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

                            MICROPAC INDUSTRIES, INC.

                             CERTICATION 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 Micropac  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  August 26, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Patrick Cefalu, CFO of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Patrick Cefalu
-----------------------------
Patrick Cefalu, CFO
(Principal Financial Officer)
2017-0197.

#### State ex rel. Hayes v. Jones.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., not participating.
MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNAL
CONTROL STRUCTURE RELATIVE TO THE SERVICING OF
AUTOMOBILE LOAN RECEIVABLES


The management of the Bank is responsible for establishing and maintaining
the internal control structure.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected
benefits and related costs of control procedures.  The objectives of an
internal control structure are to provide management with reasonable, but
not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from
unauthorized use or disposition, and that transactions are executed in
accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit
the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.

We have performed an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Bank's
internal control structure based on the criteria established in Internal
Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission ("COSO") relative to the servicing
of automobile loan receivables owned by Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trusts
Series 1995-2, 1996-1, 1996-2, 1997-1, 1997-2, 1997-3, 1997-4, 1998-1
and 1998-2 (collectively referred to as the "Trusts" herein) as of
September 30, 1999, and we have determined that the Bank maintained an
effective internal control structure over financial reporting relative
to the servicing of automobile loan receivables owned by the Trusts as
of September 30, 1999.

However, there are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any internal
control structure, including the possibility of human error and the
circumvention or overriding of controls.  Accordingly, even an effective
internal control structure can provide only reasonable assurance with
respect to reliability of financial statements and safeguarding and
management of assets.  Furthermore, the effectiveness of any internal
control structure can change with changes in circumstances.



_______________________		_________________________
Kevin B. Cashen			        Larry C. Cain
Senior Vice President 	  	Senior Vice President



_______________________		__________________________
George P. Clancy, Jr.   		Stephen R. Halpin, Jr.
Executive Vice President 	Executive Vice President and
			                      	Chief Financial Officer

October 20, 1999
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2003

For the relief of the heirs, successors, or assigns of Sadae Tamabayashi.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 25 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. AKAKA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of the heirs, successors, or assigns of Sadae

Tamabayashi.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT REQUIRED.

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec5 retary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any money in the

6 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $1,953

7 to the heirs, successors, and assigns of Sadae

8 Tamabayashi, as their interests may appear, in full satis9 faction of all of their claims against the United States for

10 the destruction or loss of property of Sadae Tamabayashi

11 resulting from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Ha-
2

•S 2003 IS

1 waii, on December 7, 1941, or from the defense of Oahu

2 against such attack. The Comptroller General of the Unit3 ed States shall determine and certify to the Secretary of

4 the Treasury the status of any person as such an heir,

5 successor, or assignee and the interest of that person in

6 the total amount to be paid under the preceding sentence.

7 SEC. 2. LIMITATION.

8 Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, it shall

9 be unlawful to pay or deliver to any agent or attorney,

10 and for any agent or attorney to receive, on account of

11 services rendered in connection with the claims paid pur12 suant to section 1, any amount exceeding 10 percent of

13 the amount so paid. Violation of the provisions of this sec14 tion is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed

15 $1,000.

Æ
#### Ian Jack Miller, Respondent, v Zara USA, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[56 NYS3d 302]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Benjamin Cohen, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a protective order to preclude defendant from accessing plaintiff’s personal documents on a company-owned laptop, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny so much of the motion as sought protection of attorney-client privilege, to direct plaintiff to produce to Supreme Court all items in his privilege log in which he asserts attorney work product protection, and to remand to Supreme Court for in camera review and determination of whether such documents are in fact protected attorney work product, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Application of the factors set forth in *In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd.*(322 BR 247, 257 [SD NY 2005]) indicates that plaintiff lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal use of the laptop computer supplied to him by defendant Zara USA, Inc. (Zara), his employer, and thus lacked the reasonable assurance of confidentiality that is foundational to attorney-client privilege *(see Peerenboom v Marvel Entertainment, LLC,*148 AD3d 531, 531-532 [1st Dept 2017]; *In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd.,*322 BR 247, 257 [SD NY 2005]). Among other factors, Zara’s employee handbook, of which plaintiff, Zara’s general counsel, had at least constructive knowledge *(see Peerenboom,*148 AD3d at 532; *Scott v Beth Israel Med. Ctr.*
      *463
      *Inc.,*17 Misc 3d 934, 942 [Sup Ct, NY County 2007]), restricted use of company-owned electronic resources, including computers, to “business purposes” and proscribed offensive uses. The handbook specified that “[a]ny data collected, downloaded and/or created” on its electronic resources was “the exclusive property of Zara,” emphasized that “[e]mployees should expect that all information created, transmitted, downloaded, received or stored in Zara’s electronic communications resources may be accessed by Zara at any time, without prior notice,” and added that employees “do not have an expectation of privacy or confidentiality in any information transmitted or stored in Zara’s electronic communication resources (whether or not such information is password-protected).”

