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

In connection with the Annual Report of
Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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/    Jack C. BridgesJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-PresidentDate: March 31, 2010
STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

LANSING 

DE it 

RICK SNYDER 

GOVERNOR 

Mr. John Mooney 

January 15, 2016 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Mail Code: AR-18J 

Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507 

Dear Me Mooney: 

KEITH CREAGH 

DIRECTOR 

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is submitting this letter to 

identify two companies in Michigan that are subject to requirements in the Data 

Requirement Rule (ORR). Escanaba Paper in Escanaba, Michigan and Lafarge Cement 

in Alpena, Michigan have exceeded the emission applicability threshold of 2,000 tons of 

sulfur dioxide (S02) per year based on the Air Quality Division's (AQD) most recent 

emissions inventory for 2014. A portion of the inventory containing the largest S02 

sources in the State is enclosed. 

The companies were previously contacted by letter on December 8, 2015, notifying 

them of the applicability of the ORR to their facilities. A timetable for required actions 

was included. The AQD will be working with these two companies to assure compliance 

with the requirements going forward. 

If you have any questions regarding this submittal you may contact Mr. Robert Irvine, 

AQD, at 517-284-6749; irviner@michigan.gov; or MDEQ, AQD, P.O. Box 30260, 

Lansing, Michigan 48909-7760; or you may contact me. 

Enclosures 

cc: Ms. Barb Rosenbaum, MDEQ 

Mr. Robert Irvine, MDEQ 

CONSTITUTION HALL • 525 WEST ALLEGAN STREET • P.O. BOX 30473 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7973 

www.michigan.gov/deq • (800) 662-9278
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



This AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is dated as of September 28, 2006, between Margaret Chance ("Employee"), Ameritrans Capital Corporation ("Ameritrans"), and Elk Associates Funding Corporation ("Elk") (collectively, Ameritrans and Elk are hereinafter referred to as the "Employer").



WHEREAS, Employee is presently employed by Employer as Vice President and Secretary of Employer pursuant to an Employment Agreement dated January 1, 2002 (the "2002 Agreement"); and



WHEREAS, the Employer and Employee desire to restate and amend certain terms of the 2002 Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
Page lof3 EXHIBIT 

# -------~-----------I J, 

# IEH

# lb o [LIS Logo] Committee Reportsfor the 108th Congress THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GOTO Next Hit Prey Hit Hit List Forward New Search

Back fJomePage Ful1Display1:!elp Contents Display House Rpt.108-143
- FLIGHT lOO--CENTURY OF AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT Full Display 

# II Related Information GPO PI)}'" Printer Friendly I)isplay 

## 1I13iIJ Summary and Status 

## II Full Text o[Bifl 

# I
SEC. 419.RUNWAY SAFETY STANDARDS. (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 447 is amended by adding atthe end the following: 'Sec. 44727. Runway safety areas 'An airport owner or operator shall not be required toreduce the length of arunway or declare the length of arunway to be less than the actual pavement length in order to meet standards ofthe Federal Aviation Administration applicable to runway safety areas.'. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The analysis for chapter 447 is amended by adding atthe end the following: 11'44727.Runway safety areas.'.11 

### SEC. 420.AVAILABILITY OF MAINTENANCE INFORMATION. (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 447 is further amended by adding atthe end the following: 'Sec. 44728. Availability ofmaintenance information '(a) IN GENERAL- The Administrator ofthe Federal Aviation Administration shall continue in effect the requirement of section 21.50(b) oftitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations, that the holder of adesign approval-- '(1) shall prepare and furnish atleast one set ofcomplete instructions for continued airworthiness as prescribed in such section to the owner ofeach type of aircraft, aircraft engine, orpropeller upon its delivery orupon the issuance ofthe first standard airworthiness certificate for the affected aircraft, whichever occurs later; and '(2) thereafter shall make the instructions, and any changes thereto, available to any other http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp 108&&r

_n=hrI43.1 08&sel=TOC... 7/23/2004
#### In the Matter of Tyrese D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[67 NYS3d 636]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about September 16, 2016, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of sexual abuse in the first and second degrees and endangering the welfare of a child, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the finding as to sexual abuse in the second degree and dismissing that count, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We need not determine whether appellant’s statement should have been suppressed, because any error in admitting it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence that appellant committed the charged offenses was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the result would have *624been any different if his “essentially exculpatory” statement, in which he denied coercing the complainant to touch his penis, had been suppressed *(Matter of Jahmeka W.,*130 AD3d 437, 437 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 909 [2015]). His statement was a relatively minor component of the presentment agency’s case, which included the testimony of the victim and a corroborating eyewitness, and the victim’s report of the incident to medical personnel.

