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


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of LeCroy Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Scott D. Kantor, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of THE Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:


         (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.



   November 10, 2003                           /s/ Scott D. Kantor
                                               ---------------------------
                                                   Scott D. Kantor
                                                   Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Willard Moore, Respondent, v Edward Moore, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (S. Barrett Hickman, J.), entered June 21, 1989, which awarded plaintiff $232,193 plus interest and costs, after a jury trial, as reduced by the trial court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff and an independent witness testified that on August 29, 1985, the defendant, plaintiff’s brother, punched the plaintiff to the ground, and then stomped or jumped on his leg, breaking his ankle. Jorge Pena, the nonparty witness, was asked on cross-examination whether he had spoken to anyone other than plaintiff or his lawyer about the incident, and Pena said he did not. Defendant then offered the testimony of Miguel Vigo, a private investigator retained by the defendant, to the effect that he had spoken to Pena approximately two years after the incident, and that Pena had said that he did not want to get involved with the lawsuit "unless there was some money for him.”

The trial court’s refusal to allow the testimony was a proper exercise of discretion. Generally, "a cross-examiner cannot *contradict*a witness’ answers concerning collateral matters by producing extrinsic evidence for the *sole purpose*of impeaching credibility” *(People v Schwartzman,*24 NY2d 241, 245, *cert denied*396 US 846 [emphasis in original]). Moreover, Mr. Pena’s testimony about not having spoken to anyone about the case, clearly collateral since relevant only to credibility, was brought out first on cross-examination; thus plaintiff did not " 'open the door’ ” to impeachment by bringing that matter out on Pena’s direct examination *(People v Wise,*46 NY2d 321, 327).

*207The finding of liability was not against the weight of the evidence, and the award to plaintiff, as reduced by the trial court, was not excessive in view of the seriousness of the plaintiffs injury. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
LATISSHA M. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF F ILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 0255

Opinion filed April 12, 2016.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

La Tissha M. Johnson , pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.

PER CURIAM.

The petition se eking a belated appeal of the judgment and sentence rendered on

July 2, 2014, in Duval County Circuit Court case number 2012

- CF

- 006828, is granted.

Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the

lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal. If petitioner qualifies for the2 appointment of counsel at public expense, the lower tribunal is directed to appoint

counsel to represent her in the appeal authorized by this opinion.

WOLF, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCU R.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1177

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to charge entrance or admission

fees at the National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center at Flagstaff Hill in Baker City, Oregon.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2, 1993

Mr. SMITH of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to charge entrance

or admission fees at the National Historic Oregon Trail

Interpretive Center at Flagstaff Hill in Baker City,

Oregon.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH FEES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior is

5 authorized to establish entrance or admission fees at the

6 National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center at

7 Flagstaff Hill in Baker City, Oregon. Such fees shall be

8 established for both single visits and annual permits and
2

•HR 1177 IH

1 shall be on a per person basis, except as provided by sub2 section (b).

3 (b) GOLDEN PASSPORT.—The Secretary shall admit

4 an individual who displays a valid Golden Access Passport,

5 Golden Eagle Passport, together with such other persons

6 covered by such a passport, issued pursuant to section 4

7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

8 (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a).

9 (c) PROCEEDS.—Notwithstanding any other provi10 sion of law, the Secretary shall establish an account for

11 the National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center

12 and shall deposit the entrance or admission fees collected

13 under subsection (a) into that account. The account shall

14 be operated on a revolving fund basis for the purpose of

15 augmenting the appropriated funds used to operate and

16 maintain the National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive

17 Center at Flagstaff Hill in Baker City, Oregon.

Æ
Case 7:22-cr-00027-O Document 62 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 183
Case 7:22-cr-00027-O Document 62 Filed 11/09/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 184
EXHIBIT 10.4


                      DESCRIPTION OF CONSULTING ARRANGEMENT
                         WITH DREAMFIELD PARTNERS, INC.



In April 2000, the Company entered into a consulting arrangement with DreamField
Partners, Inc., a company owned by Bill L. Fairfield, a director of the Company.
Under this  arrangement,  DreamField  Partners,  Inc.  provided  consulting  and
advisory  services to the Company for the equivalent of  approximately  two days
per month and was paid a monthly retainer of $5,000 plus expense  reimbursement.
In December  2000, the  arrangement  was modified to the equivalent of four days
per month for a monthly retainer of $10,000 plus expense reimbursement. In March
2001, in connection  with the Board's  appointment  of Chairman of the Board and
founder James F. Lynch as Chief Executive  Officer,  the arrangement was further
modified.  Mr. Fairfield,  through DreamField Partners,  now provides consulting
and  advisory  services  as  requested  by the Chief  Executive  Officer for the
equivalent  of 20 days per month for a monthly  retainer of $33,333 plus expense
reimbursement.  The  consulting  arrangement  continues  month  to  month  until
terminated by either party.
# Official Journal L 309/2011

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2011.309.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 309 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5424 November 2011 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2011.309.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 309

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5424 November 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2011/746/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05)
  (notified under document C(2011) 956)

   (1) | 1 |
| | | 2011/747/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 24 May 2011 on State aid C 88/97 implemented by France in favour of Crédit Mutuel
  (notified under document C(2011) 3436)

   (1) | 23 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2011/746/EU

*

Commission Decision of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05)
  (notified under document C(2011) 956)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 956)

1

2011/747/EU

*

Commission Decision of 24 May 2011 on State aid C 88/97 implemented by France in favour of Crédit Mutuel
  (notified under document C(2011) 3436)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 3436)

23

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission.                     

# DATES:

                        Submit comments on or before December 29, 2000. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments                               ( print page 71195)                            promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.                     

# COPIES:

Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer. 

