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

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Capella Education Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Lois M. Martin, Senior Vice President and 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:

(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/ Lois M. Martin                               
|Lois M. Martin                                   
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|May 1, 2008                                      

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF INCOME AND STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          $6,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                       654
<INVENTORY>                                     22,934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,026
<PP&E>                                          79,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,432
<BONDS>                                         31,682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,241
<SALES>                                         33,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,383
<CGS>                                           21,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,978
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,353
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    $2,353
<EPS-BASIC>                                       $.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.27


</TABLE>
# C_2015083EN.01000101.xml

| 11.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7490 — Macquarie/Wren House/E.On Spain)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 83/01)

On 2 March 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7490. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7490. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
NeoMedia Technologies, Inc.

                                  Exhibit 16.1

     A Copy of a Letter from Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P. dated June 12, 1998,
              Addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission


                                        4

<PAGE>


Letterhead of:
Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
a Professional Services Firm
203 North La Salle Street
Chicago, Illinois  60601-1210

Telephone (312) 701-5500
Facsimile (312) 701-6533

June 12, 1998

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20549

Gentlemen:

We have read the statements made by NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (copy attached),
which we understand will be filed with the Commission, pursuant to Item 4 of
Form 8-K / A, as part of the Company's Form 8-K / A report as of February 9,
1998. We agree with the statements concerning our Firm in such Form 8-K / A.

Very truly yours,



/s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
----------------------------
COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
EXHIBIT 13.1




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 Annual Report of Top Image Systems Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ido Schechter, Chief Executive 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:




(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.




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.





Date: March 31, 2011


/s/ Ido SchechterName: Ido Schechter

Title: Chief Executive Officer
*

 This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6565

JAMES C. MCNEILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DENNIS VANBUREN, Second Shift Lieutenant;

BENJAMIN LEA, Second Shift Sergeant; SHARON

SNYDER, LPN; ELEXIA CRAIG, LPN; MARY WATSON,

RN; CORRECTIONS OFFICER ROYSTER, Second Shift

Correctional Officer; HOWARD CRABTREE, Second

Shift Correctional Officer; CURTIS MAGNUM,

Second Shift Correctional Officer; ASHANTI

WILLIAMS, Second Shift Correctional Officer;

JAMES WILLIAMS, Second Shift Correctional

Officer; NORWOOD, Second Shift Correctional

Officer; LINDA MORGAN, Third Shift

Correctional Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-03-120-5-BO)

Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003

Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.*
2
3

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James C. McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Deborrah Lynn Newton, Assistant

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

James C. McNeill, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the

district court’s order dismissing his claims against several

defendants on his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000),

but maintaining the action as to other defendants. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order appealed from is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1584

CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPHAT MUA; FRANCOISE VANDENPLAS,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:15-cv-00060-PJM)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: December 1, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas 

V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Josephat Mua and Francoise Vandenplas seek to 

appeal the district court’s orders remanding the underlying 

unjust enrichment action to state court and denying their 

motions for reconsideration and to reopen. California Casualty 

Indemnity Exchange (California Casualty) has moved to dismiss 

the appeal as frivolous, and also asks that Appellants be 

ordered to pay the damages, costs, and attorney’s fees 

associated with this appeal. Appellants have filed motions to 

exceed the length limitations for their appellate filings and 

for leave to file a corrected response to California Casualty’s 

motion to dismiss, and have also filed applications to proceed 

in forma pauperis.

Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “[a]n order 

remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is 

not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) 

(2012); see E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, 

579-83 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the district court’s orders do 

not fall within the exceptions provided by § 1447, the orders 

are not appealable. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We grant Appellants’ motions to exceed the length 

limitations for their appellate filings and to file a corrected 

response, and deny Appellants’ in forma pauperis applications. 
3

We deny California Casualty’s motion to dismiss and for 

sanctions.*

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the material before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

 * We note that this is Appellants’ second unsuccessful 

appeal of the same matter, and we therefore warn Appellants that 

another appeal may subject them to sanctions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages F-3 and F-4 of the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              65 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    65     
<PP&E>                                               0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     175     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,015
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,650)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       240   
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,676
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,676)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2896 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2896

To amend the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to clarify whistleblower 
            rights and protections, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2021

Ms. Duckworth (for herself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Lankford) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to clarify whistleblower 
            rights and protections, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Energy and Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission Whistleblower Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.

    Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
5851) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)--
                            (i) in the first sentence, by striking 
                        ``person in'' and inserting ``employer in''; 
                        and
                            (ii) in the second sentence, by striking 
                        ``the person'' and inserting ``the employer'';
                    (B) in paragraph (2)--
                            (i) by striking ``the person'' each place 
                        it appears and inserting ``the employer''; and
                            (ii) in subparagraph (B), in the first 
                        sentence, by striking ``such person'' and 
                        inserting ``such employer'';
            (2) in subsection (d), in the first sentence, by striking 
        ``a person'' and inserting ``an employer''; and
            (3) in subsection (e)(1), in the first sentence, by 
        striking ``the person'' and inserting ``the employer''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors
Pinnacle Bancshares, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-35603) on Form S-8 of Pinnacle Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated March
14, 2006, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial condition of
Pinnacle Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2005, annual
report on Form 10-KSB of Pinnacle Bancshares, Inc.

                                                              /s/ KPMG LLP

Birmingham, Alabama
March 30, 2006
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 31, 2014 104983 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELIA JACKSON,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 28, 2014

Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

James P. Milstein, Public Defender, Albany (Theresa M.

Suozzi of counsel), for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp

of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County

(Herrick, J.), rendered June 29, 2011, convicting defendant upon

her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted assault in the first

degree.

In satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant

entered into a negotiated plea agreement pursuant to which she

entered a guilty plea to a reduced count of attempted assault in

the first degree. The charges arose from defendant's admitted

conduct in intentionally striking the victim with her car while

driving, causing serious physical injuries. As part of the

agreement, defendant waived her right to appeal the conviction

and sentence and, in exchange, was promised a prison sentence of
-2- 104983 

no more than nine years but not less than 31⁄2 years, with three

years of postrelease supervision. County Court imposed a

sentence of 81⁄2 years in prison, with three years of postrelease

supervision, restitution and other terms. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, defendant argues that her appeal waiver and

guilty plea were not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. A

review of the plea colloquy establishes that defendant made a

voluntary and knowing choice to waive her right to appeal (see

People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6

NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 279-280

[1992]).1 While defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of

her plea survives that appeal waiver (see People v Seaberg, 74

NY2d 1, 10 [1989]), the record on appeal does not reflect that

she challenged her guilty plea on this ground in a motion to

withdraw her plea and, as such, this claim is unpreserved for

appellate review (see People v Watson, 115 AD3d 1016, 1017

[2014]; People v White, 104 AD3d 1056, 1056 [2013], lvs denied 21

NY3d 1018, 1021 [2013]). In any event, we find that the plea was

knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d

359, 365-366 [2013]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543

[1992]).

Finally, given that County Court abided by its sentencing

commitment, defendant's challenge to the sentence as harsh and

excessive is precluded by her valid and unqualified appeal waiver

(see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; People v Martin, 105 AD3d

1266, 1267 [2013]).

Lahtinen, Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

1 The written waiver of appeal, which the record reflects

was signed and discussed in open court, is not included in the

record on appeal.
-3- 104983 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-121523, 333-120952, 333-120347, 333-116334, 333-115098, 333-115055, 333-113077,
333-110147, 333-110146, 333-98745, 333-69768, 333-63642, 333-46618, 333-73451, 333-68373, 333-25757, and 333-57583 of Midway Games Inc., of our reports dated March 14, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Midway Games Inc., Midway Games Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting of Midway Games Inc, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|                                 |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|-------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Chicago, Illinois
March 14, 2005 |  |                      

---



QuickLinks