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

I, David W.
Froesel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Omnicare,
Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The
  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September
  30, 2006 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of
  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
  or 78o(d)); and
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | 2. | The
  information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                            

Date: November
9, 2006

| |  |                            
| |  | ---------------------------
| |  | /s/ David W.
  Froesel, Jr.
| |  |                            
| |  | David W.
  Froesel, Jr.    
| |  | Senior Vice
  President and
| |  | Chief
  Financial Officer  

---
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-16-00326-CV 

_________________

IN RE RACHEL ASHLEY RALSTON

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

75th District Court of Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CV1408348

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this mandamus proceeding, relator Rachel Ashley Ralston1 contends the 

trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to transfer venue of her 

petition for modification in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.

Specifically, Ralston claims that the trial court’s order disregarded mandatory 

venue statutes which require the case to be transferred to Bexar County.

In her original motion to transfer venue, which was filed on April 28, 2016, 

Ralston requested that venue of the case be transferred to Comal County. After the 

 1

Relator is also known as Rachel Ashley Ralston-Miller. 
2

real party in interest filed an affidavit controverting the motion to transfer venue, 

Ralston filed her first amended motion to transfer venue on July 19, 2016. In her 

amended motion to transfer venue, Ralston requested that the case be transferred to 

Bexar County. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 155.201(b), 155.203 (West 2014).

Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when that 

abuse cannot be adequately remedied by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 

148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). After reviewing the mandamus record and 

petition, we conclude that the relator has failed to establish an abuse of discretion 

by the trial court. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 23, 2016

Opinion Delivered November 17, 2016

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
97-2204.

#### State v. Baston.

Lucas App. No. L-95-087. Reported at 85 Ohio St.3d 418, 709 N.E.2d 128. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
February 9, 2015

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

IN SUPREME COURT 

A15-0137 

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against 

Patrick J. Nolan, III, a Minnesota Attorney, 

Registration No. 121307. 

ORDER 

fiL--

Dm~EOF 

APPB.lAlEC s 

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition 

for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Patrick J. Nolan, III, committed 

professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, being convicted of a 

felony for making a false statement to United States Postal Inspection Service agents 

during the course of a criminal investigation, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 

8.4(b) and 8.4(c). 

Respondent watves his rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional 

Responsibility (RLPR), unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition, and with 

the Director recommends that the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension with 

no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years. 

The court independently reviewed the file and approves the recommended 

disposition. 

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Respondent Patrick J. Nolan, III, is indefinitely suspended from the practice 

of law, effective as of the date of the filing of this order, with no right to petition for 

reinstatement for 3 years. 

2. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), 

RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional 

responsibility portion of the state bar examination, satisfaction of continuing legal 

education requirements pursuant to Rule 18( e), RLPR, and proof of compliance with the 

terms of respondent's criminal probation. 

3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of 

suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs 

pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. 

Dated: February 9, 2015 

BY THE COURT: 

2
Exhibit 99.2





The following certification accompanies the issuers quarterly Report on Form 10 and is not filed as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-47551 and IC-25967, dated March 21, 2003



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 9067 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In
connection with the quarterly report of Summit Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kikuo
Nakahara, CFO 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:



|3. |  | To the best of my knowledge, the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. |  | To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the financial condition and operating results of the Company.



/s/    KIKUO NAKAHARAKikuo NakaharaChief Financial Officer




This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.



1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                       668
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,918
<PP&E>                                          13,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,465
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,843
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,684
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,152)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,627
<SALES>                                          1,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,605
<CGS>                                              888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,244
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (23)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (819)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (819)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (819)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0141. MOUSSA DIARRA v. JEFFREY MANN, DEKALB COUNTY

SHERIFF.

In this habeas corpus case, Moussa Diarra has filed an application for

discretionary appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion to recuse the trial

court judge. We lack jurisdiction.

Because the case remained pending below when Diarra filed his application,

he wasrequired to follow the interlocutory application proceduresset forth in OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (b), which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial

court, to obtain appellate review. See Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829 (747

SE2d 21) (2013) (dismissing appeal from recusal order based on failure to follow the

interlocutory appeal procedure). Although Diarra filed an application for

discretionary appeal, as described in OCGA § 5-6-35, compliance with that procedure

does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from

complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v.

Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).1 Diarra’s failure to comply with the

interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this application,

which is hereby DISMISSED.

1

In addition, while OCGA § 42-12-8 provides that appeals of all actions filed

by prisonersmustfollow the discretionary application procedures of OCGA § 5-6-35,

that requirement does not apply to habeas corpus cases. See OCGA § 42-12-3 (1);

Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489, 490, n.3 (480 SE2d 24) (1997). 

November 10, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/10/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2204 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2204

  To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to clarify the mailing 
      requirement relating to social security account statements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 24, 2021

   Mr. Wyden (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Sinema, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
 Casey, and Mr. Cardin) introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to clarify the mailing 
      requirement relating to social security account statements.

    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 ``Know Your Social Security Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT TO MAIL SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT 
              STATEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1143 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1320b-13) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by adding at the end the 
        following: ``Such statement shall be provided by mail unless 
        the requesting individual chooses electronic delivery for that 
        request.''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(2)--
                    (A) by striking ``Beginning not later than'' and 
                inserting ``(A) Beginning not later than'';
                    (B) by inserting ``by mail'' after ``provide''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(B) In any case in which an eligible individual described in 
subparagraph (A) responds to an annual inquiry by the Commissioner 
relating to the mailing of the individual's statement by making an 
election that such statement for such year be provided in electronic 
form only, the requirements of this paragraph shall be deemed to be 
satisfied for such year with respect to the individual.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to social security account statements required to be 
provided after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21


                          PARAGON TRADE BRANDS, INC.
                          Subsidiaries of the Company


                 SUBSIDIARY                       JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
                 ----------                       -----------------------------
Juliette Research S.A.                                  Uruguay
Paragon Trade Brands (Canada) Inc.                      Canada
Paragon Trade Brands FCS, Inc.                          U.S. Virgin Islands
PTB International, Inc.                                 State of Delaware
PTB Acquisition Sub, Inc.                               State of Delaware
PTB Holdings, Inc.                                      State of Ohio
Paragon-Mabesa International, S.A. de C.V. (51%)        Mexico
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          22,492
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                15,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     65,486
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,914
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,021
<LOANS>                                        121,979
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,915
<DEPOSITS>                                     185,467
<SHORT-TERM>                                    24,608
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,647
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,041
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,152
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 236,915
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,845
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,571
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   832
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,248
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,435
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,813
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,435
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 114
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,894
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,894
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.85
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .067
<LOANS-NON>                                        159
<LOANS-PAST>                                        50
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,478
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      352
<RECOVERIES>                                       132
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,158
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,158
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
€0NFI1i¥1.~=rtii*i f· Dr•ll, I I:tl.L 

11s.\ cmcmAR ?iO. 111-2 l.O ?·:':1.y l.955 

SIX;TIO:L! V - ACCOl"JUTIHG 

1. Receipt of all ordcro lTlll be' acknowledged, :chorln3 proposed d~tc o:r obligation or cited :funds to3ether with anticipa.tcd delivery 

d=i.tcs. Subsequent reports on current procurement., delivery and 1\mc.l 

status will be mac.le by DIRtiSA. 

2. The Fil'lo.nca o.nd AccounM.na; 0.fficcr, ITS!\., w:l 11 'Claizr~1n o.ccouuts 

in w~ich will be recC'rded the 6li10Unt o:r each 01--dcr received t~cther with 

related oblit:r-\1.ion and exp'lnditure transactions. 

3. Copi.<"s o! docum\?ttt.s subG ta.ntia.tlng tra.noactions will be f'oxi:.tU"dcd 

to c011~v;r.~r as.::n-:1-..!l wl1.h monthly !"ieco.l reports on the sta.1..us or :ru.nd.s. 

4. Colltractor invoices for 1>3yr,1cnt ol" n:atier1el delivered to eonr,.\'t'. t·•,.. 

a;i·:·mcic.:B will. "Le ror.:c.rued to the FiIWJ"1ce and Accountinz o.rrtccr, ll"'.1.\ ror 

vouc:ilCl" prcp:i.ro.tion e.1'ld p...,YJ11("11t. 

5. Fiscal copies cf v.:Lliilat.c:l cxp.:mditurc documents will be .rorw:i,rc.lcd. 

to e.llotn1e11t holders tbrmieh nonr.a.l di r;bu1~01na or cross d1sbursin3 chnmr.ils. 

