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



Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Alion Science and Technology
Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, John M. Hughes, Chief Financial Officer of the
Corporation, 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:



| | (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 result of
operations of the Corporation.

|                        |  |        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: December 22, 2003 |  | By:    |  | /s/  John M. Hughes    
|                        |  |        |  |                        
|                        |  | Name:  |  | John M. Hughes         
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
### The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 96-1290

___________ Michael R. Ford, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Medical * Sciences; Service Master, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

____________ Submitted: September 25, 1996 Filed: October 2, 1996

____________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Michael Ford appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 1 employment discrimination action for failure to comply with a court order. The district court ordered Ford three times to respond to discover y requests, provided him an extension on each occa sion, and expressly warned Fordin th e second and third orders that a failure to respond by th e designated deadline would result in the dismissa l of his action. Thus, we conclude Ford's condu ct demonstrated a clear pattern of intentional delay and unf airly prejudiced defendant's ability to complete discovery an d prepare for trial. See First Gen. Resources Co. v. Elton Leather Corp. , 958 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1992).

### 2 Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
ATTEST:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Armand Bozzetti et al., Appellants, v Horst Pohlmann et al., Respondents.

[941 NYS2d 532]

Peters, J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lalor, J.), entered December 22, 2010 in Greene County, which, among other things, granted defendants’ motion to preclude certain expert testimony.

This RPAPL article 15 action was commenced to resolve a boundary line dispute between plaintiffs and defendants, who own neighboring parcels of land in the Town of New Baltimore, Greene County. In October 2010, defendants filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ surveyor regarding the location of one of the boundary lines in dispute on the ground that the surveyor’s opinion lacked a factual foundation. Plaintiffs cross-moved to preclude defendants’ surveyor from testifying on that same basis. Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion, prompting this appeal by plaintiffs.

The appeal must be dismissed. “[A]n order which merely determines the admissibility of evidence, even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is. neither appealable as of right nor by permission” *(Ferrara v Kearney,*285 AD2d 890, 890 [2001] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; *accord Brindle v Soni,*41 AD3d 938, 939 [2007]; *see Strait v Ogden Med. Ctr.,*246 AD2d 12, 14 [1998]). While a pretrial order that limits the scope of the issues to be tried is appealable *(see Brindle v Soni,*41 AD3d at 939; *Vaughan v Saint Francis Hosp.,*29 AD3d 1133, 1135 [2006]), the order here addresses only the admissibility of evidence in advance of trial *(compare Jackson v Nutmeg Tech., Inc.,*43 AD3d 599, 600 n [2007]; *Vaughan v Saint Francis Hosp.,*29 AD3d at 1135; *Rondout Elec. v Dover Union Free School Dist.,*304 AD2d 808, 810-811 [2003]). Accordingly, appellate review of Supreme Court’s ruling must be deferred until after trial so that “ ‘the relevance of the proffered evidence, and the effect of Supreme Court’s ruling with respect thereto, can be assessed in the context of the record as a whole’ ” *(Brindle v Soni,*41 AD3d at 939, quoting *Brennan v Mabey’s Moving & Stor.,*226 AD2d 938 [1996]; *see Matter of PCK Dev. Co., LLC v Assessor of Town of Ulster,*43 AD3d 539, 540 [2007]; *Strait v Ogden Med. Ctr.,*246 AD2d at 14).

Rose, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4583-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Maryland (FEMA-4583-DR), dated February 4, 2021, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on June 1, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy S. Pheil, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of E. Craig Levy, Sr., as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance       ( print page 35107)    (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2021-14086 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,275
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              52
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   425
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     26,664
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          44,918
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            45,097
<LOANS>                                        135,424
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,013
<DEPOSITS>                                     187,876
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,338
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,401
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 218,708
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,165
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,985
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   117
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,267
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,799
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,799
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,468
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      135
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  65
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,882
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,882
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.97
<LOANS-NON>                                        116
<LOANS-PAST>                                       158
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    753
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,707
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       80
<RECOVERIES>                                        36
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,798
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
October 9, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

FELIX AUZ, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00408-CV V.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on April 2, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Felix Auz.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00007-TLS-SLC   document 21   filed 07/07/16   page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14011]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 92

[Docket No. FR-6249-C-03]
RIN 2529-AB01


Restoring Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Definitions and 
Certifications

AGENCY: Office of General Counsel, HUD.

