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 this  Quarterly  Report  of  UnionBanCal  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
David I. Matson, Chief Financial 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated:  November 8, 2005




                                                 By: /s/ DAVID I. MATSON
                                                     ___________________________
                                                         David I. Matson
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,859,891
<SECURITIES>                                31,566,526
<RECEIVABLES>                                  226,531
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,086,422
<PP&E>                                      37,975,825
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,013,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,293,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,323,749
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  56,715,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,293,307
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,331,310
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,434,255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                897,055
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            897,055
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   897,055
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,884
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,478
<PP&E>                                          19,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,223
<BONDS>                                          3,705
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,185
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,791
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,421
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,092)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       321
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    213
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,626)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

           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 Trimol Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company 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) 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 Company as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.


                                                     /s/ Yuri Benenson
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Yuri Benenson
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     TRIMOL GROUP, INC.

August 14, 2003
#### CAMERON COUNTY v. FOX et al.

Motions Nos. 10857 and 10858; No. 1669-6147.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Nov. 1, 1933.

For former opinion, see 61 S,W.(2d) 483.

H. L. Faulk, James L. Abney, and M. R. Hall, all of Brownsville, for plaintiff in error.

Seabury, George & Taylor, R. A. Hightower, and West & Hightower, all of Brownsville, for defendants in error.

HARVEY, Presiding Judge.

On May 31, 1933, the Supreme Court, on the recommendation of this section of the Commission, reversed the judgment of the trial court and that of the Court of Civil Appeals, 42 S.W.(2d) 653, and remanded the cause for another trial. Our opinion in the case is reported in 61 S.W.(2d) 483. Cameron county, as well as the defendants in error, have filed motions for rehearing.

In the county’s motion our attention is called to the fact that in passing on the question respecting “overtime payments” by Fox to his deputies, we said, in effect, that prior to the 1921 amendment of article 3903 of the Revised Statutes of 1911 (Acts 37th Leg. c. 96), there was no statute which limited the *141amount of salaries payable by the tax collector to Ms deputies, from the fees of his office. We now discover that the said article was amended in the year 1920 (Acts of 3d Called Sess., 36th Leg., chapter 32). This amendment escaped our notice at the time our original opinion in the case was written. The provisions of this amendment, which disclose the legislative purpose to limit the amount of salaries of the tax collector’s deputies, are the same as that contained in the subsequent amendments of said article. In this respect, our opinion is hereby corrected accordingly.

We have duly considered the other matters presented in the county’s motion for rehearing, and have also duly considered the motion for rehearing filed by the defendants in error, and recommend that both motions be overruled.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE DE JESUS LAMAS FLORES;

EMELIA GARCIA DE LAMAS,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 05-70324

 05-74221

Agency Nos. A077-374-934

 A077-374-935

MEMORANDUM *

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

In this consolidated petition for review, Felipe De Jesus Lamas Flores and

Emelia Garcia De Lamas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing their appeal from an

FILED

AUG 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 05-70324/05-74221

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of

removal, and denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional challenges, Ram v. INS, 243

F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review in No. 05-70324, and grant the petition for review in No. 05-74221 and

remand.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed

to establish the requisite hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 596

(9th Cir. 2006). Contrary to petitioners’ contentions, the agency’s interpretation of

the hardship standard falls within the broad range of permissible interpretations of

the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1005-06 (9th Cir.

2003). Petitioners failed to exhaust the contention that the IJ made erroneous

factual findings. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

We are in receipt of Petitioners’ Re-Submission of Supplemental

Documentation, which attaches a FedEx delivery record. If credited, the delivery

record shows that petitioners’ motion to reopen was timely received by the BIA. 

We remand No. 05-74221 to the BIA for further consideration of the timeliness of 
3 05-70324/05-74221

petitioners’ motion to reopen in light of the delivery record. See INS v. Ventura,

537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002).

In No. 05-70324: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part;

DENIED in part.

In No. 05-74221: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED;

REMANDED.
#### Donovan A. Lewis, Appellant, v Agency Rent-A-Car et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated May 1, 1989, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs; and it is further,

Ordered that the parties are directed to appear in this court on January 16, 1991, at 12:00 noon to be heard upon the issue of the imposition of appropriate sanctions or costs against the attorney for the appellant, if any, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

*436A motion for summary judgment must be denied if the facts upon which the motion is predicated are clearly not within the knowledge of the nonmoving party *(see, Rowden v National Car Rental,*36 AD2d 762; *De France v Oestrike,*8 AD2d 735). In this matter, since the defendant Agency Rent-A-Car was not afforded an opportunity to ascertain any of the essential facts, summary judgment would be a wholly inappropriate remedy.

The motion, having been made before any discovery was conducted, reveals that the most basic issues of fact remain unanswered. The plaintiff made the motion without even complying with outstanding discovery demands. For example, it is not even clear whether the plaintiff was a driver or passenger in one of the vehicles involved in this intersection accident, how the accident happened or whether or not the plaintiff was even injured. The motion should not have been made when it was, if at all, and not only was the motion properly denied but the appeal from that denial is completely frivolous. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before this court upon the issue of the imposition of appropriate sanctions or costs, if any, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
# Den Europæiske Unions C 54A/21.

| | ISSN 1977-0871 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 54A |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 60. årgang21. februar 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0871

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 54A

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

60. årgang21. februar 2017

---

| Informationsnummer | Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Øvrige meddelelser |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURER |
| | Rådet |
| 2017/C 54 A/01 | Forlængelse af gyldighedsperioden for lister over egnede ansøgere | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Indhold

