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

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


      Pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350, the undersigned  officer
of  Harold's Stores, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby  certifies
that  the  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q  for  the
quarter  ended  July 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully  complies
with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d),   as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in
all  material respects, the financial condition and  results
of operations of the Company.

Date:  December 15, 2005      /s/Jodi Taylor
                              Jodi Taylor
                              Chief Financial Officer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00284-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 325th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 325-695108-21

Before Womack, Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN THE INTEREST OF J.H., S.V., AND C.V., CHILDREN
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We have considered appellant C.A.’s “Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal.” 

We grant the motion and dismiss C.A.’s appeal only. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 

43.2(f). Appellant D.V.’s appeal remains pending.

Per Curiam

Delivered: September 22, 2022
#### COM. v. CASWELL, T.

309 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/28/2017

CP-67-CR-0007203-2015

(York)

Affirmed — Application to Withdraw as Counsel Granted
<TABLE>
 






                                                                      EXHIBIT 11.1

                                     THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC.


<CAPTION>
Computation of weighted  average number of  shares outstanding used in  determining primary and
fully diluted earnings per share:



(Shares in 000's)               Thirty-nine Weeks Ended  Thirteen weeks Ended
                                  May 3,    April 27,       May 3,  April 27,
                                    1997         1996         1997       1996
Primary

<S>                               <C>          <C>          <C>        <C>
1. Weighted average number of 
   common shares outstanding      46,259       37,998       49,873     38,003


2. Assumed exercise of certain
   stock options based on
   average market value              180          186          153        221


3. Weighted average number of
   shares used in primary per
   share computations             46,439       38,184       50,026     38,224




Fully diluted (A)

1. Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding     46,259       37,998       49,873     38,003
           
2. Assumed exercise of all
   dilutive options based on
   higher of average or
   closing market value             180          212          153        268

3. Weighted average number of
   shares used in fully diluted 
   per share computations        46,439       38,210       50,026     38,271




(A)   This calculation is submitted in accordance with Securities Exchange Act of l934
      Release No. 9083 although not required by Footnote 2 to Paragraph l4 of APB
      Opinion No. l5 because it results in dilution of less than 3%.
</TABLE>
                                        <PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

 
                        GROUP MAINTENANCE AMERICA CORP.
                          SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES
                              AS OF JULY 31, 1997


Group Maintenance America Corp.(Texas)
   A-ABC Appliance, Inc. (Texas)....................................... 100%
   A-1 Appliance & Air Conditioning, Inc. (Texas)...................... 100
   AA JARL, Inc. (Texas)............................................... 100
   Airtron, Inc. (Delaware)............................................ 100
      Airtron of Central Florida, Inc. (Florida)....................... 100
   CRP Acquisition Corp. (Colorado).................................... 100
   Charles Crawford, Inc. (Texas)...................................... 100
   Costner Brothers, Inc. (South Carolina)............................. 100
   GroupMAC Holding Corp. (Delaware)................................... 100
   GroupMAC Management Co. (Delaware).................................. 100
   Hallmark Air Conditioning, Inc. (Texas)............................. 100
      Jerry Albert Air Conditioning, Inc. (Texas)...................... 100
   K & N Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. (Texas).......... 100
   Sibley Services, Inc. (Tennessee)................................... 100
   United Acquisition Corp. (Iowa)..................................... 100


                                       1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

AF 06-0185 

IN THE MATTER OF APPOINTING MEMBERS TO 

THE SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION OF THE 

MONTANA SUPREME COURT 

F1LEJ 

JAN 1 2 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

The term of the Honorable John Warner (Retired) as an alternate member of the 

Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court expired on December 31, 2021. 

The Court thanks Judge Warner for his service to the Commission, to the Court, and to the 

people of Montana. 

Pursuant to § 46-18-901, MCA, the expiration of Judge Warner's term requires the 

Chief Justice of this Court to appoint a new alternate member to the Sentence Review 

Division. Judge Warner has expressed an interest in being reappointed. Therefore, and 

with the consent of the appointee, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable John Warner (Retired) is reappointed as the 

alternate member to the Sentence Review Division for a term of three years, expiring 

December 31, 2024. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to the Honorable John Warner, 

all members of the Sentence Review Division, the State Bar of Montana, Shelly Smith, 

Office Administrator for the Sentence Review Division, and all Montana District Court 

Clerks. 

DATED this ki)47day of January, 2022. 

