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 Metavante Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy C. Oliver, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Company.



|                        
|------------------------
|/S/    TIMOTHY C.
OLIVER
|Timothy C. Oliver       
|Chief Financial Officer 
|                        
|August 7, 2008          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
# L_2011247DE.01005901.xml

| 24.9.2011 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 247/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 247/59

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsrichtlinie 2011/44/EU der Kommission vom 13. April 2011 zur Änderung der Richtlinie 91/414/EWG des Rates zwecks Aufnahme des Wirkstoffs Azadirachtin und zur Änderung der Entscheidung 2008/941/EG der Kommission

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 100 vom 14. April 2011
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 100 vom 14. April 2011

Auf Seite 43, in Erwägungsgrund 7:

anstatt:

„Hauptbestandteil“

muss es heißen:

„Leitsubstanz“.

Auf Seite 46, Anhang, letzte Spalte (Sonderbestimmungen), Teil B, Absatz 3, Gedankenstrich:

anstatt:

„Hauptbestandteil“

muss es heißen:

„Leitsubstanz“.

---
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43366

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

AARON FRANK THOMAS

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 465

Filed: April 5, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Bannock County. Hon. David C. Nye , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period

of confinement of six years, for felony injury to children, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, C hief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Aaron Frank Thomas pled guilty to felony injury to children . Idaho Code § 18

- 1501(1)

.

The district court sentenced Thomas to a unified term of ten years with six years determinate to

run consecutively to sentences in two unrelated cases

. Thomas appeals asserting that the district

court abused its discretion by imposing an excessiv e sentence

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Th omas ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2
 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Encore Energy Partners LP;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986](c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date:  October 31, 2008
    /s/ Robert C. ReevesRobert C. ReevesSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer,
and Corporate Secretary of Encore Energy Partners GP LLC,
the General Partner of Encore Energy Partners LP
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Duff and Hodges 

EDWARD L. MOHLER, JR. 

v. Record No. 0678-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 CHIEF JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AUGUST 8, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY 

George E. Honts, III, Judge 

 William E. Bobbitt, Jr., Public Defender, for 

appellant. 

 Marla Lynn Graff, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Edward L. Mohler, Jr. appeals the circuit court's order 

revoking previously suspended sentences for violating the terms 

of his probation. On appeal, Mohler contends that the trial 

court's order must be reversed because he was denied a 

preliminary revocation hearing. Mohler also argues that the 

delay in the court's taking action in regard to his detention 

prior to the final revocation hearing violated his due process 

rights. We disagree and affirm. 

 "The absence of a preliminary hearing to determine temporary 

detention is irrelevant after a full evidentiary hearing has been 

conducted to determine whether probation or parole should be 

revoked." Howie v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 625, 631, 283 S.E.2d 

197, 200 (1981). After Mohler was advised in writing of the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

probation conditions he was alleged to have violated, he was 

afforded a full evidentiary hearing at which he both crossexamined witnesses and presented evidence in his behalf. At the 

conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge decided to revoke 

appellant's suspended sentences and probation. The record does 

not show that Mohler's due process rights were violated because 

he was not given a preliminary hearing. See id.

 Lastly, Mohler's argument that the two month delay before 

the final revocation hearing was "so great so as to violate his 

due process rights" is barred from appeal because he failed to 

raise this question before the trial court. Rule 5A:18; see also

Cottrell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 570, 574, 405 S.E.2d 438, 

441 (1991) (holding that this procedural bar applies even to a 

defendant's constitutional claim). Moreover, we find nothing 

inherently prejudicial about Mohler's two month wait for his 

hearing which, according to the record, was "scheduled as soon as 

feasible." 

 Affirmed.
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 Global Security Agency Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John D. Kuykendall, 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:





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/ John D. Kuykendall


John D. Kuykendall


Chief Financial Officer





May 11, 2011
Featured           First-of-its-kind integrated dataset enables genes-to-ecosystems research         

Featured           Researchers, leaders reflect on AGU23, future plans for “wide open science”         

Featured           Reaping agricultural emissions solutions          

# Earth Systems Science

### Contact

PeterE Thornton

thorntonpe@ornl.gov

##  

## Understanding interactions between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems

The Earth System Science Section advances understanding and predicts how terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems exchange carbon, water, nutrients, and trace elements across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Researchers are examining how plants, soil microorganisms, and their surrounding environment drive important ecosystem functions using cutting-edge experimental, modeling, and analytical approaches. They are studying how biogeochemical cycles contribute to broader environmental patterns and responses through use of novel observational and manipulative approaches. Scientists are pursuing a predictive understanding of ecosystem dynamics using large-scale manipulative experiments, observations, and integrated modeling. They are also developing integrated models to better understand hydrology in watersheds and Earth system models to gain a predictive understanding of the interactions among Earth’s physical, biological, ecological, and human systems.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3460 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 

Received 

AN ACT 

To suspend until January 21, 2017, the authority of the 

President to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, 

or otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant 

to an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran. 

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


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3460 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF AUTHORITY TO WAIVE, SUS2 PEND, REDUCE, PROVIDE RELIEF FROM, OR 

3 OTHERWISE LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF 

4 SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT 

5 RELATED TO THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM OF 

6 IRAN. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, prior to January 21, 2017, the President may 

9 not— 

10 (1) waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, 

11 or otherwise limit the application of sanctions de12 scribed in subsection (b) or refrain from applying 

13 any such sanctions; or 

14 (2) remove a foreign person listed in Attach15 ment 3 or Attachment 4 to Annex II of the Joint 

16 Comprehensive Plan of Action from the list of spe17 cially designated nationals and blocked persons 

18 maintained by the Office of Foreign Asset Control of 

19 the Department of the Treasury. 

