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 on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the
Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Kelvin E.
Council, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                                                             
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|October 20, 2010 |  | /s/ KELVIN E. COUNCIL                                       
|                 |  | Kelvin E. Council
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



28
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3585

___________

David Williams, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Correctional Medical Services; Paul *

Torrez, CMS Record Administrator; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Arthur Culpepper, CMS Ombudsman; *

Patricia Kelly, Dr.; Connie Hubbard, *

A.N.P., Varner Super Max, ADC; *

Kay Brodnax, Infirmary Manager; *

Laura McCarty, CMS Grievance *

Responder, Varner Unit, ADC; Larry *

Norris, Director, Arkansas Department *

of Correction; Max Mobley, ADC *

Deputy Director, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 17, 2007

Filed: August 28, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

-2-

Inmate David Williams appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Having carefully reviewed the

record, we find no basis for overturning the district court’s well-reasoned opinion.

See Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Williams’s motion to

supplement the record. 

______________________________
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 13

- 000 98

- CR
J ose G. LECHLER , Appe llant

v. T he STATE of Texas , Appellee From the 2 26 th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009 CR 6 1 03 Honorable S id L. Harle , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 20, 2013
DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Jose G. Lechler was convicted of harassment of a public servant, and on March 31, 2010, the trial court sentenced Lechler as a repeat offender to five years imprisonment. Lechler filed a notice of appeal and a motion for e xtension of time to file the notice of appeal in the trial court

on February 4, 2013

. A timely notice of appeal is necessa ry to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Rodarte
v. State , 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1993)

. When a defendant ap p eals a con viction and sentence, the notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the day sentence is04

- 13

- 00098

- CR

- 2

- imposed or suspended in open court, or within ninety days after sentencing if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. Id. at 109

– 10; Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2

. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal must be filed in the court of appeals within fifteen days of the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3.
W e lack jurisdiction to entertain th is appeal b ecause the notice of appeal and motion for extension of time were not timely filed

. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); se e Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1998) (holding that if appeal is not timely perfected, court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address merits of appeal, and court may take no action other than to dismiss appeal; court may not suspend rules to alter time for perfecting ap peal) ; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (explaining that writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs out

- of

- time appeals from felony convictions). Accordingl y, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26714-26715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12172]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Southwest Oregon Provincial Interagency Executive Committee 
(PIEC), Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Southwest Oregon PIEC Advisory Committee will meet on June 
1, 1995 at the Coos Bay Red Lion Hotel, 1313 North Bayshore Drive, Coos 
Bay, Oregon. The meeting will begin at 9:00 [[Page 26715]] a.m. and 
continue until 4:30 p.m. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Summary of the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and 
Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the 
Northern Spotted Owl; (2) Federal agency and public issues that the 
Advisory Committee may want to consider; (3) Identification of high 
priority Advisory Committee work; (4) Open public forum. All Southwest 
Oregon Province Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. 
Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Chuck Anderson, Province Advisory Committee staff, USDA, 
Rogue River National Forest, P.O. Box 520, Medford, Oregon 97501, 503-
858-2322.

    Dated: May 10, 1995.
Jame T. Gladen,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 95-12172 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
----------------------------------
                                                        AMENDMENT NO. 1
EXHIBIT 10.7

                                                BOARD APPROVAL DATE: 12/19/03
          FIRST SAVINGS BANK                  ----------------------------------
          DEFERRED FEE PLAN

                                    AMENDMENT

1.     Section  4(e) of the Plan shall be  amended,  effective  as of October 1,
       2003, to read in its entirety as follows:

              (e)    Unless  otherwise  elected by a Participant with the
       approval of the Compensation Committee, cash dividends credited to
       his Deferred  Money Account will be converted  into Stock Units in
       the manner and at the same time as set forth in  paragraph  (c) of
       this Section 4.