For the Court, 

By 

Chief Justice 

01/12/2022

Case Number: AF 06-0185
#### IN RE: Julie Baker ZALLOUM, Debtor. Julie Baker Zalloum, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. River Oaks Community Services Association, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-11853 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 5, 2018)

*974Julie Baker Zalloum, Pro Se

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Julie Zalloum, proceeding *pro*se, appeals a district court order which dismissed as moot her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order overruling her objections to the proof of claims filed by River Oaks Community Services Association, Inc.’s in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. .The district court ruled that Ms. Zalloum’s challenges were moot because her Chapter 13 case had been dismissed by the bankruptcy court.

Ms. Zalloum argues that the district court erred in dismissing her appeal as moot because (1) an ongoing controversy exists between River Oaks and herself, and (2) the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction and continues to enter orders relating to other disputes. She also claims that the bankruptcy court erred when it overruled her objections to River Oaks’ proofs of claims.

We sit as a second court of review in bankruptcy matters, independently examining the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy court, and employing the same standards of review as the district court. *See in re Optical Techs., Inc.,*425 F.3d 1294, 1299-300 (11th Cir. 2005). We review *de novo*the bankruptcy court’s and district court’s legal conclusions, and review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error. *See id.*at 1300. Mootness is a question of law subject to *de novo*review. *See Christian Coal, of Fla., Inc. v. United States,*662 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2011).

Article III of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to eases and controversies. *See id.*.at 1189. Accordingly, federal courts cannot offer advisory opinions on moot questions or on abstract propositions. *See id.*And federal courts cannot declare principles or rules of law outside those implicated by the matter directly before them. *See id.*A live controversy must exist at all stages of review. *See id.*at 1189-90.

A bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a debtor’s Chapter 13 case moots an appeal arising from the bankruptcy proceedings because, after dismissal, no Chapter 13 plan exists. *See Neidich v. Salas,*783 F.3d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that the dismissal of a Chapter 13 case moots an appeal arising from the debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings). Applying *Salas*to this case, the appeal is moot because Ms. Zalloum’s' Chapter 13 case was dismissed and there is no Chapter 13 proceeding to which Ms. Zalloum could object. We cannot grant any meaningful relief to Mrs. Zalloum in this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                              CERTIFICATION OF CEO

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 Form 10-Q of the National Housing
Trust Limited Partnership for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof, I James A Bowman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Limited Partnership, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to 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, that financial condition and result of operations of the Limited
     Partnership.

Date August 14, 2002            By /s/ James A Bowman
     ---------------               ------------------
                                      James A. Bowman, President
                                      and Chief Executive Officer
                                      NHT, Inc., General Partner for
                                      National Housing Trust Limited Partnership

                                       17
EXHIBIT 12

                     STATEMENTS RE COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
                   
                   THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                       
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


  
(Dollars in Millions)                                     Year Ended
                                                Dec. 31, 1997    Dec. 31, 1996
                                                                 
Earnings:                                                        
  (Loss) Income Before Income Taxes               $(1,064.3)      $  415.6
  Add Fixed Charges - net of capitalized           
    interest                                           97.0          118.2
                                                                 
  Earnings                                        $  (967.3)      $  533.8
                                                                 
                                                                 
Fixed Charges:                                                    
  Interest on Indebtedness                        $    88.3       $  112.3
  Portion of rents representative of the   
    interest factor                                    12.7           12.1
  
  Fixed Charges                                   $   101.0       $  124.4
                                                                 
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (a)                (9.58)          4.29


(a) For purposes of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed  charges, earnings
represent pretax (loss) income from continuing operations plus fixed  charges 
(net of capitalized interest).  Fixed charges  represent interest (whether   
expensed   or  capitalized) and one-third (the portion deemed representative 
of the interest factor) of rents.
# EDA Disclaimer & Instructions

 EDA DISCLAIMER:  This template is provided at the request of Applicants as an optional tool to clarify the required information for your application in accordance with the required, standard OMB approved forms (SF-424, SF-424A and Budget Narrative). It in no way prevents you from supplying this information in an alternate format.Project Costs must be substantiated to the point that the award official can determine whether proposed costs appear reasonable, allocable, and necessary to meet the project's Scope of Work, as well as whether those costs meet any other specific requirements that may apply. This optional workbook can help your organization meet those requirements. 

 Instructions:  This is an optional template. Please fill out the Staffing Plan, Budget Narrative, Subawards (if applicable), and Timeline. The Budget Overview tab will autopopulate based on the inputs from the other tabs.

