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 Quarterly Report of Riverbend Telecom, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report), Leon Nowalsky, as Principal Accounting Officer of the Company
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his
knowledge, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
          13(a) 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/ Leon Nowalsky
-------------------------
Leon Nowalsky
Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  November 19, 2003


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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5586 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow distributions from 

health savings accounts to be used for the purchase of non-group coverage under high deductible health insurance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2006 

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself and Mr. CANTOR) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow distributions from health savings accounts to be used for 

the purchase of non-group coverage under high deductible health insurance. 

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 ‘‘HSA Premium Afford5 ability Act of 2006’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 5586 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS FOR NON2 GROUP HIGH DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLAN 

3 PREMIUMS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(d)(2)(C) of the Inter5 nal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (iii), by 

7 striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting 

8 ‘‘, or’’, and by adding at the end the following new clause: 

9 ‘‘(v) a high deductible health plan, 

10 other than a group health plan (as defined 

11 in section 5000 without regard to sub12 section (d)).’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

15 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
exhibit1068.htm


    Exhibit
      10.68

     

    AMENDMENT
      NO. 1 TO

     

    SEPARATION
      AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

     

    This
      Amendment No. 1 to the Separation
      Agreement and Release dated February 12, 2007 (the “Agreement”) between Tier
      Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”) and Todd F. Vucovich (the “Employee”)
      (collectively the “parties”) is effective as of November 15, 2007.

     

    WHEREAS,
      the parties wish to amend the
      Agreement;

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the
      promises and conditions set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby
      acknowledged, the Company and the Employee hereby amend the Agreement as
      follows:

     

    1.    Separation
      Date.  The Employee’s effective date of separation from the
      Company shall be December 31, 2007 (the “Separation Date”).

    


    2.    Fulfillment
      of
      Obligations.  Provided Employee remains an employee of the Company
      through December 31, 2007, Employee shall be deemed to have fulfilled all
      obligations under the Agreement and shall be entitled to all benefits
      thereunder.

    


    3.    Separation
      Pay.  Upon the Separation Date, the Company agrees to pay the
      Employee the separation payments as set forth in Section 4 of the
      Agreement.  In addition to those amounts, the Company shall pay
      Employee $10,000, less all applicable state and federal taxes and
      withholdings.

    


    4.    Counterparts.  This
      Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement may be executed in two (2) signature
      counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which
      taken
      together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

    


    All
      other terms, provisions and definitions set forth in the Agreement remain the
      same.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, all parties have set their hand to this Agreement as of the
      date set forth below.

     

    TIER
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

              

    
      
        	
                 By: 
   

              	 	 
	 	 Ronald
                L. Rossetti	 
	 	 Chairman
                and Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	
                 Dated:

              	 	 


      

    

                   

     

    
      	 
              
              TODD
                F. VUCOVICH

            	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 


    

     

    
      	 Dated:
Exhibit 15.1    HAN KUN LAW OFFICES Suite 906, Office Tower C1,
Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Avenue, Beijing 100738, P. R. China TEL: (86 10) 8525-5500; FAX: (86
10) 8525-5511/ 5522  July 9, 2010  Funtalk China Holdings
Limited (the Company)  RE: Form 20-F Filing  Ladies and Gentlemen:  We acknowledge that we
are referred to in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the
year ended March 31, 2010 (the Annual Report), and we hereby consent to
the use of our name in such Annual Report and to the filing of this consent as
exhibit to the Annual Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  Yours faithfully,/s/ HAN KUN LAW OFFICESHAN
  KUN LAW OFFICES  CONFIDENTIALITY.This document contains confidential information which
may also be privileged.  Unless you are
the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not copy,
use, or distribute it.  If you have
received it in error, please advise Han Kun Law Offices immediately by
telephone or facsimile and return it promptly by mail.  Thanks.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 28, 2015

No. 04-15-00456-CR

James GARZA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR12648A

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In a previous appeal, appellant’s sentence of life without parole was set aside, and the 

case was remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing proceeding. The trial court held a new 

sentencing hearing on July 20, 2015. Garza has filed a notice of appeal and the clerk’s record 

has been filed. The docket sheet reflects the trial court held a hearing on July 20, 2015, found 

Garza was seventeen years old at the time of the offense, and sentenced him to life pursuant to 

section 12.31(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code. However, the record does not contain a judgment 

reflecting the imposition of sentence on July 20, 2015. 

A written judgment signed by the trial judge is required by article 42.01 of the Texas 

Code of Criminal Procedure. Among other things, the judgment must reflect the sentence to be 

served and the date sentence was imposed. The only judgment in the clerk’s record is the original 

judgment, which has been partially set aside. 

Accordingly, we abate this appeal in order for the trial judge to sign a new judgment. We 

order the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the judgment by 

August 12, 2015.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OMAR ALEJANDRO MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

 No. 19-cv-2487 (RDM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action against the United States in the Superior 

Court for the District of Columbia, and the United States removed the action to this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1446. Dkt. 1. The complaint consists of two, barely legible 

sentences: “After contacting the US and its proper agencies numerous times to resolve issues 

related to MSW, I now have to be seen by mental doctors. This problem continues to exist to 

this day without any kind of relief what-so-ever due to negligence in full part of the United 

States.” Dkt. 1-1 at 7. 