A~,~ c . .). r:~l! ·. ".LL 

Colcu~l, N:. "J 

k1jut~nt Co~r~l 

JC:J:.! D .1\Cr..'.~1I ~'11'1 

?:.:,Jor C-11'.tro.l, US aUr Force 

c::dc.L' or nt":"tt 

- 2 -

eclassifi ed and approved for release by 

SA on 01-26-2015 ursuantto E.O. 1352 

€0NFIDENTIA~ 
NSA CIRCULAR 

NUMBER 111-2 

NATIOUAL SECURITY AGENCY 

War.hington 25, D. C., 10 M3.y 1955 

EFFECTIVE UNTIL RESCINDED OR SUPERSEDED 

FINANCIAL POLICY GOVERNmG COORDINATED PROCURJ!MEN'r 

OF CRlPTOLOGIC ~UIPMEN'r AND SPARE PARTS FOR THE U. S. 

MILITARY SERVICES· 

SECTION 

GENERAL . . • . • . • • • • I 

AUTHORrrY • . . . . • II 

BUDGErING • . . . . . • . . III 

FINANCiliG • . • . ., . . IV 

ACCOONTING. . . . • v 

SECTION I - GENERAL 

.. :.._ ... _,- - ' 

This Circular establishes financial policy and procedures governing coordinat~d procurement of cryptologic materiel for activities wlthin the 

Department of Defense, hereinafter referred to as "i:!onsumer agencies." 

SECTION II - AUTHORITY 

By statute and by authority of the Secretary of Defense, the Director, 

National Security Agency (DIRNSA) is authorized: to: 

a. Furnish materiel tor the COMSEC and COMINT Program of consumer agencies under mutually agreeable fiscal arrangements. 

b. Furnish consumer agencies with such I114teriel, render 'tiill• 

and collect payment f'or items shipped. 

c. Furnish at his own discr~tion certain of these materiel at 

no cost or on loan basis to certain consumer agencies. 

S:OOTION III - BUDGErING 

Coordination, submission and review of cryptologic budget estimates 

will be conducted in accordance with current NSA policy. 

SECTION IV - FINANCING 

Appropriated funds of consumer agencies will be cited in orders 

forwarded to DIRNSA. Such funds will be obligated in NBA contracts for 

expenditure to be accomplished either on shipment of materiel f-rnm 

Contractor's Plants or on receipt of materiel at consumer agencies, 

depending on specific contract terms governing inspection and acceptance. 

€0NFIDENTIAL
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10995

Summary Calendar

 

ALAN GERARD OUELLETTE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JIM BOWLES ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CV-1283-X

- - - - - - - - - -

March 11, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alan Gerard Ouellette, Dallas County prisoner #97004554,

appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint and

revocation of his in forma pauperis (IFP) status pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Ouellette moves for appointment of counsel and

summary judgment; his motions are DENIED. Ouellette contends

that an untreated hernia has caused him serious physical injury;

that his hernia likely will cause him permanent and debilitating

damage in the future; that jail officials were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs; and that the denial of

his medical needs violated the Equal Protection Clause because
another prisoner received adequate medical care.

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or

appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under

this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any

facility, brought and action or appeal in a court of

the United States that was dismissed on the grounds

that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the

prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because Ouellette made no allegations

regarding any danger of a serious physical injury in his

appellate IFP motion, the district court’s grant of leave to

proceed IFP on appeal could have been based only on the

allegations Ouellette made in his responses to a questionnaire

from the magistrate judge. The grant of IFP on appeal

constituted an implicit finding that Ouellette was under an

imminent danger of serious physical injury, contradicting the

district court’s explicit finding that Ouellette was not under

such an imminent danger with regard to his district court

proceedings.

 We vacate the order granting Ouellette leave to proceed

IFP on appeal and remand Ouellette’s case for the district court

to address the inconsistencies in its rulings. See Choyce v.

Dominguez, 160 F.3d 1068, 1071 (5th Cir. 1998). We express no

opinion on whether Ouellette in fact was under imminent danger of

serious physical injury when he filed his notice of appeal or his

motion to proceed IFP on appeal, see Baños v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 

883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998), or whether the type of injury Ouellette

alleges is the type contemplated by § 1915(g).

VACATED and REMANDED.