Plaintiff avers, and defendant does not dispute, however, that, while reserving a right of access, Zara in fact never exercised that right as to plaintiff’s laptop and never actually viewed any of the documents stored on that laptop. Given the lack of any “actual disclosure to a third party, [plaintiff’s] use of [Zara’s computer] for personal purposes does not, standing alone, constitute a waiver of attorney work product protections” (Peerenboom, 148 AD3d at 532; *see Bluebird Partners v First Fid.*Bank, *N.J.,*248 AD2d 219, 225 [1st Dept 1998], *lv dismissed*92 NY2d 946 [1998]). We accordingly modify to the extent indicated *(see Peerenboom,*148 AD3d at 531-532).

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
#### Boback v. Ross

10/30/2015

175 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 114 A.3d 1042
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1930

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to improve

the administration of claims and obligations of the Farmers Home Administration, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 15 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. CONRAD) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,

and Forestry

MARCH 24 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Committee discharged

A BILL

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

Act to improve the administration of claims and obligations of the Farmers Home Administration, and for other

purposes.

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 ‘‘Farmers Home Admin5 istration Improvement Act of 1994’’.
2

•S 1930 CDS

1 SEC. 2. DELINQUENT FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION

2 OBLIGATIONS.

3 Section 331 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural De4 velopment Act (7 U.S.C. 1981) is amended by adding at

5 the end the following new subsection:

6 ‘‘(c) The Secretary may use for the prosecution or

7 defense of any claim or obligation described in subsection

8 (b)(5) the Attorney General, the General Counsel of the

9 Department of Agriculture, or a private attorney who has

10 entered into a contract with the Secretary.’’.

Æ
No. 12M96.

No. 12M97.

No. 12M99.

No. 12M101.

#### Anderson *v.*Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.; Washington *v.*East Baton Rouge Parish et al.; Carter *v.*Maximov et al.; and Shriner *v.*Wild Jack’s Casino et al.

Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 12-958.

#### Sebba *v.*Arizona.

Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of Timothy Tubridy, Appellant, v New York City Fire Department et al., Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 811]

In a proceeding pursuant to CELR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire *452Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, dated June 1, 2001, which awarded the petitioner ordinary disability retirement benefits, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 11, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner received ordinary disability retirement benefits, rather than the accident disability retirement benefits which he requested, as a consequence of a tie vote by the members of the respondent Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund *(see Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees,*60 NY2d 347 [1983]). Under such circumstances, the denial of accident disability retirement benefits may only be disturbed if it can be concluded as a matter of law from the record that the petitioner is entitled to those benefits *(see Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, supra).*As the respondents correctly contend, there was competent and credible medical evidence demonstrating that the petitioner’s cardiomyopathy was not accompanied by any underlying stress-related heart disease or coronary artery disease. Given the existence of such medical evidence, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the petitioner should have been awarded accident disability retirement benefits *(see Matter of Sweetman v Board of Trustees,*232 AD2d 647 [1996]). Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1806 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1806

 To rescind the fee required for the use of public recreation areas at 
   lakes and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of 
                   Engineers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 27 (legislative day, January 25), 1994

  Mr. Nickles introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
      referred to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To rescind the fee required for the use of public recreation areas at 
   lakes and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of 
                   Engineers, 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. RESCISSION.

    Section 210 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d-3) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (b); and
            (2) by inserting the following new subsection (b):
    ``(b) User Fees.--User fees at the lakes and reservoirs shall be 
collected by officers and employees of the United States only from 
users of highly developed facilities requiring continuous presence of 
personnel for maintenance and supervision of the facilities, and shall 
not be collected for access to or use of water areas, undeveloped or 
lightly developed shoreland, picnic grounds, overlook sites, scenic 
drives, or boat launching ramps where no mechanical or hydraulic 
equipment is provided.''.

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT FOR CAMPSITES.