20 (b) SANCTIONS DESCRIBED.—The sanctions de21 scribed in this subsection are— 

22 (1) the sanctions described in sections 4 

23 through 7.9 of Annex II of the Joint Comprehensive 

24 Plan of Action; and 

25 (2) the sanctions described in any other agree26 ment related to the nuclear program of Iran that inVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:53 Sep 17, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3460.RDS H3460

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 3460 RDS 

1 cludes the United States, commits the United States 

2 to take action, or pursuant to which the United 

3 States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, 

4 regardless of the form it takes, whether a political 

5 commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether 

6 it is legally binding or not. 

7 (c) JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION DE8 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Joint Comprehensive 

9 Plan of Action’’ means the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 

10 Action, signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, by Iran and 

11 by the People’s Republic of China, France, Germany, the 

12 Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United 

13 States, with the High Representative of the European 

14 Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and all im15 plementing materials and agreements related to the Joint 

16 Comprehensive Plan of Action. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 11, 

2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### SERVED: May 4, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

. ..: ; •**~** ! \ ¥' ,

In The Matter Of: 

### OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2014-0551 Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2014WP910076 Respondent
DISMISSAL ORDER OnMay 3, 2016, the Respondent filed a Notice ofWithdrawal ofRequest for Hearing, stating that the parties had reached a settlement in this matter. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, a party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge at any time before or during a hearing. Upon such withdrawal, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the case withprejudice. THEREFORE,IT IS ORDEREDthat these proceedings are dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service List

## ~.

# ~~ Administrative Law JudgeSERVICE LIST - BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1
ONE COPY Gregory S. Wiriton, Respondent's Counsel The Aviation Law Firm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway, Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 TEL: 301-294-8550 FAX: 866-568-9886 Adam Runkel, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division-Western Division 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98056 TEL: 425-227-2914 FAX: 425-227-1007 Email: adam.runkel@faa.gov
The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20

- U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue; S.E. (El 1-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0551 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM 8-K
 
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of report (Date of earliest event reported) December 18, 2007
 
 STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.
 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
 
 Louisiana(State or other 
jurisdiction of 
incorporation)
    
    0-15449(Commission File Number)
    
    72-0693290(IRS Employer
Identification
Number)
 1333 South Clearview Parkway 
Jefferson, Louisiana(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    70121(Zip Code)
 (504) 729-1400  (Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
 o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 5.03. Amendments to Articles of Incorporation or By-laws; Change in Fiscal Year.Item 9.01. Financial Statements and ExhibitsAmended and Restated By-laws    Table of Contents  
 Item 5.03.
    
    Amendments to Articles of Incorporation or By-laws; Change in Fiscal Year.
  
 Item 9.01.
    
    Financial Statements and Exhibits
  Exhibit No.
    
    Description3.2
    
    
    Amended and Restated By-laws of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.
   Stewart Enterprises, Inc.Date: December 24, 2007
    By:
    /s/  Lewis J. Derbes, Jr.Name:
    Lewis J. Derbes, Jr.Title:
    Vice President, Secretary &
Treasurer
#### Lemke, Respondent, vs. Lemke, Appellant.

*October 13*

November *15, 1949.*

*56
      *Walter Schins, Jr.,*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

*Charles C. Erasmus*of Milwaukee, for the respondent.

Brown, J.

All the findings of fact are sustained by the evidence. Defendant contends that the award is excessive beyond permissible discretion of the trial judge and suggests that if the property division is allowed alimony should be cut to $35 per month, while if the alimony award is sustained the plaintiff should not receive more than $2,500 in cash or property. He is particularly aggrieved by the finding that the homestead is worth $13,500 instead of $10,500 or *57$11,000, as valued by one of plaintiff s witnesses. He also says that plaintiff is capable of some self-support, and so large a proportion of defendant’s earnings at a time when, with reduced earning capacity, he will have to provide new security for his old age, is an injustice to him.

Defendant’s counterclaim alleged the value of his home to be $15,000, free and clear of incumbrance, with the upper flat rented for $50 per month. His expert witness appraised it at $13,500. He can hardly complain to this court that the trial court held with him on this issue. The wife’s contribution to the family fortunes was found to be substantial on competent evidence, and to divide the value of the homestead equally is not inequitable, particularly since the parties bought it as joint tenants and now own it as tenants in common. The division of the minor items appears to be reasonable and is not very material one way or the other. The property division should not be disturbed.

Concerning alimony, the court allowed the wife $75 per month. Defendant’s gross pay is $80 per week, out of which, at present rates, $10.20 is withheld for United States income tax and *&0‡*for social security — take-home pay $69 per week or something more than $276 per month. The court allowed slightly more than twenty-five per cent of this as alimony, leaving more than $200 per month to the defendant.

The awards are high but we do not consider them excessive nor beyond the trial court’s discretion considering the respondent’s contribution to the estate, the physical condition and earning capacity of the respective parties, and appellant’s continuing right to apply to the trial court if the alimony requirements become unduly oppressive. At present we do not consider them, so great as to impose undue hardship upon the appellant or to permit the respondent to live in more than reasonable physical and mental comfort.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
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 Bedminster Financial Corp. (the
“Company”) on 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Paul Patrizio, President, Chief Executive Officer and 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:




1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            The
      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
      Bedminster Financial Corp.




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.






BEDMINSTER
FINANCIAL CORP.




By:
            /s/
      Paul PatrizioPaul
      PatrizioPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
  Officer,




Date:
November 13, 2008