to this court that appellant was indicted by the grand jury im-panelled at the October term of the District Court of Galveston County for the same alleged felony theft for which he was proceeded against in the Justice Court in June. It thus appears that the question sought to be raised by appellant in the habeas corpus proceedings has become moot, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3096 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the building occupied by the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation located at 801 Follin Lane, Vienna, Virginia, as the ‘‘Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening 

Center’’. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3096 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The building occupied by the Federal Bureau of In3 vestigation located at 801 Follin Lane, Vienna, Virginia, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Michael D. Resnick 

5 Terrorist Screening Center’’ during the period in which 

6 the building is occupied by the Federal Bureau of Inves7 tigation. 

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

9 During the period in which the building referred to 

10 in section 1 is occupied by the Federal Bureau of Inves11 tigation, any reference in a law, map, regulation, docu12 ment, paper, or other record of the United States to that 

13 building shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Michael 

14 D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 

2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38474

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

MANUEL AVILA

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 716

Filed: November 21, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff , District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of

sentence, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Manuel Avila pled guilty to murder in the second degree . Idaho Code § § 18

- 4001 to 18

-

4003 . The district court sentenced Avila to unified term of thirty years, with a minimum period

of confinement of ten years . Avila filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion as to the

indeterminate portion of his sentence, wh ich the district court denied. Avila appe als.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the2 motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including the new information submitted with Avila’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Avila’s Rule

35 motion is affirmed

.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64695-64696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27772]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-3444-001]


Sempra Energy Solutions; Notice of Filing

October 24, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 12, 2000, Sempra Energy Solutions, 
tendered for filing proposed designations for its revised FERC Electric 
Rate Schedule No. 1 in its FERC Electric Service Tariff pursuant to 
Commission Order No. 614.
    The proposed designations are tendered pursuant to a letter order

[[Page 64696]]

issued September 12, 2000 under authority delegated to Michael C. 
McLaughlin, Director, Division of Corporate Applications.
    Copies of the filing were served upon the official service lists in 
Docket Nos. ER96-2372-018, ER98-3515-000 and ER00-3444-000, and on the 
California Public Utilities Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or November 2, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests 
may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web 
site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27772 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Audrey BILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 76-2830

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 10, 1977.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 10, 1977.

B. J. Smith, Decatur, Ga., for petitioner-appellant.

Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Gilbert E. Andrews, Jr., Act. Chief, App. Sect., Dept, of Justice, Meade Whitaker, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Gary R. Allen, Tax Div., Francis J. Gould, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GEWIN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., see *Isbell Enterprises,*Inc. v. *Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.*

PER CURIAM:

The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed on the basis of its opinion, reported at 35 T.C.M. 406 (1976).
#### Theo T. BOWLING, Appellant, v. D. V. WILSON, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 17, 1954.

W. M. Melton, Hazard, for appellant.

W. C. Robinson, Booneville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We are affirming the default judgment for $600 in this case for damages to the appellee’s car because we think the lower court was justified in entering the default judgment upon the failure of the appellant to appear either in person or by counsel. The record shows that the court gave the appellant’s son, who appeared for him on the day set for the trial, sufficient time to contact counsel. However, the son failed to obtain counsel or report back to the court.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(b)



                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 EnergySouth, Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John S.
Davis, President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


Date: December 6, 2002                           /s/ John S. Davis
      -----------------------                    -----------------
                                                 John S. Davis
                                                 President and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
FOR THE YEAR ENDED
    
    
    FOR THE YEAR ENDED
    
    
    FOR THE YEAR ENDEDDECEMBER 31, 2010
    
    
    DECEMBER 31, 2009
    
    
    DECEMBER 26, 2008MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCHPREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERREDCAPITAL TRUST V
    
    
    FUNDING V, L.P.
    
    
    CAPITAL TRUST V
    
    
    FUNDING V, L.P.
    
