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

# *** ***

# ***CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER***

**PURSUANTTO SECITON 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, beingthe Chief Financial Officer of AmeriVest Properties Inc., a Maryland realestate investment trust (the “Issuer”), hereby certifies that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q (the “Quarterly Report”) of the Issuer for the threemonths ended March 31, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78 m(a)) and that the information contained inthe Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Issuer.

 

May 10, 2006

 
|   | By:    | /s/  Kathryn L. Hale     |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Kathryn  L. Hale         |
|   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### WILLIAM J. STEVENS’ HEIRS *vs.*JAMES M. SMITH.

Where a tenant for a year was ejected by force of the statute in relation to forcible entry and detainer, whatever the errors and unlawfulness of the proceedings against such tenant may be, the landlords, not being parties to the proceedings, have no right to intervene by writ of certiorari.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Sampson County, at the Fall Term, 1847, his Honor Judge Caldwell presiding.

The plaintiffs obtained a certiorari, which the defendant moved to quash, because it was improvidently issued. The Court allowed the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed. Upon the affidavits and record the case is this. The plaintiffs were, for several years, in possession of a tract of land, claiming it in fee, and as descended from their father; and they leased it to Charles Turnage for the year 1845, and he took possession under his lease. On *the 27th*of January, 1845, the defendant, Smith, before a Justice of the Peace, instituted proceedings against Turnage, under the statute for a forcible entry and de-tainer *;*and such proceedings were had thereon, that on the Sth of February following, Turnage was found guilty, and the magistrate ousted him, and put Smith into possession. Immediately afterwards Turnage accepted a lease of the premises from Smith, for the residue of the year, and entered and held under it. The plaintiffs then applied for the certiorari that was issued in this case.

The Court dismissed the certiorari and the plaintiffs appealed.

No counsel for the plaintiffs.

*Strange,*for the defendant. The Judge was correct in dismissing these proceedings for want of proper parties.

*State*v. *Nations,*1 Ire. 325. 1 *Archbold’s Prac.*209. 2 *William’s Justice,*554. *Ilex*v. *Jones,*1 Strange 474.

Ruffin, C. J.

It is evident enough on thp affidavits, that the proceeding for a forcible entry and detainer in *39this case, was a flagrant abuse of that remedy; and it is equally plain that there are gross errors in the proceedings, for which they ought to be reversed. We cannot but regret, that it is not in our power to deal with the case upon its merits. But the Court is obliged to sustain the decision of his Honor, inasmuch as Turnage, who was the party, does not complain, and his original landlords cannot intervene in a criminal proceeding, to which they were not parties.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
#### State *v.*Ransome.

Per

Williams, Justice.

A man may as well be indicted on an affidavit not signed, as if it was signed. The signing is onjy for the sake of evidence, to prevent one man being mistaken for anothér, and it shews also that it was done with deliberation.
#### Seibel, Appellant, vs. Leach and others, Defendants: St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, Respondent.

*November 6*—

December *5, 1939.*

*67/. *E. Richter*of Fond du Lac, for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Bendinger, Hayes, Klumin & Schlosser*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Gerald F. Hayes.*

Fairchild, J.

