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

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of SITEL Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for theperiod ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jorge A. Celaya, ExecutiveVice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| */s/ Jorge A. Celaya*                             |                |       |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------|------------|
| ** **                                        | **Jorge A. Celaya** | ** ** |
| Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |                |
|                                                   |                     |            |  |

 

September 13,2006

----
<PAGE>

                       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 of National Energy Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10 K/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bob
G. Alexander, 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 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.



                                        By: /s/ BOB G. ALEXANDER
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Bob G. Alexander
                                           President and Chief Executive 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.



                                       16
#### WINTERS v. STATE.

No. 21132.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 12, 1940.

Earl Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for aggravated assault, punishment assessed being sixty days in jail.

The indictment properly charges the offense. No statement of facts or bills of exception are brought forward. The only complaint is at the refusal of two requested charges, and some exceptions to the instructions of the court to the jury. In the absence of the facts we are not able to appraise^ any of the matters brought forward in the manner indicated.

The judgment is affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

REVISED JANUARY 26, 2007

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40472

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GILBERTO GARCIA-LOZANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-1019-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gilberto GarciaLozano raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense; by United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454

(5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006), which held

that a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation was

equivalent to burglary of a dwelling; and by United States v.
No. 06-40472

-2-

Carmichael, 343 F.3d 756, 761-62 (5th Cir. 2003), which held that

a challenge to the district court's order requiring the defendant

to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of

supervised release is not ripe for review on direct appeal. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
Designated Federal Official Contact Information: Jeff Slowikowski at Jeff.Slowikowski@usdoj.gov

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

U.S. Department of Justice

810 7th Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20531

Main Conference Room, 3

rd Floor

Friday, June 17, 2016

10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. EST 

10:00 – 10:15 a.m. Opening Remarks & Introductions

Jeff Slowikowski, Designated Federal Official, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

Robert L. Listenbee, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention and Vice Chair, Coordinating Council on

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

10:15 – 10:45 a.m. Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (IWGYP)

Presentation, Discussion and Question and Answer Session 

Michelle Boyd, Social Science Analyst, Division of Children and Youth 

Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services

Sarah Oberlander, Social Science Analyst, Division of Children and Youth 

Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services

10:45 – 11:45 a.m. Open Discussion on Sustaining Interagency Relationships 

Robert L. Listenbee, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, and Vice Chair, Coordinating Council on 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

11:45 – 11:55 a.m. Coordinating Council Member Updates and Announcements 

11:55 – 12:00 p.m. Meeting Summary and Wrap Up

12:00 p.m. Meeting Adjournment
[J-3-2019]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

RAHEEM WILLIAMS,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 20 EAP 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Superior 

Court entered on December 22, 2017 

at No. 1249 EDA 2016 affirming the 

Judgment of Sentence entered on 

January 20, 2016 in the Court of 

Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, 

Criminal Division at Nos. CP-51-CR0015842-2013, CP-51-CR-0015843-

2013 and CP-51-CR-0015844-2013.

ARGUED: March 6, 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of June, 2019, the appeal is DISMISSED as having been 

improvidently granted.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1532

To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to limit the age restrictions

imposed upon aircraft pilots.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 30, 1993

Mr. LIGHTFOOT (for himself, Mr. STUMP, Mr. WISE, Mr. PORTER, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming, Mr. MINGE, Mr. JACOBS, Mrs.

VUCANOVICH, Mr. LEACH, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. HEFLEY,

Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. CLEMENT, and Mrs. BENTLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and

Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to limit the

age restrictions imposed upon aircraft pilots.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AGE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED

4 UPON AIRCRAFT PILOTS.

5 Section 602(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958

6 (49 U.S.C. 1422(b)) is amended by adding at the end

7 thereof the following new paragraph:
2

•HR 1532 IH

1 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON AGE RESTRICTIONS.—The

2 Administrator shall not, solely by reason of the age

3 of a person, if such person is less than 65 years of

4 age—

5 ‘‘(A) refuse to issue an airman certificate

6 to, or refuse to renew such certificate for, such

7 person, if such person is applying for the issu8 ance or renewal of such certificate in order to

9 serve or continue to serve as a pilot of an air10 craft; or

11 ‘‘(B) require an air carrier to terminate

12 the employment of, or refuse to employ, such

13 person as a pilot on an aircraft of such air car14 rier.’’.