    
    CAPITAL TRUST V
    
    
    FUNDING V, L.P.Earnings
    
    $
    63,795
    
    
    $
    74,322
    
    
    $
    63,795
    
    
    $
    74,337
    
    
    $
    63,795
    
    
    $
    74,535Fixed charges
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    Preferred securities
distribution
requirements
    
    
    61,880
    
    
    
    63,795
    
    
    
    61,880
    
    
    
    63,795
    
    
    
    61,880
    
    
    
    63,795Total combined fixed
charges and preferred
securities distribution
requirements
    
    $
    61,880
    
    
    $
    63,795
    
    
    $
    61,880
    
    
    $
    63,795
    
    
    $
    61,880
    
    
    $
    63,795Ratio of earnings to
combined fixed charges
and preferred securities
distribution requirements
    
    
    1.03
    
    
    
    1.17
    
    
    
    1.03
    
    
    
    1.17
    
    
    
    1.03
    
    
    
    1.17
#### VOGEL v. STATE.

No. 22588.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 16, 1943.

Darroch & McCartney, of Brownwood,. for appellant.

*345Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of robbery by assault, and by the jury assessed a term of five years in the penitentiary.

There is no statement of facts found in the record.

All requested instructions presented by appellant were by the court refused. In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to say whether such instructions were called for by the proven facts in such cause.

Finding no error presented herein, the judgment is affirmed.
#### GILLIAM v. GILLIAM et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 12, 1951.

J. K. Beasley, Harlan, for appellant.

V. A. Jordan, K. H. Tuggle, Barbour-ville, for appellees.

*627CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

This is the fourth case we have had before us since 1941 involving disputes between Mrs.' Carrie Gilliam and the heirs of her deceased husband. Gilliam v. Gilliam, 293 Ky. 772, 170 S.W.2d 343; Gilliam v. Gilliam, 302 Ky. 129, 194 S.W.2d 75; Gilliam v. Gilliam, 306 Ky. 102, 206 S.W.2d 199.

This action was instituted under subsection 4 of Section 518, of the Civil Code of Practice. It was charged that a judgment in a previous action had been obtained by fraud. Mrs. Gilliam said her petition as originally drawn stated that her husband had died testate, but while the pleadings were in the office of the Circuit Court Clerk the petition was made to read that her husband had died intestate. There was the further allegation that Mrs. Gilliam’s husband had died testate and that she and her husband had executed joint wills prior to his death. The appeal is from an order sustaining a demurrer to the petition.

It has been pointed out frequently that, in an action to set aside a judgment after term on the ground that it was obtained by fraud, the facts constituting the fraud of the successful party must be set out specifically and fully and that a general allegation of fraud is not sufficient. Hargis Commercial Bank & Trust Company’s Liquidating Agent v. Eversole, 255 Ky. 377, 74 S.W.2d 193; Board of Education of Pulaski County v. Nelson, 261 Ky. 466, 88 S.W.2d 17. The only basis for the charge of fraud in Mrs. Gilliam’s petition was that one of the defendants in the original action was related to the Circuit Clerk, and that the records were changed while in the custody of that officer. There was no charge that any of the defendants altered the records, or that they were changed with their knowledge or at their direction. Under the circumstances, we think the demurrer was properly sustained to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.
#### KIMMONS v. STATE.

No. 22683.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 22, 1943.

No attorney for appellant. ■

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The record in the case has no caption showing when the term of court began and closed. There are no bills of exception and no statement of fact. The bond is an appearance bond to the district court, and no recognizance or appeal bond bringing the case to this court appears in the record. There is no proper notice of appeal entered in the record. We find the copy of a paper addressed to the county judge giving notice of appeal, and this paper is likewise signed by the county judge without showing that it was entered of record. Other irregularities appear which are not mentioned, because this court has no jurisdiction to pass upon them.

The appeal is dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Daniel R. Kadolph, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,certify that:
1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Midwest Banc Holdings,Inc.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, 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 inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) [intentionally omitted]  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: March 12, 2004
/s/ Daniel R. KadolphDaniel R. Kadolph