On September 26, 2019, the United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting that this complaint both fails to state a claim and is 

“patently insubstantial” and thus beyond the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and, in any event, 

is frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Dkt. 3 at 3, 7 (quoting Best v. 

Kelley, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). The Court issued a Fox/Neal Order on September 

30, 2019, cautioning Plaintiff about the need to respond to the motion and explained that a failure 

to respond could result in the Court either considering the motion conceded or dismissing the

case for failure to prosecution. Dkt. 4. When the Court did not receive a response from Plaintiff 
2

within the time provided, the Court sua sponte granted an extension of time to respond until 

November 15, 2019. Minute Order (Sept. 30, 2019). Plaintiff has yet to respond to the motion 

or to either of the Court’s orders and, indeed, has yet to file anything in this Court.

Plaintiff’s disjointed allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

The complaint does not (1) indicate who or what MSW is, (2) describe what “issues” required 

resolution, (3) identify who or what agency failed to act, (4) explain what “problems” persist, or 

(5) elucidate what duty, if any, the United States owed to Plaintiff or how it breached that duty. 

In short, the complaint it too cryptic to satisfy the dictates of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 

and 12(b)(6) and to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

The Court will, accordingly, GRANT Defendant’s motion, Dkt. 3, and will DISMISS 

the complaint without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6).

A separate order will issue.

 /s/ Randolph D. Moss

 RANDOLPH D. MOSS 

 United States District Judge 

Date: July 23, 2020
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5280-N-11]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# DATES:

*Effective Date: March 27, 2009.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration*, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: March 19, 2009.

Mark R. Johnston

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. E9-6514 Filed 3-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00548

- CV

Texas Department of Public Safety , Appellant

v.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company , Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY
NO. 20

- 1290

- C , ROBERT UP D EGROVE , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Texas Department of Public Safety has filed an agreed moti on

to dismiss this appeal. We g rant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.1(a)

.

_________________________ ________________ _ Thomas J. Baker , Justice

Before Justices Good win, Baker, and Kelly

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: September 15, 2022
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 373 

Expressing support for the designation of May 9 as ‘‘Home Front Heroes 

Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2023 

Mr. ALLRED (for himself and Mr. MOONEY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of May 9 as ‘‘Home 

Front Heroes Day’’. 

Whereas there is not a day for acknowledging everyone on 

the home front, men and women, young and old, for their 

support, work, and sacrifices at home during the service 

of their family members, loved ones, and fellow countrymen and countrywomen in the military; 

Whereas Home Front Heroes Day is organized and spearheaded by John Hampton ‘‘Lucky’’ Luckadoo, who 

served in the United States Army Air Corps and flew 25 

missions over Germany as a B–17 bomber pilot in World 

War II, to honor civilian Americans for their vital roles 

in supporting the military in years past and present; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 373 IH 

Whereas Home Front Heroes Day will recognize and celebrate those individuals who serve selflessly at home to ensure the United States military can focus on preserving 

democracy and freedom at home and around the world in 

a time of war and peace; 

Whereas Home Front Heroes Day is a valuable complement 

to the existing holidays and special days that honor our 

veterans and military members; and 

Whereas it is hoped that Home Front Heroes Day will inspire a sense of unity around a common cause: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses support for the designation of 

3 ‘‘Home Front Heroes Day’’ in the United States; 

4 and 

5 (2) recognizes the efforts and sacrifice made by 

6 civilians in contribution to wartime efforts. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 54 (Monday, March 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12111-12112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6247]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Lost River Subwatershed of the Potomac River Watershed, Hardy 
County, WV

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

ACTION: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is 
withdrawing its July 9, 2007 Record of Decision (Federal Register Vol. 
72, No. 135, July 16, 2007) for the Lost River Subwatershed of the 
Potomac River Watershed, Hardy County, West Virginia. NRCS has also 
decided to update and reissue a second draft supplemental work plan and 
environmental impact statement for the Lost River Subwatershed.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 
CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, is giving notice that a second 
draft supplemental work plan and second draft environmental impact 
statement (SDEIS) are being prepared for the Lost River Subwatershed of 
the Potomac River Watershed, Hardy County, West Virginia. The SDEIS 
will evaluate potential impacts to the natural, physical and human 
environment as a result of the flood damage reduction and water supply 
storage measures proposed for the Lost River Subwatershed, Hardy 
County, West Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Wickey, State Conservationist, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 75 High Street, Room 301, 
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, telephone (304) 284-7545.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A draft environmental impact statement 
(DEIS) was prepared in September 2006 and circulated for review by 
agencies and the public. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 
was issued in May 2007 and a Record of Decision was issued in July 
2007. In order to insure that agencies and the public have the

[[Page 12112]]

opportunity to fully review and provide comments regarding this 
project, the decision was made to withdraw the ROD of July 2007 and 
issue a second draft work plan and second draft EIS for the Lost River 
Subwatershed Project.

    Dated: February 19, 2009.
Kevin Wickey,
State Conservationist.
 [FR Doc. E9-6247 Filed 3-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION     I, Brian J. Roney, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Pointe Holdings Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Intentionally omitted.     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated May 14, 2007       /s/ Brian J. Roney     Brian J. Roney    Chief Financial Officer