Side

V   Øvrige meddelelser

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURER

Rådet

2017/C 54 A/01

Forlængelse af gyldighedsperioden for lister over egnede ansøgere

1

---

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

V Øvrige meddelelser

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURER

Rådet

| 21.2.2017 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CA 54/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2017

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CA 54/1

---

Forlængelse af gyldighedsperioden for lister over egnede ansøgere

(2017/C 054 A/01)

Ved afgørelse truffet af generalsekretæren for Rådet for Den Europæiske Union forlænges gyldighedsperioden for de lister over egnede ansøgere, der er opstillet på grundlag af nedennævnte almindelige udvælgelsesprøver indtil den 31. december 2019.

| CONS/AD/430


  (to profiler) | afholdt med henblik på oprettelse af en liste over egnede ansøgere til stillingen som senioradministratorer inden for området den europæiske sikkerheds- og forsvarspolitik (ESFP). Udvælgelsesprøven vedrører to profiler i lønklasse AD 9 (profil 1: ledende strategiplanlæggere af krisestyringsoperationer og -missioner, profil 2: ledende kapacitetsudviklingsplanlæggere — det militære område/det civile område/rumområdet), hvorom opslag er offentliggjort i
  Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 178 af 15. juli 2008. |
| --- | --- |
| CONS-COMM/AD/433 | afholdt med henblik på oprettelse af en liste over egnede ansøgere med irsk som hovedsprog til stillinger som kontorchef i lønklasse AD 12 inden for oversættelse, hvorom opslag er offentliggjort i
  Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 99 af 30. april 2009. |

CONS/AD/430

(to profiler)

afholdt med henblik på oprettelse af en liste over egnede ansøgere til stillingen som senioradministratorer inden for området den europæiske sikkerheds- og forsvarspolitik (ESFP). Udvælgelsesprøven vedrører to profiler i lønklasse AD 9 (profil 1: ledende strategiplanlæggere af krisestyringsoperationer og -missioner, profil 2: ledende kapacitetsudviklingsplanlæggere — det militære område/det civile område/rumområdet), hvorom opslag er offentliggjort i
  Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 178 af 15. juli 2008.

CONS-COMM/AD/433

afholdt med henblik på oprettelse af en liste over egnede ansøgere med irsk som hovedsprog til stillinger som kontorchef i lønklasse AD 12 inden for oversættelse, hvorom opslag er offentliggjort i
  Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 99 af 30. april 2009.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1867 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1867

   To amend title 40, United States Code, to eliminate the sunset of 
  certain provisions relating to information technology, to amend the 
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
 Act for Fiscal Year 2015 to extend the sunset relating to the Federal 
     Data Center Consolidation Initiative, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 26, 2017

    Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Moran, Mr. Udall, and Mr. Warner) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 40, United States Code, to eliminate the sunset of 
  certain provisions relating to information technology, to amend the 
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
 Act for Fiscal Year 2015 to extend the sunset relating to the Federal 
     Data Center Consolidation Initiative, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``FITARA Enhancement Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF SUNSET RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY AND RISK 
              MANAGEMENT OF MAJOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS.

    Subsection (c) of section 11302 of title 40, United States Code, is 
amended by striking the first paragraph (5).

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SUNSET RELATING TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
              PORTFOLIO, PROGRAM, AND RESOURCE REVIEWS.

    Section 11319 of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating the second subsection (c) as 
        subsection (d); and
            (2) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by striking 
        paragraph (6).

SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF SUNSET RELATING TO FEDERAL DATA CENTER 
              CONSOLIDATION INITIATIVE.

    Subsection (e) of section 834 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 
(Public Law 113-291; 44 U.S.C. 3601 note) is amended by striking 
``2018'' and inserting ``2020''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6511

JOHN THOMAS HALL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden, Federal Medical

Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-96-1243-13JC)

Submitted: June 17, 1997 Decided: July 24, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Thomas Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hall v. Beeler,

No. CA-96-1243-13JC (D.S.C. Mar. 6, 1997). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### DARNABY v. STATE.

No. 16635.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 7, 1934.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is manufacturing intoxicating liqu'or; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or hills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 308 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 308

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 29, 2010

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
        Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of 
                            Representatives.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, when the House adjourns on any legislative 
day from Thursday, July 29, 2010, through Tuesday, August 3, 2010, on a 
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 
Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned

              

 until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 14, 2010, or until the time of any 
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. (a) The Speaker or her designee, after consultation with 
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the House 
to reassemble at such place and time as she may designate if, in her 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
    (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the House 
adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, the House shall again stand adjourned 
pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A

- 1856

- 20

MICHAEL A. FARINELLA,

Plaint iff

- Appellant,

v.

METLIFE, INC., METLIFE

GROUP, INC., RICHARD

KARL ERHARDT, EDMUND

HEIN MOORE, KINGMIN

CHEUNG, MICHAEL G.

UPTON, SAJEEV NARAYANAN,

SACHIN SHAH, PAGE STEELE

and PIA ALMEIDA,

Defendants

- Respondents.

_____________________________

Submitted June 21 , 2021

– Decided July 6, 2021

Before Judges Fisher and Moynihan.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law

Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L

- 5998

- 19.

McMoran, O'Connor, Bramley & Burns, P .C., attorneys

for appellants (Bruce P. McMoran and Michael F.

O'Connor, on the brief s ).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the

internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.2 A

- 1856

- 20 Nukk

- Freeman & Cerra, P.C., attorneys for respondents

(Kristine V. Ryan, Allison J. Vogel and Punam P.

Alam, on the brief s ).

PER CURIAM

The parties having entered in to a stipulation of dismissal, the interlocutory

appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

Appeal dismissed.