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 Park Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2003, (the "Report"), I, Steven J. Pokrak,
Treasurer and Chief Financial 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, 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.


                                         Steven J. Pokrak
                                         Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                         August 8, 2003
<page>			            EXHIBIT 32.01



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 Morgan Stanley Spectrum
Select L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, 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, 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; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.





By:	  /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		March 31, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2780 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2780

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 
  waiting period for divorced spouse's benefits following the divorce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2015

  Mrs. Lowey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 
  waiting period for divorced spouse's benefits following the divorce.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD FOR DIVORCED SPOUSE'S 
              BENEFITS FOLLOWING THE DIVORCE IN CASES OF PRIOR RECEIPT 
              OF SPOUSE'S BENEFITS.

    (a) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(b)(4)(A) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``divorced 
wife--'' and all that follows through ``shall be entitled'' and 
inserting ``divorced wife meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) 
through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled''.
    (b) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(c)(4)(A) of such Act 
(42 U.S.C. 402(c)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``divorced husband--'' 
and all that follows through ``shall be entitled'' and inserting 
``divorced husband meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through 
(D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled''.
    (c) Exemption From Deductions on Account of Work.--Section 
203(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 403(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(2)(A) Except as'' and all that follows 
        through ``the benefit to which'' and inserting the following: 
        ``(2) In any case in which any of the other persons referred to 
        in paragraph (1)(B) are entitled to monthly benefits as a 
        divorced spouse under subsection (b) or (c) of section 202 for 
        any month, the benefit to which''; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with respect to 
benefits for months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                  Washington, D. C.  20549

                          FORM 10-K

        Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
           of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

         For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1995

                 Commission File No. 1-3660

                        Owens Corning
            Fiberglas Tower, Toledo, Ohio  43659
                  Area Code (419) 248-8000

                   A Delaware Corporation

        I.R.S. Employer Identification No. 34-4323452

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

  Title of Each Class                Name of Each Exchange on
                                     Which Registered

  Common Stock - $.10 Par Value      New York Stock Exchange
  Rights to Purchase Series A        New York Stock Exchange
   Participating Preferred
   Stock, no par value, of the
   Registrant

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None

Indicate  by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has  filed
all  reports required to be filed by Section 13 or  15(d)  of
the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding  12
months  (or  for such shorter period that the Registrant  was
required  to file such reports), and (2) has been subject  to
such  filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes  /  X  /
No /   /

Indicate  by  check  mark if disclosure of delinquent  filers
pursuant  to  Item  405 of Regulation S-K  is  not  contained
herein,   and  will  not  be  contained,  to  the   best   of
Registrant's  knowledge, in definitive proxy  or  information
statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form
10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [   ]

At   December  31,  1995,  the  aggregate  market  value   of
Registrant's $.10 par value common stock (Registrant's voting
stock)  held  by non-affiliates was $2,289,208,060,  assuming
for  purposes of this computation only that all directors and
executive officers are considered affiliates.

At  December  31,  1995,  there were  outstanding  51,389,618
shares of Registrant's $.10 par value common stock.

Parts  of Registrant's definitive 1996 proxy statement  filed
or  to  be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A (the "1996  Proxy
Statement")  are incorporated by reference into Part  III  of
this Form 10-K.
```

CONFIRMING STATEMENT

    This statement confirms that the undersigned, Jo Ann M. Gora, has authorized and designated, Jennifer Mainord, Amanda C. Williams or Rhonda Bost, to execute and file on the undersignedTMs behalf, all Form 3, 4, and 5 (including amendments thereto) that the undersigned may be required to file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a result of the undersignedTMs ownership of or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation.  The authority of Jennifer Mainord, Amanda C. Williams or Rhonda Bost under this statement shall continue until the undersigned is no longer required to file Form 3, 4, and 5 with regard to the undersigned ownership or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation, unless earlier revoked in writing.  The undersigned acknowledges Jennifer Mainord, Amanda C. Williams or Rhonda Bost are not assuming any of the undersignedTMs responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        __/s/ Jo Ann M. Gora______
                        Jo Ann M. Gora

Date: February 13, 2014
```
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; PAR 22-069 High Impact, Interdisciplinary Science in NIDDK Research Areas (RC2).                    

*Date:*                         November 15, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy II, Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Tori Stone, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney, National Institute of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-0994,                         *tori.stone@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 15, 2024. 

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-21421 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                           5,707
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,786
<PP&E>                                          12,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,501
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,805
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,388
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,705
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,051
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,511
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,540
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,540
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
        

</TABLE>
#### DETROIT FIDELITY & SURETY CO. et al. v. McKINNON.

No. 11606.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

April 20, 1935.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 1935.

Jouette M. Bonner, of Tyler, for plaintiff in error.

Pollard & Lawrence and E. Ewing Smith, all of Tyler, for defendant in error.

LOONEY, Justice.

Phillip McKinnon sued A. W. Philips, owner of an oil and gas lease on land in Van Zandt county, to recover for labor incident to the drilling of an oil well, and the Detroit Fidelity & Surety Company was sued as surety for Philips on a bond given for the release of a perfected lien claimed by McKinnon on said leasehold, and the material, equipment, rig, boiler, etc., used in connection with the drilling. The defendants answered, and the surety, company, in a cross-action, asked for judgment over against Philips for any sum that might be rendered against it on-the bond. The case was tried to the court, without a jury, and during the progress of the hearing it developed, to. the surprise of attorneys for both parties, that plaintiff was a minor, so his father, B. H. McKinnon, was permitted to prosecute the suit as next friend. At the conclusion of the evidence, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against both defendants, jointly and severally, for the sum of $220, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from January 1, 1932, and an additional sum of $50, as attorney’s fee, from which the Detroit Fidelity & Surety Company appealed by writ of error.