The court’s fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Moreover, as noted, we find that the evidence of appellant’s guilt was overwhelming. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility.

The court properly permitted the eight-year-old victim to give sworn testimony. Her voir dire responses established that she “sufficiently understood the difference between truth and falsity, the nature of a promise to tell the truth, and the wrongfulness and consequences of lying” *(Matter of Paulette C.,*34 AD3d 395, 395 [1st Dept 2006]; *see also People v Nisoff,*36 NY2d 560, 565-566 [1975]). There is nothing to indicate that the presentment agency’s trial preparation of the victim would warrant a different conclusion regarding her swearability.

The finding as to second-degree sexual abuse is dismissed as a lesser included offense.

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Gische, Tom, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.
#### Com. v. Castro

05/18/2016

149 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 136 A.3d 1037
#### Com. v. Cross-Hill 8

07/06/2016

141 WAL (2016)

8

. Reconsideration Denied August 15, 2016.

Denied

Pa.Super., 141 A.3d 602
# Scholarships awarded to students related to DLA employees 

/ Published June 12, 2015
Fort Belvoir, VA,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Income and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          86,850
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,970
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,993
<INVENTORY>                                    163,495
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               464,554
<PP&E>                                         685,719
<DEPRECIATION>                                 357,573
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,074,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          199,667
<BONDS>                                        218,132
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,984
<OTHER-SE>                                     437,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,074,128
<SALES>                                      1,041,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,050,156
<CGS>                                          635,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  635,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                181,178
<INCOME-TAX>                                    61,605
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            107,499
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   107,499
<EPS-BASIC>                                       4.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.67


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 217 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 217

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to make crop quality reduction 
disaster payments to producers of the 1992 crop of corn, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 26 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

 Mr. Riegle (for himself and Mr. Levin) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Agriculture to make crop quality reduction 
disaster payments to producers of the 1992 crop of corn, 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. CROP QUALITY REDUCTION DISASTER PAYMENTS FOR 1992 CROP OF 
              CORN.

    The matter under the heading ``Commodity Credit Corporation'' under 
the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'' of chapter III of title I of 
Public Law 102-229 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note) is amended by inserting before 
the period at the end the following: ``: Provided further, That the 
Secretary of Agriculture shall make crop quality reduction disaster 
payments to producers of the 1992 crop of corn under the same terms and 
conditions as are specified in section 2245 of the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note)''.