# Staffing Plan

Total Personnel Costs should be calculated to account for all personnel costs charged to the grant and should include both federal resources and matching share, if any.Further, fringe costs should be calculated and documented based on personnel projections . Supporting documents and policies should be provided upon request. More information on fringe benefits can be found in 2 CFR 200.431

Instructions: Staffing plan should include a detailed breakdown of time allotted to the project, in addition to their specific role/responsbilities on this project. Staffing for subawardees or contractors should NOT be included here and should be included in the contractual line item on the following tabs.

# Budget Narrative

Insert values for all cost categories. This sheet will autopopulate the overall totals on the Budget Overview tab.

# Subawards

Instructions: If your application includes subawards to eligible entities, please fill out a detailed budget for each of those subawards. This tab will NOT autopopulate other tabs. Please ensure totals and breakdown for subawards are listed under the Budget Narrative Tab under "contractual" and denote it is a subaward vs. a contractor. All subawards should meet eligibility criteria for this NOFO. For definitions, see 2 CFR 200.1.

# Budget Overview

Cells on this page are linked to the individual categories which are required for the SF-424, SF-424A and Budget Narrative. 

# Timeline

Instructions:1. Leave the months as numeric values - the Project Scope of Work should remain in general terms for the period of performance. 2. The Tasks and Deliverables included here are examples. They should be updated to include the project specific tasks and deliverables for which you are applying for federal funds and should match your scope of work.
#### Arrington OLIVER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-10604 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 2, 2018)

*972Philip Robert Horowitz, Law Office of Philip R. Horowitz, Esq,, Miami, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant

Jason Wu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Wi-fredo A Ferrer, Karen E. Gilbert, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Arrington Oliver appeals the denial of his successive motion to vacate his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Oliver applied for leave to file a successive motion on the ground that, in the wake of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S, — 136 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), his prior convictions for attempted second degree murder, battery of a law enforcement officer, and carrying a concealed firearm no longer qualified as crimes of violence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), We granted Oliver’s application based on our “threshold determination [that he had] presented a *prima facie*case under Johnson,” and we instructed the district court to determine whether Oliver had satisfied the statutory criteria for filing a successive motion, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). *See In re Moore,*830 F.3d 1268, 1270-73 (11th Cir. 2016). The district court failed to decide whether Oliver satisfied the requirements of section 2255(h), which is a threshold jurisdictional issue that must be decided before delving-into the merits of the successive motion. *See Farris v. United States,*333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). We vacate and remand for the district court to decide the jurisdictional issue.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
# C_2022340EN.01005802.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/58

---

Order of the General Court of 14 July 2022 — Dehaen v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-158/22) (1)

(2022/C 340/81)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5917]



[[Page 11252]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

March 4, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Special Request: In order to begin the surveys described below in 
late March 1997, the Department of the Treasury is requesting that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve this 
information collection by March 17, 1997. To obtain a copy of this 
study, please contact the Public Debt Clearance Officer at the address 
listed below.

Bureau of the Public Debt

    OMB Number: 1535-0122.
    Project Number: BPD 97-1.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Market Research Study on U.S. Savings Bonds.
    Description: The Bureau of the Public Debt has entered into an 
interagency agreement with the Health Resources Study Center of the 
U.S. Navy (HRSC) to conduct a market research study on U. S. Savings 
Bonds: a two-stage study a mail survey preceded by focus groups to aid 
in the design of the survey instrument. This submission is for the 
final phase, the survey. The need for market research arises primarily 
from two new Savings Bonds products: the forthcoming sale of U.S. 
Savings Bonds to the public on a recurring basis through Automated 
Clearinghouse (ACH) debits from their personal checking accounts; and 
the issuance of inflation-indexed savings bonds after January 1, 1998, 
announced by the President September 25, 1996.
    Respondents: Individuals.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 27,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 20 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Other.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 9,000 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 
Third Street, Parkersburg, West VA 26106-1328.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Dale A. Morgan,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-5917 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-40-P
No. 11-10905.

#### Turner *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6430]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-88; RM-9031]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Centennial, WY

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Red 
Rock Broadcasting proposing the allotment of Channel 224A at 
Centennial, Wyoming, as the community's first local aural transmission 
service. Channel 224A can be allotted to Centennial in compliance with 
the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site 
restriction of 11.9 kilometers (7.4 miles) east to avoid a short-
spacing to the licensed site of Station KIQZ(FM), Channel 224A, 
Rawlins, Wyoming. The coordinates for Channel 224A at Centennial are 
North Latitude 41-19-03 and West Longitude 105-59-55.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 28, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before May 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Pamela 
C. Cooper, Roberts & Eckard, P.C., 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW., Suite 
1100, Washington DC 20036 (Counsel for Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-88, adopted February 
26, 1997, and released March 7, 1997. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-6430 Filed 3-13-97:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F