Æ
AMENDMENT NO. 3
                                     TO THE
                     AMENDED AND RESTATED SITEL CORPORATION
                         1995 EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN
                                        
                          As Adopted February 12, 1998
                            _________________________


      1.    Section 2(ee) of the Amended and Restated SITEL Corporation 1995
Employee Stock Option Plan is amended to state in its entirety as follows:

      (ee)  "Subsidiary" shall mean any corporation (other than the Corporation)
in an unbroken chain of corporations beginning with the Corporation if, at the
time of granting an Option, each of the corporations (other than the last
corporation in the unbroken chain) owns stock possessing 50% or more of the
voting power in one of the other corporations in such chain; provided, however,
that for purposes of Awards consisting of Incentive Stock Options, the above
percentage shall be 80% rather than 50%.
@ NATIVE VILLAGE OF NULATO.

2 @ ORGANIZED VILLAGE
@ PORT GRAHAM OF KAKE

p> 2012 Youtn summit

YOUNG LEADERS SHAPING THEIR COMMUNITIES

a a pee See Se ee ee ee ee ee
@suN'ac TRIBE OF KODIAK slsl]alsl=lelelelelslelelelslelelel=l=|2!=\=\=|=|='

@ QAGAN TAYAGUNGIN

@ KALISPEL
® puyauup @ ORT oe aselna @ TURTLE MOUNTAIN CHIPPEWA
ASSL E i
@Nezrmnce ® ° tN NRE? APRILIATED @ soI5 FORTE ONBWE
@ CONFEDERATED CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBES i J A@ BAY MILLS
TRIBES OF SILETZ @ RED CUFF oe
LAC COURTE OREILLES
e : @* @soKaocon
BURNS PAIUTE LOWER BRULE SIOUX

@GcROW cREEK SIOUX @ @ MENOMINEE
@ EASTERN SHOSHONE @ ROSEBUD SiOUX
eg RENO SPARKS
@WASHOE

YERINGTON PAIUTE
@
@ WALKER RIVER PAIUTE

@ KickAPOO
@ SOUTHERN UTE ©
@ HUALAPAL PUEBLO OF JEMEZ
@ NAVAIO SANTA CLARA PUEBLO ~~ ABSENTEE-SHAWNEE EASTERN BAND
ZUNL PUEBLO KEETOOWAH BAND @ Or CHEROKEE
ee @  @ SPUEBLO OF POICAQUE,  g@ GcHERoKEE : ;
FORT MCDOWELL SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA, @ @ O Niscocce CREEK)
@CiA RIVER @ CHICKASAW
SR EYENNE
j 4 MISSISSIPP] BAND OF
AND ARAPAH
@ PASCUA YAQUI ARAPAHO @ cHoctaw INDIANS

@ TRIBES PARTICIPATING IN THE
2012 NATIONAL INTERTRIBAL YOUTH SUMMIT
(53 TOTAL TEAMS)

STOCKBRIDGE MUNSEE @ SENECA NATION

@ PENOBSCOT

WAMPANOAG
Fr6Y>KCxovoleiL| txsVcici- (Wn^ C/oCx\mmo\ fifcwtfV of P. Ot 6o>C .12308 CoptVp\ Stolon (\usVif)(T^7B-7l/

bmce£>&^s Cajtf&y AW^ re^ends k> r/u/ moVtoi/^ torihy 

### t>f pd^to^-21 avr\ madm^ 6, copy ofiks telleroM Hie atfaoVi&l mtyMV4V\e tood: tf aimmai4p6dlbm Au^Vn.x sat ^0* 

### iSamc&H %2o\). ftpdW Cxn\n^ Lcsn Oc&jOay voaskited bvy My fixr^j oft F^oruo^Y i•\,26ii, waA s\\e Mwedujtety had access -fe • C^^w^^fcAtteW^V^w^ s^teroa -.differ©a)- o(ico5%by awi