2.     Section  5(d) of the Plan shall be  amended,  effective  as of October 1,
       2003, to read in its entirety as follows:

              (d)    Distributions of all or part of the balance credited
       to a  Participant's  Stock  Unit  Account  shall  be made in whole
       shares of  common  stock  equal in  number to the  number of whole
       Stock Units being distributed,  with a cash payment in lieu of any
       fractional  Stock Unit the  amount of which  shall be based on the
       fair market value of a share of common stock. Distributions of all
       or part of the balance credited to a Participant's  Deferred Money
       Account that have not, as of the distribution date, been converted
       to Stock Units shall be made in cash.


3.     The Plan shall be amended,  effective as of October 1, 2003,  by adding a
       new section 11 to read in its entirety as follows:

       11.  The Savings Bank intends to account for its obligations  with
            respect  to Stock  Units  under  the Plan on the basis of the
            historical  cost of  common  stock  acquired  to  assist  the
            Savings Bank in meeting its  obligations  under the Plan. The
            Plan shall be  construed,  administered  and enforced in such
            manner as shall be  necessary to secure the  availability  of
            such accounting treatment under generally accepted accounting
            principles.

              IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this  Amendment  has been  executed  by the
undersigned  officer  of First  Savings  Bank  pursuant  to  authority  given by
resolution of the Board of Directors.

                                 FIRST SAVINGS BANK



                                 By
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Christopher Martin
                                    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11650]



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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on 
Westinghouse Standard Plant Designs; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Westinghouse Standard Plant Designs will 
hold a meeting on May 31, 1995, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Wednesday, May 31, 1995--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of 
business.
    The Subcommittee will discuss a draft Commission paper concerning 
the status of issues associated with the review of the Westinghouse 
AP600 design. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, 
analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate proposed positions 
and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the ACRS staff member named below as far in 
advance as is practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee may 
exchange preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during 
the balance of the meeting.
    The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and Westinghouse 
regarding this review.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, the 
scheduling of sessions open to the public, whether the meeting has been 
canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the 
opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor 
can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Mr. 
Noel Dudley, (telephone 301/415-6888) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 
(EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual one to two working days prior to the meeting to 
be advised of any potential changes in the proposed agenda, etc., that 
may have occurred.

    Dated: May 5, 1995.
Sam Duraiswamy,
Chief, Nuclear Reactors Branch.
[FR Doc. 95-11650 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the Company) as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Walter E. Skowronski, President and Director of the
Company, certify, that:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                            
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------
|April 27, 2005 |  | /s/    WALTER E. SKOWRONSKI
|               |  | Walter E. Skowronski       
|               |  | President and Director     



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Boeing Capital Corporation and will be retained by Boeing Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



35
Exhibit
      32.2





**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Dennis
      M. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
      the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended; and





(2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
              August 9, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Dennis
              M.
              McGrathDennis
                M. McGrathChief
              Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

             DESCRIPTION OF NISOURCE INC. 2003 ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN

NiSource's annual incentive plan for the year 2003 covered most NiSource
employees, including all NiSource executive officers. The Annual Incentive Plan
established a trigger amount of financial performance (below which no annual
incentive may be paid) and a maximum level (above which no additional annual
incentive may be paid). Additionally, a profit sharing contribution of between
0.5% and 1.5% of an employee's eligible earnings may be made to the
participant's account in the Company's 401(k) Savings Plan on behalf of all
eligible employees, including the executive officers.

In 2003, the trigger was based on income from continuing operations (after
accounting for the cost of the incentive plan). For 2003, the Company exceeded
the trigger amount of income from continuing operations resulting in payments
under the Annual Incentive Plan to most of the Company's employees and to the
executive officers. In February and March 2004, the incentive payments were made
amounting to approximately 118% of the aggregate trigger amounts for all
employees and profit sharing contributions to the 401(k) Savings Plan accounts
at slightly above the trigger level of 0.5%.