The injury to the plaintiff was the result of an act of the defendant Leach, and the responsibility for that act under the law is not visited upon Landerman or his surety. Under the common law it is not an actionable wrong either to sell or to give intoxicating liquors to an able-bodied man. The plaintiff urges the need of some regulation imposing liability on a tavern keeper for injury to a third person resulting from the intoxication of one to whom liquor has been sold. He supports this contention by analogies drawn from the so-called squib case, *Scott v. Shepherd,*W. B. L. 892, 96 Reprint, 525, 3 Wils. 403, 95 Reprint, 1124. Our attention is called to many cases in jurisdictions where statutes have been enacted making provision for such liability where one has become intoxicated by illegal sale of liquor. The case of *Dunlap v. Wagner,*85 Ind. 529, is illustrative of *68the basis of appellant’s contention. There a liquor dealer, unlicensed to sell liquor at retail, sold to a customer who consumed the liquor on the premises and became helpless. Because he was too helpless to drive the team which became frightened, a runaway occurred, and a horse he had borrowed was killed. The liquor seller was held liable for the value of that horse. In its decision the supreme court of Indiana did say that a dealer under such circumstances “may well be deemed guilty of an actionable wrong independently of any statute.” However, this statement is immediately followed by the ruling “but we have a statute which provides that every person shall have a right of action for an injury resulting to person or property against one who shall, by selling intoxicating liquors to another, have caused the intoxication of the person by, or through whom, the injury is done.” The inapplicability of cases of that character to the facts here presented readily appears because we have no similar statute, and because “in view of the common-law rule, it has been necessary, where opinion favored the creation of such a cause of action, to enact civil-damage laws.” *Demge v. Feierstein,*222 Wis. 199, 203, 268 N. W. 210. Courts may in proper instances apply old rules to- newly created conditions, but they cannot create new rules 'for conditions already regulated. The common-law rule holds the man who drank the liquor liable, and considers the act of selling it as too remote to be a proximate cause, of an injury caused by the negligent act of the purchaser of the drink. The decision in *Demge v. Feierstein, supra,*sets forth the law controlling in the case at bar.

*By the Court.*— Orders and judgment affirmed.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 947

To amend Federal law regarding the tolling of the Interstate Highway

System.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 3, 1999

Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To amend Federal law regarding the tolling of the Interstate

Highway System.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Interstate Tolls Relief

5 Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. INTERSTATE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION AND RE7 HABILITATION PILOT PROGRAM REPEALED.

8 Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for

9 the 21st Century (112 Stat. 212–214) is repealed.
2

S 947 IS

1 SEC. 3. TOLLS ON BRIDGES AND TUNNELS.

2 Section 129(a)(1)(C) of title 23, United States Code,

3 is amended by striking ‘‘toll-free bridge or tunnel’’ and

4 inserting ‘‘toll-free major bridge or toll-free tunnel’’.

5 SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON USE OF TOLL REVENUES.

6 Section 129(a)(3) of title 23, United States Code, is

7 amended by—

8 (1) striking ‘‘first’’ in the first sentence and in9 serting ‘‘only’’; and

10 (2) striking ‘‘If the State certifies annually that

11 the tolled facility is being adequately maintained, the

12 State may use any toll revenues in excess of

13 amounts required under the preceding sentence for

14 any purpose for which Federal funds may be obli15 gated by a State under this title.’’.

Æ
#### Whyte (Ruth), Respondent, vs. Lindblom and another, Appellants.

*May 9*

June *5, 1934.*

For the appellants there were briefs by *Hammond & Jones*of Kenosha, and oral argument by *Walter W. Hammond.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Randall, Cavanagh, Stephenson & Mittelstaed*of Kenosha, and oral argument by *Roy S. Stephenson.*

Fairchild, J.

The controlling questions which' determine this case are treated in the case of *Jessel S. Whyte v. Lindblom, ante,*p. 21, 255 N. W. 265, 256 N. W. 244. The negligence of the driver of the car owned by respondent is not attributable to the latter. The car was in the possession of a bailee when it was damaged, and respondent is entitled to recover for that damage.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
----

| Subsidiary                                                     |            | State or other jurisdiction of corporation or organization |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                           |            |
| Acci Realty Corp.                                              | New York        |
| Aceto (Holding) B.V.                                           | The Netherlands |
| Aceto (Hong Kong) Ltd.                                         | Hong Kong       |
| Aceto Agricultural Chemical Corporation Limited                | United Kingdom  |
| Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corp.                             | New York        |
| Aceto B.V.                                                     | The Netherlands |
| Aceto FineChem GmbH                                            | Germany         |
| Aceto France S.A.S.                                            | France          |
| Aceto Health Ingredients GmbH                                  | Germany         |
| Aceto Holding GmbH                                             | Germany         |
| Aceto Ltd.                                                     | Bermuda         |
| Aceto Luxembourg S.a.r.L.                                      | Luxembourg      |
| Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corp. Mx, S De R. L. DE C.VDE C.V | Mexico          |
| Aceto Pharma Corp.                                             | Delaware        |
| Aceto Pharma India Pvt. Ltd.                                   | India           |
| Aceto Pharmaceutical (Shanghai) Ltd.                           | China           |
| Aceto Pharma GmbH                                              | Germany         |
| Aceto Pte Ltd.                                                 | Singapore       |
| Aceto Realty LLC                                               | New York        |
| Arsynco, Inc.                                                  | New Jersey      |
| Canegrass, LLC                                                 | Delaware        |
| CDC Products Corp.                                             | New York        |
| Pharma Waldhof GmbH                                            | Germany         |
| Plexvest Ltd.                                                  | Cyprus          |
| Rising Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                                   | Delaware        |
### BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C .