15
A.ji;:'^J»-n- •,\,«U; ? ?;-£;\ n /24-S13 OTIOM DEEDED Wi RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JAN 20 2015 Abel Acosta, Clerk

SltidSr•;v:iVV '";•'/ •'" toi>M wo,s • ••'•' •"'• .;-'.-•/.;•••' /.• pErr>TiQ^^fe PRQ.'Se NvgngQ for this '-'-'.-'" >HeWfee^ ^os Crestedfcr>he^^ on wnimty,^ M»*|dVkJ 9;ie cice ^e ftm^nme^ <^s ^ «*: bfe ktei feeds ** cause 4ft,e P*fewS uo.% m bo^^^AoiUWftyfor 3? m^^^f 

### 6^° M^'S2r•L^^\fefr*«W*i5 few

Vi(^ felonies. f.fto^horPOM-, TX 775SS (^e.(2.tIH <i>ra^^ 

### Mto for Gduc^4o Resp4 ^ Qrfori3 W>tern \XS mM ^^mjC^^^^.

^Uti&E. pa^e 2^f2.
AMENDMENT SIX TO MARKETING AGREEMENT


This document is Amendment Six to the Marketing  Agreement made and entered into
effective  June 1, 1993,  and amended by Amendment  One to  Marketing  Agreement
dated  September 16, 1993;  Amendment Two to Marketing  Agreement  dated June 4,
1998; Amendment Three to Marketing Agreement dated September 25, 1998; Amendment
Four to Marketing  Agreement  dated  October 19,  1998;  and  Amendment  Five to
Marketing  Agreement dated December 15, 1998, (the "Agreement"),  by and between
American National Insurance Company  ("American  National") a Texas corporation,
and Legacy Marketing Group ("LMG"), a California corporation.

In  consideration  of mutual covenants  contained  herein,  the parties agree as
follows:

1.   Section 3.1 of the  Agreement  is hereby  deleted in its  entirety  and the
     following new Section 3.1 shall be substituted therefor:

     "3.1 Subject to termination as hereinafter  provided,  this Agreement shall
     remain in force and effect until the close of business on May 15, 1999, the
     term of this Agreement.  This Agreement may be renewed by mutual  agreement
     for successive  terms of one (1) year unless  terminated by either party by
     prior  written  notice to the other at least one hundred  eighty (180) days
     prior to the end of the initial term or the renewal term."

2.   Except as  specifically  amended  hereby,  all items and  provisions of the
     Marketing Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


LEGACY MARKETING GROUP                   AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE
                                         COMPANY


By: /s/ David A. Skup                    By: /s/ David Behrens
    ------------------------------           ------------------------------

Title: CFO & Treasurer                   Title: Exec VP of Independent Marketing
       ---------------------------              ---------------------------

Witness: /s/ Katie Shannon               Witness: /s/ Gretchen Childress
         -------------------------                -------------------------

Date: 3/25/99                            Date: 3/29/99
      ----------------------------             ----------------------------
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1347

To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National Park.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1993

Mr. DICKEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National Park.

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

3 That the boundary of Hot Springs National Park is modi4 fied as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Proposed Boundary

5 Map’’, numbered 128/80015, and dated August 5, 1985.

Æ
#### Herman GEORGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22189.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1942.

Nat Gentry, Jr., of Tyler, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Theft of cattle is the offense. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

Since perfecting his appeal, appellant has filed a motion, duly verified, requesting the privilege of withdrawing said appeal. The motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District *

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1903EA

_____________

Pamela Hill, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: November 20, 1997

Filed: November 26, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, District Judge. *

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Pamela Hill appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment upholding the

Commissioner's decision to deny Hill disability insurance benefits. After careful review

of the administrative record and the parties' briefs, we conclude substantial evidence

supports the decision of the Commissioner that Hill is not disabled for social security

purposes and the judgment of the district court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Internet Marketing & Videography