Each employee that participated in the plan was given an individual incentive
opportunity that ranged from a "trigger" to "maximum" percentage. Annual
incentives awarded to certain executive officers were based purely on overall
corporate performance, rather than the individual performance of the executive.
For the remainder of the employees who participated in the plan, the payment had
two components. The first component was based on a formula and was equal to
two-thirds of the amount the employee was entitled to receive based on the
attainment of corporate financial measures in relation to his or her trigger
percentage. The second component of the payment was left to the discretion of
management. For non-exempt employees the second component was based on the
performance of their respective business unit or corporate function and not on
their individual performance. For exempt employees, NiSource senior management
calculated the total pool owed to all exempt employees based on NiSource's
income from continuing operations and subtracted the amount owed to employees
under the formula portion of the plan. The remaining pool of money was allocated
by senior management to the various business units and corporate functions based
on senior management's assessment of the performance by that business unit or
corporate function. The management of each business unit and corporate function
was then allowed to distribute the money allocated to him or her based on an
assessment of each individual employee's performance during the year.
GENO LEWIS HAWKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0701

Opinion filed February 24, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Geno Lewis Hawkins, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Henry E. YOUNG, petitioner, v. Ronald FRAKER, Superintendent, Clallam Bay Corrections Center.

No. 12-7940.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12378]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


Federal Energy Management and Planning Programs; Energy Savings 
Performance Qualified Contractor List

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy has issued the final rule on 
``Methods and Procedures for Energy Savings Performance Contracting'' 
as required by section 801 of the National Energy Conservation Policy 
Act (42 U.S.C. 8287) (60 FR 18326, April 10, 1995). Pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. 8287(b)(2) and 10 CFR Sec. 436.32, the Department has developed 
a qualification questionnaire and established a list of firms qualified 
to performed energy savings services. This notice is to inform Federal 
agencies that the Department of Energy list of qualified firms is in 
place and may be used to select firms for energy savings performance 
contracts. The qualifications questionnaire developed by the Department 
is available if an agency elects to prepare its own list of qualified 
firms pursuant to 10 CFR Sec. 436.32(c). Agencies may request copies of 
the list of qualified firms or the qualifications questionnaire by 
calling the Federal Energy Management Program Help Desk at 800-566-
2877.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joan G. Stone, EE-92, Office of Federal Energy Management Programs, 
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585, (202) 586-5772.

    Dated: May 10, 1995.
Mark B. Ginsberg,
Director, Office of Federal Energy Management Programs.
[FR Doc. 95-12378 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 1 filed 08/28/13 page 1 of 9
case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 1 filed 08/28/13 page 2 of 9
case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 1 filed 08/28/13 page 3 of 9
case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 1 filed 08/28/13 page 4 of 9
case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 1 filed 08/28/13 page 5 of 9
case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 1 filed 08/28/13 page 6 of 9
case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 1 filed 08/28/13 page 7 of 9
case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 1 filed 08/28/13 page 8 of 9
case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 1 filed 08/28/13 page 9 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CR-04-JVB-JEM

)

RITA LAW, )

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and Local Rule 72-1

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Order Directing the Return of Defendant’s

Property [DE 43], filed by Defendant Rita Law on February 25, 2014. On April 3, 2014, Judge

Joseph Van Bokkelen entered an Order [DE 75] referring this matter to Magistrate Judge John E.

Martin for a report and recommendation on the instant motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Local Rule 72-1. This Report constitutes the undersigned Magistrate Judge’s combined

proposed findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). For the following

reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court deny the Motion as moot, with leave to refile

at a future date if necessary.

In the instant motion, Defendant Law requests that several items of property that Department

of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations

seized from her. She argues that she needs to review the content of cameras, telephones, an iPad,

and a data card to determine whether they contain any contents that might be relevant to her defense. 

At a hearing on March 19, 2014, the parties addressed the forfeiture proceeding underlying the

instant motion. Counsel for the Government indicated that the issues addressed in the motion may

be resolved and that there would be no need for a specific motions hearing. The Government stated
that the forfeiture proceeding would be stayed and the Government would provide copies of the

items to counsel for Defendant Law to review.

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY as moot the 

Motion for Order Directing the Return of Defendant’s Property [DE 43], with leave to refile it if

needed. Objections to the Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14)

days. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

So ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2014.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Honorable Joseph Van Bokkelen

2