Agreement s Adopte d b yth e Traffi c Conference s o f th e Internationa l Ai r Transpor t Associatio n OST-2010 - 01 9 f

APPLICATIO N FO R APPROVA L O F AGREEMENT S

B YTH E INTERNATIONA L AI R TRANSPOR TASSOCIATIO N lAT A AGREEMEN T APPROVE D & IMMUNIZE D y DOCKE T OST - /£ f - O / <^ ^ ACT'ON DAT

Ejd^j f

^ /^ / ^0 1 O Thi s approval andgran t

o f antitrus t immunity i s subject , wher e applicable , t o condition s previousl y imposed . Thi s actio n i s effectiv e after 7 day s unles s apetitio ni s file dunde r 1 4 CFR385.3 0 o r

arevie w i s undertake n o nth e Department' s ow n motion . I n vie w o f th e agreement' s noncontroversia l natur e an dth e availability o f th e abov e Mecfflure , th e 21-dayBcnQdJ a1 4 CF R303.4 2 i s waived .



### 3 0 Jul y201 0 Communication s wit h respec t t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t t o Dougla s Lavi n Regiona l Vic e Presiden t - Nort h Americ a Internationa l Ai rTranspor t Associatio n lAT AWashington , 60 1 Pennsylvani a Avenue , N.W . Suit e 30 0 - Nort h Buildin g Washingto n D C 2000 4
#### OFFICERS OF COURT v. THEOPHILLUS BLAND.

*Appeals.*

Appeals must be brought up to the term of this court next after they are taken.

MotioN of plaintiff to dismiss the defendant’s appeal, heard at February Term, 1884, of The Supreme Court.

*Messrs. Haywood & Haywood,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Strong & Smedes*and *H. F. Murray,*for defendant.

MerrimoN, J.

The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that it was taken to the last October term of this court, and was not brought up to that term at all, nor docketed in this court until the present term.'

It appears that the appeal was taken at spring term, 1883, of the superior court of Pitt county, to the last October term of this court. It was not, however, brought up to the October term, nor were any steps taken at that term to bring it up. It was docketed at the present term.

It is well settled that appeals must be brought up to the term of this court next after they are taken, and if they are not brought up to that term, and no effort is made before the court to do so, the appeal will be lost.

This case is in all material respects like that of *Suiter*v. *Brittle, post,*19, and it must be governed by it.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000926287
<NAME> SANGUINE CORPORATION
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             677
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   677  
<PP&E>                                            1464
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           424603
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         20877
<OTHER-SE>                                     (433339)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12141
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 12463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (12463)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (12463)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
[4910-13-Pj

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NCURRENCES

ROU'n"G 'YMBOI.

m\J1'ING SHIBOL

{t-N'rYl-1

INJTI,\I_,IS'G

C-C-<---

O,Hf.

:H1- rt>

,o;;Ninoo~/'J (

ROUT. ,>VM~ L

Airworthiness Dh-ectives; The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -lODe, -800,

-900, and -900ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Admirustration (FAA), Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

SU.MMARY: This document publishes in the Federal Register an amendment adoptin

(DOT).

owners and operators of Tile Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700e, -800, -90

aitWOlihiness directive (AD) 2010-06-51 that was sent previously to all known U.S.