# ADDRESSES:

Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title:*                     Voluntary Customer surveys in Accordance with E.O. 12862.                 

*No:*                     N/A.                 

*Frequency:*                     On Occasion.                 

*Description of Respondents:*                     Various SBA Program Offices.                 

*Annual Responses:*                     86,614.                 

*Annual Burden:*                     13.102.                 

Jacqueline White, 

Chief, Administrative Information Branch.

[FR Doc. 00-30334 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### In the Matter of Horace G. Jones, Jr., Deceased. Philip B. Matthews, Appellant.

In an accounting proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2208, the petitioner appeals from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated July 6, 1989, as fixed his compensation for legal services at $4,500, directed that the balance of the funds remaining in the petitioner’s hands be distributed solely to the decedent’s *449legatees and struck out the word "or their assigns” from the sixth decretal paragraph of the proposed decree.

Ordered that the decree is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting the sixth decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision directing that the balance of funds remaining in the hands of the executor be paid and distributed to the respective legatees named in the last will and testament of Horace G. Jones, Jr., and to the residuary distributees or their assignees, in proportion to their respective designated shares; as so modified, the decree is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Surrogate did not improvidently exercise his discretion in fixing the amount of compensation to which the petitioner was entitled for legal services to the estate *(see, Matter of Verplanck,*151 AD2d 767; *Matter of Von Hofe,*145 AD2d 424; *see also, Matter of Wolf,*147 AD2d 487). In this regard, we note that the legal services rendered by the petitioner to this estate were largely routine *(see, Matter of Ury,*108 AD2d 816), and that many of the services rendered constituted functions of an executor and thus could not properly be considered in the setting of the legal fee *(see, Matter of Verplanck, supra; Matter of Von Hofe, supra; Matter of Bernheimer,*61 AD2d 761).

However, in view of the fact that the decedent’s sisters formally assigned their interest as distributees of the 5% residue of the decedent’s estate to a nonprofit child care organization, the appellant’s request to modify the decree to permit distribution of the balance of the estate directly to the assignee is granted. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1083 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1083

To prohibit Federal financial assistance to localities whose officials 
     refuse to cooperate in the arrest and deportation of an alien 
                unlawfully present in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 1993

Mr. Gallegly (for himself, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Oxley, Mr. 
  Stump, Mr. Baker of Louisiana, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. 
   Moorhead, Mr. Dreier, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Archer, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. 
Crane, Mr. McCandless, Mr. Dornan, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Royce, Mr. Barton of 
 Texas, Mr. Packard, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Herger, Mr. Calvert, 
  Mr. Horn, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Pombo, and Mr. Cox) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit Federal financial assistance to localities whose officials 
     refuse to cooperate in the arrest and deportation of an alien 
                unlawfully present in the United States.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCALITIES 
              THAT REFUSE TO COOPERATE IN THE ARREST AND DEPORTATION OF 
              UNLAWFUL ALIENS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal financial 
assistance shall be paid to any local government on and after such date 
as the Attorney General certifies that an official, officer, or 
employee of the local government (including its police department) in 
the exercise of (and within the lawful scope of) the individual's 
official duties has refused, on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, to cooperate with an officer or employee of the Department of 
Justice (including the Immigration and Naturalization Service) with 
respect to the arrest and deportation of an alien who is not lawfully 
present within the United States.

                                 <all>
```
#### MEEK v. WHEELER COUNTY et al.

No. 7571.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Nov. 27, 1940.

Reynolds & Heare, of Shamrock, for plaintiff in error.

Sanders & Scott and Howard F. Saunders, all of Amarillo, and Homer Moss, Co. Atty., of Wheeler, for defendants in error.

HARVEY, Commissioner.

In this case the Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants in error. The plaintiff in error, C. J. Meek, has been granted the writ of error. In affirming the judgment of the trial court, the Court of Civil Appeals, speaking through Associate Justice Folley, rendered an opinion which is reported in 125 S.W.2d 331. The opinion is found to be correct and we approve it. There is no necessity for us to write further on the subject. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, affirming the judgment of the trial court, is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

We approve the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case as recommended by the Commission of Appeals, with the following statement:

We think the Court of Civil Appeals was correct in holding that Senate Bill No. 568, Ch. 174, p. 355, Special Laws, 42d Legislature, 1931, was repealed by Senate Bill No. 209, Ch. 220, page 734, Acts 43d Legislature, 1933.

Senate Bill No. 568, omitting formal parts, reads as follows:

> “Section 1. In all counties having a population of not less than 15,550, and not more than 15,800 according to the last available Federal Census and each available Federal Census thereafter, all officers shall be entitled to receive the fees earned by their respective offices in accordance with the provisions of the Maximum Fee Bill; provided, however, that in such counties the maximum amount of fees which may be retained, including all excess fees, shall be Six Thousand ($6,000.00) Dollars for each officer, .whose office earns sufficient fees-to pay this amount. Each officer earning fees in excess of Six Thousand ($6,000.00) Dollars shall make disposition of such excess in accordance with the provisions of the Maximum Fee Bill. All officers in counties hereby affected shall be entitled to deputies and assistants in the manner authorized in the Maximum Fee Bill.”

In approving the foregoing opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals we do not intimate that we think the above-quoted Act of 1931 is constitutional.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          34,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,053,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,377,000
<INVENTORY>                                 25,418,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            71,885,000
<PP&E>                                      43,744,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,997,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             148,359,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      199,579,000
<BONDS>                                    132,617,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (58,763,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               148,359,000
<SALES>                                     69,836,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            69,836,000
<CGS>                                       56,962,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,962,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,317,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,703,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,824,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,824,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (65,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,889,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.34)


</TABLE>