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

**EXHIBIT 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF 
  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
  PURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Jeffrey R. Mason, Chief Financial Officer of Northern Dynasty
  Minerals Ltd. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
  2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (iii) | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for
        the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Annual Report”)
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ----- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |       |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | (iv)  | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of the Company.                                                                                   

| | By:    | /s/ Jeffrey R. Mason   
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | JEFFREY R. MASON       
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | MARCH 28, 2005         

*This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
  and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on
  Form 40-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company
  and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
  40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
  except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
  purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
  "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated
  by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
  the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
  it by reference.*

---



---
#### TECKEMEYER, Respondent, v. SUPREME COUNCIL ROYAL TEMPLARS OF TEMPERANCE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Mary Teckemeyer against the Supreme Council Royal Templars of Temperance.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 23, and 43 N. Y. Supp. 1165.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

JOSEPH ELWELL, CRYSTAL ) 

ELWELL, DEBORAH BALDWIN, ) 

Individually and as custodian for her ) 

Minor children WM and AM, ) 

ROBERT BALDWIN, ) 

) Case No. 2:16-CV-158 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF ) 

HAMMOND, INC., ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 

NOW COMES Plaintiffs, JOSEPH ELWELL, CRYSTAL ELWELL, DEBORAH 

BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of her minor children WM and AM, and ROBERT 

BALDWIN, and Defendant, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF HAMMOND, INC., by and 

through their respective attorneys, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby submit this Stipulation of Dismissal to dismiss this action with prejudice. 

Respectfully submitted, 

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, 

HAMMOND, INDIANA, INC., 

By: /s/ Justin K. Curtis 

One of its Attorneys 

Rick Hammond 

Justin K. Curtis 

HeplerBroom, LLC 

30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2900 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Phone No. (312) 230-9100 

rick.hammond@heplerbroom.com 

Justin.curtis@heplerbroom.com

PLAINTIFFS, 

By: /s/ Jared Schneider 

One of their Attorneys 

John S. Burke 

Jared Schneider 

Higgins & Burke, P.C. 

2650 Foxfield Road, Suite 200 

St. Charles, Illinois 60174 

Phone No. (630) 762-9081 

jburke@higginsandburke.com 

jschneider@higginsandburke.com 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 95 filed 05/01/18 page 1 of 1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

HOBBS ARCHITECTURAL FOUNTAINS, INC., a foreign corporation

, Appellant,

v.

STELLAR BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a CRITICAL BUILD, a Florida Limited Liability Company

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3973

[ November 16, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Carol

- Lisa Phillips , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE14010796

(25)

.

Randall L. Leshin of Randall Leshin, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for

appellant.

Kevi n J. Taylor of Kevin J. Taylor, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, T AYLOR and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2

                              COMMUNITY BANKS, INC.
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
                            (Chief Financial Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Community Banks, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period  ending June 30,  2004 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Donald F. Holt,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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.

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


/s/  Donald F. Holt
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2004
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1976

To suspend temporarily the duty on Gamma Methyl Ionone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2005

Mr. CHABOT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Gamma Methyl Ionone.

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

3 SECTION 1. GAMMA METHYL IONONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following:

‘‘ 9902.07.21 3-methyl-4-(2,6,6-

trimethylcyclohex-2-enyl)but3-en-2-one (CAS No. 127–

51–5) (provided for in subheading 2914.23.00) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 1976 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-262-CR

STEPHEN RAY SMITH	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Stephen Ray Smith attempts to appeal his conviction for theft of over $100,000 and under $200,000.  The jury found Appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at ninety-nine years’ confinement and a fine of $10,000.  The trial court sentenced him accordingly.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

	Pursuant to rule 26.2 of the rules of appellate procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed, or within ninety days after the day sentence is imposed if the defendant files a timely motion for new trial.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).  Appellant’s sentence was imposed on May 24, 2006.  No timely motion for new trial was filed,2 so Appellant’s notice of appeal was due June 23, 2006, but was filed July 21, 2006. 

	On July 31, 2006, we notified Appellant of the apparent untimeliness of the notice of appeal and stated we would dismiss the appeal unless we received a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.  Appellant did not file a response.

	Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.  See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 	

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  August 31, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MARK L. TUBBS, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1963 RLM-MGG

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant )

OPINION and ORDER

Mark Tubbs moves for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act,

28 U.S.C. § 2412, following the court’s entry of final judgment remanding the case

to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. Mr. Tubbs

requests an award of fees in the amount of $7,521.69. The Commissioner doesn’t

object to his request.

The EAJA permits recovery of attorney fees based on “prevailing market

rates,” but not in excess of $125 per hour “unless the court determines that an

increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of

qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(d)(2)(A). Mr. Tubbs requests fees for his attorney at the rate of $188.75 per

hour for work performed on his case, and asserts that an hourly fee greater than

$125.00 for counsel is warranted based on inflation, a rise in the cost of living,

and past fee awards in social security cases in this circuit. 
In accordance with Section 204(d) of the Act, Mr. Tubbs submitted an

itemized statement from his attorney showing “the actual time expended and the

rate at which fees and other expenses were computed.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).

Counsel explains that his hourly rates for work performed in 2014 and 2015 are

based on the cost of living adjustments allowed by statute when employing the

Consumer Price Index-All Items Index obtained from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics. 

The court finds that “given the passage of time since the establishment of

the hourly rate, a cost-of-living adjustment is warranted,” and counsel’s use of the

Consumer Price Index to calculate an appropriate inflation adjustment is

reasonable. Tchemkou v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2008); see also

Williams v. Astrue, No. 11 C 2053, 2013 WL 250795, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2013)

(“Courts in this district have allowed claimants to use the Consumer Price Index

to adjust hourly attorneys’ rates to account for cost of living increases in EAJA

cases.”). As noted above, the Commissioner doesn’t object to the hourly rates

charged or the amount of fees requested by Mr. Tubbs.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the motion for an award of fees

and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Doc. No. 29], and awards the

plaintiff fees in the amount of $7,521.69.

SO ORDERED

ENTERED: December 22, 2016 

2
 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-22-1997
<CASH>                                             652
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,020
<INVENTORY>                                     44,476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,806
<PP&E>                                         203,533
<DEPRECIATION>                                  94,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 193,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,959
<BONDS>                                        206,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   193,857
<SALES>                                        161,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,668
<CGS>                                          122,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,954
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,321)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,321)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        




</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1518

_____________________________

KEITH D. BURKS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

October 28, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and MAKAR and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Keith D. Burks, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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

I,
Fenggang Wu, Chief Financial Officer of Cougar Holdings Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| |  |  | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-1 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented therein.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



/s/ FENGGANG WUFenggang WuChief Financial OfficerApril 29, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1542 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1542

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 695 Pleasant Street in New Bedford, Massachusetts, as the ``Honorable 
            Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 695 
Pleasant Street in New Bedford, Massachusetts, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Honorable Judge George N. Leighton Post Office 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Honorable Judge George N. 
Leighton Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### 555

**OFFICE** OFTHE**ATTORNEY GENERAL.**  **OF TEXAS**  **AUSTIN**

Xi86 EVe1y-n L.l.nuoln Amhor Cow&yAttorney 

### AXUMM County Rookport, Texas Dear W.88Aroher:



### cam8 under

fromstats tax up to

We 

### as8ume the follov%ng fmts in conneotion vith your lnqulryt

### 556

~uea 8velp Uuaola Arahr, Page 2

(a) That th6properties inrolvcrd fomerly ooaatl.tuted naldeaee hameateulatq virtue -of their bow owupled so auohby qualified iamlly unita. (b) That auehnaideaao hameate6da formerly vere entitled to the **exmptlaa** from atate **tax&ha** pr0dAed b7 se0tian l8 of hrtlole VIII of our 0oaatltutio.n. (a) PhPt the propertIe &ore oantiawd tobeoeel@ed6auabyvldolreravlao6re the surYiving~ma6ber6of thes.r 

### fozuerful- ;sz vho 

### forurly vere the heads 0r their

. In Y00dav* AlVeradOState Bsnk, 198.Y. (2d) 35, **our Supreme** 

Court **vu** ooafroated **vlth the**  queatlorr of whether or not a haeatuad in vhioh 8 divorced father snd tvom&orohildrmnhulllvedveuld aontbuetok auehaftar the ohlldxwn had attalaed fiheir 