                                 <all>
```
No. 09-1455.

#### Laurie Ancona Reine, Petitioner v. Honeywell International Inc.

562 U.S. 834, 131 S. Ct. 140,

178 L. Ed. 2d 35,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6545.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 395.
# DLA acquisition professionals' support for earthquake relief featured in new video

/ Published March 2, 2016
YouTube pageFacebook page
# C_2014071EN.01001102.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2013 — X AB v Skatteverket

(Case C-686/13)

(2014/C 71/19)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X AB

Defendant: Skatteverket

Question referred

Do Article 49 TFEU and Article 63 TFEU preclude national legislation according to which the Member State of domicile does not grant a deduction for a currency loss which is an integral part of a capital gain or capital loss on holdings for business purposes in a company which is domiciled in another Member State, where the Member State of domicile applies a system under which capital gains and capital losses on such assets are wholly exempt from taxation?

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 2710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00570]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity 
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending December 22, 2012. The 
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to 
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the 
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. 
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT- OST-2012-0210.
    Date Filed: December 17, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: January 7, 2013.
    Description: Application of SmartLynx Airlines Estonia OU 
requesting a foreign air carrier permit and exemption authority 
authorizing the carrier to operate charter foreign air transportation 
of persons, property and mail (a) between any point or points behind 
the European Union, via any point or points in the European Union and 
intermediate points, to any point or points in the United States, and 
beyond; (b) between any point or points in the European Common Aviation 
Area and any point or points in the United States; (c) pursuant to the 
prior approval requirements of Part 212; and (d) any additional rights 
that are made available to EU carriers under the U.S.-European Union 
agreements, as amended.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0212.
    Date Filed: December 20, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: January 10, 2013.
    Description: Application of Arubaanse Luchtvaart Maatschappji, 
N.V., d/b/a Aruba Airlines requesting a foreign air carrier permit and 
corresponding exemption authorizing it to engage in: (1) Scheduled air 
transportation of persons, property and mail from a point or points 
behind Aruba, via Aruba and intermediate points, to a point or points 
in the United States and beyond; (2) all-cargo services between the 
United States and any point or points; (3) fifth freedom charter 
services pursuant to the prior approval requirements; (4) and for such 
other, further, or different relief as may be proper.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Acting Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-00570 Filed 1-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
No. 10-5069.

#### Rienaldo Correa, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 902, 131 S. Ct. 236,

178 L. Ed. 2d 157,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6454.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office, denied.

Same case below, 981 A.2d 309.
No. 10-6330.

#### Victor Matias, Jr., Petitioner v. United States (two judgments).

562 U.S. 974, 131 S. Ct. 491,

178 L. Ed. 2d 311,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7903.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### William Ansbach et al., Appellants, v Burton Gorson et al., Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 883]

*472In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated May 12, 2003, which denied their motion for leave to enter judgment with interest pursuant to CPLR 5003-a upon the defendants’ alleged failure to timely tender a settlement payment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On October 18, 2002, on the eve of trial, the parties stipulated in open court to an award of damages in settlement of this medical malpractice action, and the plaintiffs thereafter executed a stipulation of discontinuance and a general release. The stipulation explicitly noted that the settlement was contingent upon the approval of the Suffolk County Legislature (hereinafter the Legislature).

The Legislature approved the settlement on December 9, 2002, and on December 23, 2002, the defendants moved, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 6-n, for judicial approval of the stipulation. The Supreme Court authorized payment from Suffolk County’s insurance reserve fund on January 13, 2003, and the plaintiffs were paid on February 14, 2003.

On or about that date, however, the plaintiffs moved, pursuant to CPLR 5003-a, for leave to enter judgment with interest because the defendants allegedly had failed to tender timely payment.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to interest. Since the defendant Brookhaven Health Center East is a publicly operated facility pursuant to CPLR 5003-a (b), payment was not due until 90 days after tender of a duly executed stipulation of discontinuance and release. Moreover, payment of the settlement from the County’s insurance reserve fund required judicial approval pursuant to General Municipal Law § 6-n. CPLR 5003-a (d) mandates that, in an action which requires judicial approval, a plaintiff also shall tender a copy of the order authorizing the settlement. The documents required to compel payment therefore were not completely tendered until January 13, 2003. Payment was issued on February 14, 2003, or less than 90 days thereafter *(see Liss v Brigham Park Coop. Apts. Sec. No. 3,*264 *473AD2d 717, 718 [1999]; *Townsend v Felix Indus.,*2002 NY Slip Op 40404[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists, June 26, 2002]; *cf. Hadier v Remington Place Assoc.,*302 AD2d 428 [2003]; *Pothos v Arverne Houses,*269 AD2d 377, 378 [2000]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14620]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 98-07]


CTM International, Inc. v. Medtech Enterprises, Inc. and Mr. Xin 
Liu; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint filed by CTM International, Inc. 
(``Complainant'') against Medtech Enterprises, Inc. and Mr. Xin Liu 
(``Respondents'') was served May 28, 1998. Complainant alleges that 
Respondents violated section 10(a)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 
U.S.C. app. section 1709(a)(1), by issuing a bad check or issuing a 
check upon which payment was subsequently stopped in order to induce 
release of cargo, and thereafter failing to remit the ocean freight and 
other charges due and payable for two shipments of used medical 
equipment from New York to Xingang, China.
    This proceeding has been assigned to the office of Administrative 
Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence 
within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after 
consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer 
to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing 
shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of 
the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine 
issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn 
statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the 
nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-
examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. 
Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of 
the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by May 28, 
1999, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by 
September 29, 1999.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14620 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
No. 10-6485.

#### In re William Capers, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 959, 131 S. Ct. 496,

178 L. Ed. 2d 316,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7877.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.