    Section 4(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
(16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(b)) is amended by inserting immediately before the 
last sentence, the following: ``At each lake or reservoir under the 
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, where 
camping is permitted, such agency shall provide at least 1 primitive 
campground, containing designated campsites, sanitary facilities, and 
vehicular access, where no charge shall be imposed.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Kevin Capone et al., Appellants, v Castelton Commodities International LLC, Formerly Known as Louis Dreyfus Highbridge Energy LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[48 NYS3d 583]-

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 29, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents’ (defendants) motion to dismiss the causes of action for tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment, veil-piercing, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Section 9.9 (a) of the relevant agreement contains a clear exculpatory provision that, standing alone, supports the motion court’s dismissal of the claims alleged against defendants *(see e.g. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc. v Jaffari,*727 A2d 286, 291 [Del 1999]; Del Code Ann, tit 6, § 18-1101). The Delaware Limited Liability Company (LLC) Act was designed to “give the maximum effect to the principle of freedom of contract and to the enforceability of limited liability company agreements” (Del Code Ann, tit 6, § 18-1101 [b]). Plaintiffs’ public policy argu*507ments that this section should not apply are unavailing, as the Delaware LLC Act’s broad authorization to eliminate all liability also embraces the power to more narrowly specify the persons who may or may not be sued.

Plaintiffs’ claims against defendants would fail even without this exculpatory provision. A nonsignatory to a valid contract, such as defendants here, cannot be held liable for unjust enrichment when the claim covers the same subject matter as covered in the written agreement *(Randall’s Is. Aquatic Leisure, LLC v City of New York,*92 AD3d 463, 464 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 804 [2012]; *CIM Urban Lending GP, LLC v Cantor Commercial Real Estate Sponsor, L.P.,*2016 WL 768904, *2, 2016 Del Ch LEXIS 47, *5-6 [Feb. 26, 2016, C.A. No. 11060-VCN]). The tortious interference claim fails because plaintiffs have not alleged that defendants have acted with malice *(Felsen v Sol Cafe Mfg. Corp.,*24 NY2d 682, 687 [1969]).

The implied covenant claim fails because the agreement expressly addresses the conduct at issue *(see Nationwide Emerging Mgrs., LLC v Northpointe Holdings, LLC,*112 A3d 878, 896 [Del 2015]).

The motion court properly dismissed the veil-piercing claims, as plaintiffs’ allegations are not sufficient to support such a claim, especially in light of their concession that the entities were established for a legitimate business purpose *(see Wallace v Wood,*752 A2d 1175, 1184 [Del Ch 1999]; *3 E. 54th St. N.Y., LLC v Patriarch Partners, LLC,*90 AD3d 418, 420 [1st Dept 2011]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.

Motion to take judicial notice of ruling in the Delaware Court of Chancery granted.
|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                   
|                                                                                                
|Price of Port Huron, MI Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                
|                                                                                                
|Price of Port Huron, MI Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan  | Feb | Mar  | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov  | Dec 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | --- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---- | ----
|2017                                                                                                                              |      |     | 3.14 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 3.14 | 2.88
|2018                                                                                                                              | 3.53 |     |      |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Abdelmoez El-Shafaie et al., Appellants, v Kamal P. Verma et al., Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 850]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J), entered August 26, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them on the issue of liability and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability as against the weight of the evidence, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury verdict finding that the defendant driver was negligent but that his negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident was not against the weight of the evidence *(see Campbell v Crimi,*267 AD2d 343 [1999]; *Rubin v Pecoraro,*141 AD2d 525 [1988]). “A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that that fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are ‘so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause’ ” *(Schaefer v Guddemi,*182 AD2d 808, 809 [1992], quoting *Rubin v Pecoraro,*141 AD2d 525, 527 [1988]). In this case, the issues were not so inextricably interwoven such that the jury’s finding was against the weight of the evidence. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1971 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 1971

 To require the reauthorization of executive reporting requirements at 
                          least every 5 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 24 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

  Mr. McCain introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the reauthorization of executive reporting requirements at 
                          least every 5 years.

    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 ``Reporting Requirement Sunset Act of 
1994''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION IN 5 YEARS.

    (a) In General.--Each provision of law requiring the submittal to 
Congress (or any committee of the Congress) of any report, except those 
related to financial accountability, specified on the list described in 
section 3 shall, with respect to that requirement, cease to be 
effective 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
    (b) Presidential Extension.--
            (1) Additional report.--If the President determines that a 
        report described in section 3 is necessary after the 
        authorization for the report is terminated pursuant to 
        subsection (a), the President may submit the report one 
        additional time in accordance with the law authorizing the 
        report.
            (2) Limitations.--The President shall include in the report 
        the reasons for continuing the report.
    (c) Identification of Wasteful Reports.--The President shall 
include in the first annual budget submitted pursuant to section 1105 
of title 31, United States Code, after the date of enactment of this 
Act a list of reports that the President has determined are unnecessary 
or wasteful and the reasons for such determination.

SEC. 3. LIST OF REPORTS.

    The list referred to in section 2 is the list prepared by the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives for the second session of the 103d 
Congress pursuant to clause 2 of rule III of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

                                 <all>
```