### majority andmerod 6v6yloavlng the fatbar the 0010ooouptit of the property. After a aoholarly reviev of tb, history of hamstew lo&- ia&tloa aad of the prior oaae6 la th+l aad other juriad.latlaa6, the oourt, speaklag through Chief Juatioe Curetoa, add at rr. 36:

‘Ia riev of our ooaatltutloaal aud atatotoq pro~lalona ooaaenalag homesteadrights, ve have conaluded that h this atate tha hmestead is to bo regrrdud 00an eatete areated aot oaly for the pmteatloa of the f&y 60 a vhole, but 

### torthe units of the fam.%lg, inaludiag those vho w.wviVe, aad 8mbraab.g the head 

### of the raiy at the tig, 

### 0r ita d.laaolutioa, vbather the d%aaolatfan bsa been brought about by death or br diaperaal, as dfatbguiahed fmm a memprivilege aei?orded the head of the 

### ram%4for the benefit of the family 60 a vhole.* S&it%l*ria isots aad ideatia61 ia aetsluaien f8 the case of Daniel vr Cook, et al., 703.W. (2d) 1024 (Cir. APP.).

### 557

Rlaa Brel~nUnoolnAr~&er, Page 

### 3

that ._ Ctanaequently,jou ara ~OpeOtfUll~ advised tiaeproperties uader oonaIdentlon renaIn entitled

_ __ t0 WXeaX6SRptlOa prOVld0d by 8eOtlOa lo Of Artlole VIII of our Oolutitutian despite the dlaaolutlosl by death of the famIlIea of thopreaent 

### oooupauta of the land. 

### Yourletteralsooontdnedan lnqulry vlth reapeot to the travelling expea6ea of 0ffIoelr aoareyIng patients to state hospitala. Wefeel t&t this inqw Ie amrend W our OpLrLm 

### O-36718ad o-3264; ooaaequeatly, ve are enoloalng oopIe0 of those opialoau herevlth. Tmatlag that the ,foregolag dle8uaaIoa aad tha eaeloaed opInIona aatlafaotONl~ mover your laquIrIea, ve are Verc)r truly your6 ATTORBBXQRRBRALoPTmu
USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00565-PPS-MGG document 64 filed 05/10/18 page 1 of 2
USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00565-PPS-MGG document 64 filed 05/10/18 page 2 of 2
# L_2008213EN.01003801.xml

| 8.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 213/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 213/38

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 15 July 2008

appointing a German member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2008/648/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 259 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,

Having regard to Decision 2006/524/EC, Euratom (1),

Having regard to the proposal from the German Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission,

Whereas a seat as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee has fallen vacant as a result of the resignation of Mr Ludolf VON WARTENBERG,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Bernd DITTMANN, Managing Director Europe of the Federation of German Industries (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie — BDI), is hereby appointed a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, ending on 20 September 2010.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 15 July 2008.

For the Council

The President

M. BARNIER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 207, 28.7.2006, p. 30.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SALVADOR RUIZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:15-CV-612-TLS

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Salvador Ruiz, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging

WCC-15-10-0024, a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Westville Correctional Facility.

On October 8, 2015, the Disciplinary Hearing Body found him guilty of attempted deception, in

violation of A-100. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of 30 days earned credit time,

but the deprivation was suspended and has not yet been imposed. (ECF No. 1-1 at 6.) As such,

he has not yet lost any earned credit time as a result of this hearing. 

A prison disciplinary action can only be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding where

it results in the lengthening of the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664

(7th Cir. 2003). Here, because this disciplinary proceeding did not result in the lengthening of

the duration of his confinement, habeas corpus relief is not available. Because there is no relief

that he can obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the Petition will be denied. If the suspended

sanction is ever imposed, the Petitioner may then file another habeas corpus petition challenging

this hearing. 

For these reasons, the Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED pursuant to SECTION 2254

HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4 and this case is dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED on January 4, 2016.
 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

2