014 CFR Pa,-' 39

r{j (Docket No. FAA-2010-0230; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-071-AD; Amendme

\\0 39::**; AD 2010-06-511

RlN 2120-AA64

and -900ER series airplanes by individual notices. This AD requires doing a detailed

INn! \LS'SIG

",""ec ----

inspection of the inboard and outboard aft attach lugs of the left and right elevator cant I

b,,;;;C";;;",".O""";'''RO'''' -

tab mechanisms for gaps between the swage ring and the aft attach lug, and between th

'N'T'Al, ",G

spacer and the aft attach lug; trying to move or rotate the spacer using hand pressure; aJ d

replacing any discrepant elevator tab control mechanism, including perfomung the

detailed inspection on the replacement p3.1ibefore and after installatioll. This AD is

prompted by a report of failure of the aft attach lugs on the left elevator tab control INIIIAI.5I:SJG

mechanism, which resulted in severe elevator vibration. We are issuing this AD to det D'fE

and conect a loose bearing in the aft lug of the elevator tab control mechanism, which

could result in unwanted elevator and tab vibration. The consequent structural failure ( lTIA",,'",G

the elevator or horizontal stabilizer could result in loss of aircraft control and structural Dm

i.ntegrity.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 944 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 944

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 1999

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend Public Law 105-188 to provide for the mineral leasing of 
                   certain Indian lands in Oklahoma.

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

SECTION 1. MINERAL LEASING OF CERTAIN INDIAN LANDS IN OKLAHOMA.

    Public Law 105-188 (112 Stat. 620 and 621) is amended--
            (1) in the title, by inserting ``and certain former Indian 
        reservations in Oklahoma'' after ``Fort Berthold Indian 
        Reservation''; and
            (2) in section 1--
                    (A) by striking the section heading and inserting 
                the following:

``SECTION 1. LEASES OF CERTAIN ALLOTTED LANDS.'';

                and
                    (B) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking clause (i) 
                and inserting the following:
                            ``(i) is located within--
                                    ``(I) the Fort Berthold Indian 
                                Reservation in North Dakota; or
                                    ``(II) a former Indian reservation 
                                located in Oklahoma of--
                                            ``(aa) the Comanche Indian 
                                        Tribe;
                                            ``(bb) the Kiowa Indian 
                                        Tribe;
                                            ``(cc) the Apache Tribe;
                                            ``(dd) the Fort Sill Apache 
                                        Tribe of Oklahoma;
                                            ``(ee) the Wichita and 
                                        Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, 
                                        Keechi, Waco, and Tawakonie) 
                                        located in Oklahoma;
                                            ``(ff) the Delaware Tribe 
                                        of Western Oklahoma; or
                                            ``(gg) the Caddo Indian 
                                        Tribe; and''.

            Passed the Senate August 5, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### D. Y. Searles, Appellant, v. Charles Haag, *et al.,*Appellees.

Nuisance: injunction: appeal.

*Appeal from Des Moines District Court.*— Hon. Charles H. Phelps, Judge.

Saturday, May, 28, 1892.

The plaintiff entitles in his abstract, and on his part submits herewith, the cases of himself v. Prank Ober, v. Joseph Leis, v. Bertha Ernest and M. Wiewoehner, v. Lewis Goetz, and v. A. Gantz. They are actions in equity under section 1543 of the Code, as amended, to enjoin certain alleged nuisances. On motion of the defendants, respectively, the plaintiff’s petition in each case was stricken from the flies, to which the plaintiff duly excepted, and from which he *appeals.*

Reversed.

*T. J. Truloclc,*for appellant.

*P. Henry Smyth,*for appellees.

Given. J.

The record before us is the same, except as to names of the defendants, description of real estate, and dates, as in *Searles v. Lux,*52 N. W. Reporter, 327 and the five other eases considered therewith, and decided at this May term, 1892. The questions here discussed are identical with those presented and passed upon in said cases, and for the reasons given in that opinion the appeals in said five cases above mentioned are dismissed, and in the case of *Searles v. Haag, et al.,*the judgment of the district court is reversed.