JBS Media 1329 Hwy 395 N Ste 10-144, Gardnerville, NV 89410 775-544-3261

Drone Flying procedures

Setting up for flight

1. Upon arrival to property look over premises and notice the structure and surrounding area

2. After surveying area mentally get a flight plan, taking in consideration of trees, power lines, 

poles, and other obstructions

3. Now setting up drone in a clear area to set for takeoff and landing area. Make sure that there 

are no obstructions over this area

4. You must check all aspects of the drone to ensure that it will operate with full abilities.

5. Now attach the props so that they are tight and fully functional

6. Power on controller first so that control of drone is established (make sure the battery is fresh 

and meter reads full)

7. Install a fully charged battery into drone (make sure the battery is fresh and meter reads full)

8. Now power drone on

9. Make sure that connectivity is established with controller to drone 

10. Set the compass and ensure the GPS is strong

11. Set the home parameters so that the drone safety features can return it to the takeoff and 

landing location

12. Set the ceiling to 200ft so that the drone stays below flight limitations

13. Set altitude to 100ft so that you are above any obstructions and can get a clear view of the 

property

14. Now the drone can takeoff

15. Once leveled at the set altitude circle property so that the flight pattern is clear and 

unobstructed

16. Now start media to record the property in a complete and flattering view

17. Once the desired media is captured return drone to a safe landing approach

18. Now bring the drone back to the takeoff and landing location

19. Once on the ground bring all the functions of drone to a stop

20. Make sure the props are completely stopped and no one can activate controller to engage 

motion

21. Power the drone off and remove the battery

22. Now remove the props

23. Controller can be turned off at this time and the drone can be put away
Order entered August 31 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00928
- CV VALET LIVING, LLC AND VALET PARENT, INC. D/B/A VALET WASTE HOLDINGS, INC. , Appellant V. JASMINE AMBER MITCHELL , Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 20
- 09789

O RDER By letter of August 9, 2022, we requested that the parties advise the Court of the status of this appeal withi n ten days. By separate letter, we requested the Dallas County District Clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’ s Amended Order for Non

- Suit signed on July 28, 2022, in the underlying case. The District Clerk complied with ou r request, but the parties did not. When contacted by the Clerk Pro Tempore by telephone on August 24, 2022 , counsel forappellant reported that the case had been settled and a motion to dismiss the appeal

would be filed. To date, however, no motion has be en filed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that appellant file, no later than September 6, 2022 , either a motion to dismiss the appeal or a letter brief showing cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. We caution that the appeal may be dismissed without fur ther notice if appellant fails to file the requested motion or letter brief.
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(c).

/s/ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE
#### Robert E. Clapp, Jr., Respondent, v Bessie Williams, Appellant.

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ingraham, J.), entered January 3, 1990 in Chenango County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident occurring October 31, 1985 on State Route 12 in Chenango County. The complaint alleged serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had failed to meet that statutory threshold. Supreme Court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

We affirm. As articulated in his bill of particulars, the "serious injury” claimed by plaintiff was damage to his hips, lower back and neck, constituting a "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevented] the [plaintiff] from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute [his] usual and *799customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the [accident]” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). In support of her motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted, *inter alia,*the sworn affidavit of a physician who had examined plaintiff and found no evidence of a current disability or evidence that plaintiff "was disabled from substantial performance of his usual and customary activities for more than one day following the accident”. Such evidence shifted the burden to plaintiff "to come forward with evidentiary proof to validate [his] claim” *(Figueroa v Torgerson,*147 AD2d 883, 884). Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion included the sworn affidavit of his chiropractor who opined, *inter alia,*that plaintiff was unable to resume his normal work activities and "suffers from a permanent, mild to moderate disability”. In our view, the opinion of plaintiff’s chiropractor based on his objective findings created sufficient factual issues to deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment *(see, Ackerson v Mincey,*162 AD2d 934).

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1346 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1346

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To redesignate the Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin 
       Islands, as the ``Almeric L. Christian Federal Building''.





103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1346

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
To designate the Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, 
           as the ``Almeric L. Christian Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Almeric L. Christian Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Almeric L. 
Christian Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`