Without discussion, we overrule all assignments and propositions urged for re-. *446versal, except the contention that the court erred in allowing as a part of the judgment the $50 attorney’s fee. The bond sued upon, not being statutory, but a common-law obligation, contains no provision, so far as disclosed by the statement of facts, for the payment of an attorney fee; hence the judgment allowing same is, in that respect, erroneous and must be reformed.

The judgment, therefore, is reformed by deleting the $50 allowed as attorney’s fee, and, as reformed, is affirmed. Costs of the appeal will be taxed against appellee.

Reformed and affirmed.
#### FERGUSON v. STATE.

No. 18935.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1937.

*21Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of theft of an automobile of the value of $300, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment is in due form .and all matters of procedure appear to be regular.

The judgment of the trial court 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 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 274 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                         Calendar No. 7
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 274

 To nullify the effect of the recent executive order that temporarily 
restricted individuals from certain countries from entering the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2017

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Klobuchar, 
Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Udall, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. 
  Murphy, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Carper, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
 Markey, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Brown, 
 Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Harris, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
     Peters, Mr. Coons, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Booker, Mr. 
 Whitehouse, Mr. Franken, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Warren, Mr. King, Mr. Casey, 
Mr. Warner, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schatz, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Duckworth, and Mr. 
  Bennet) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

                            February 2, 2017

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To nullify the effect of the recent executive order that temporarily 
restricted individuals from certain countries from entering the United 
                                States.

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

SECTION 1. RESCISSION.

    The provisions of Executive Order 13769 (82 Fed. Reg. 8977; January 
27, 2017), entitled ``Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist 
Entry into the United States'', are rescinded and shall not have any 
legal effect.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect as if enacted on January 27, 2017.
                                                         Calendar No. 7

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 274

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To nullify the effect of the recent executive order that temporarily 
restricted individuals from certain countries from entering the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            February 2, 2017

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
*OPINION ISSUED MAY 14, 2009*

#### ROBERT GLADHILL VS. REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY

(CC-09-0093)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Ronald R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

*261This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant, a former inmate at the Eastern Regional Jail, seeks to recover $ 129.99 for a pair of “Rocky” boots and $55.00 plus tax for a Harley Davidson silk shirt. Claimant alleges that these items were not returned to him when he was discharged from the facility.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim in the amount of $129.99. Respondent denies the amount of $55.00 plus tax for the shirt. According to the claimant’s property inventory sheet, two shirts were released to him. The Court is aware that respondent does not have a fiscal method for paying claims of this nature; therefore, the claim has been submitted to this Court for determination. Claimant has agreed to accept payment in the amount of $129.99.

This Court has taken the position in prior claims that if a bailment situation has been created, respondent is responsible for property of an inmate which is taken from that inmate, remains in its custody, and is not produced for return to the inmate.

Accordingly, the Court makes an award to the claimant herein in the amount of $129.99.

Award of $129.99.
#### BURROUGHS ADDING MACH. CO. v. CHOLLAR.

No. 13176.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Jan. 4, 1935.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1935.

Thompson & Barwise and B. V. Thompson, all of Fort Worth, for appellant.

McLean, Scott & Sayers and Jack Binion, all of Fort Worth, for appellee.

LATTIMORÉ, Justice.

It is undisputed that appellee signed a contract whereby he was employed as salesman for appellant, and by said contract agreed for one year after termination of the contract not to engage in the sale of any machine or article competitive with products of appellant in the territory assigned him by appellant; that this included 66 counties in and around Fort Worth, Tex.; that the contract was terminated in May, 1934; and that, when in that month appellee received employment by the National Cash Register Company, by such employment *he*was selling in Fort Worth machines competitive with appellant’s. The. suit is principally for an injunction. The trial court refused the temporary writ on the ground that the contract was unreasonable.

Appellee had been in the employ of appellant five or six years, selling only typewriters, calculating machines, and office furniture, repeat orders on which are rarely less than five years apart.- We agree that reasonableness is a proper inquiry, and that an injunction restraining appellee from soliciting business in all the 66 counties, when he had been actually selling for appellant only in Fort Worth, would be unreasonable. On the other hand, contracts of employment which include therein a reasonable agreement not to compete are valid. Gates v. Hooper, 90 Tex. 563, 39 S. W. 1079; Patterson v. Crabb (Tex. Civ. App.) 51 S. W. 870. By the contract made in advance, the parties are not able always to foresee the manner of performance of same. That appellee found it more profitable to confine his sales activities for appellant to Fort Worth does not invalidate the “no competition” clause. It does justify the court in limiting the temporary injunction to the territory within which his employment by appellant has given him an acquaintance with appellant’s business, which would probably be used to its injury. Bettinger v. North Fort Worth Ice Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 278 S. W. 466. It seems clear to us that a business which has repeat orders every five or six years could be injured by the knowledge its employee gained of its customers over a per- - iod of. five or six years.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.