ACTION: Interim final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On June 23, 2021, HUD published a document to correct an 
amendatory instruction appearing in its Restoring Affirmatively 
Furthering Fair Housing Definitions and Certifications interim final 
rule, which published on June 10, 2021. In that document, HUD 
incorrectly referenced the Federal Register publication date for its 
interim final rule. For the convenience of the public, this document 
republishes HUD's June 23, 2021, correction with the corrected 
publication dates.

DATES: Effective July 31, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Santa Anna, Associate General 
Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10238, Washington, DC 20410; 
telephone number 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons 
with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY 
by calling the toll-free Federal Relay at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 10, 2021 (86 FR 30779), HUD 
published its Restoring Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 
Definitions and Certifications interim final rule. Following 
publication, the Federal Register alerted HUD to an error in the 
amendatory instruction for revisions to 24 CFR 92.508. Specifically, 
the amendatory instruction directed that paragraph (a)(7)(i)(C) be 
revised, however, the revision being made by the interim final rule is 
to paragraph (a)(7)(i)(B). This document corrects the amendatory 
instructions for 24 CFR 92.508 to reflect the correct paragraph being 
revised.

Correction

    In FR Doc. 2021-12114 appearing on page 30779 in the Federal 
Register on June 10, 2021, the following correction is made:


Sec.  92.508  [Corrected]

0
On page 30792, in the second column, after the title for part 92, in 
amendment 11, the instruction ``Amend Sec.  92.508 by revising 
paragraph (a)(7)(i)(C) to read as follows:'' is corrected to read 
``Amend Sec.  92.508 by revising paragraph (a)(7)(i)(B) to read as 
follows:''

Aaron Santa Anna,
Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2021-14011 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,182,685
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  260,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,442,863
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,986,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,777
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     239,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,986,872
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,285
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               109,315
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (93,230)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (93,230)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (93,230)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# FILED
November 13, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE OCTOBER 1998 SESSION

THO MAS LIGHT, ) C.C .A. NO. 01C01 -971 2-CC-00577 ) Appellant, ) L AWRENCE COUNTY N O. 18,79 0 ) VS. ) HON. WILLIAM B. CAIN, ) JUDGE STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) AFFIRMED -

RULE 20 Appellee. )

ORDER

The petitioner appeals the trial court's de nial of post-conviction relief. He previouslyentered a best interest plea to one (1) count of aggravated sexual battery with an agreed sentence of eight ( 8) years as a Range I , stan dard offe nder. Petitioner

contends his guilty

plea was the result of ineffective assistanc e of counsel. He further contends that the trial court erred accepting his plea in Maury County whe n the ind ictment was pendin g in Lawrenc e County. Petitioner

alleges he was induc

ed to plead guilty by

counsel who told him that he wo uld rec eive the maximum sentence if he went to trial. He furt her alleges counsel was ineffective for failing to interview

the victim. Petitioner

testified at the post-convictionhearing that he was mentally disabl ed and on medication when he entered the plea. Tr

ial counsel 's testimony differed from the pet itioner's in all relevant aspects. Initiall y, we note the petitioner has failed to prove deficient performance. The state originally offered petitioner a ten (1 0) ye ar sentence, but trial couns el negotiated it down to the minimum sentence of eight (8) years. Trial counsel could not force the state to make the victim available for an interview; however, counsel testified that she received a copy of the victim's statement and thoroughly review ed it wit h petitioner. Trial counsel also secured an evaluation of petitio ner' s competency. He was declared both competent and sane.2 The trial court found the petitioner thoroughly understood, and even stated several times on the record, he w as entering a plea that he fel t was in his best interests. The trial court also ask ed the petitioner if he was u nder the influence of alcohol o r drugs at t he plea h earing. T he petit ioner res ponded negativel y. The guilty plea was

entered in Maury County althou gh the indictment was pending in Lawrenc

e County. H owever, this was d iscussed at the time of entry of the plea. Th e petiti oner ora lly ag reed to the entry of t he p lea in Mau ry County. Although Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-214 provid es that w aiver of venue is to be “in writing,” the fail ure to utilize a written waiver in this instance was harmless error in view of the petitioner’ s express oral agr eement. The evidence does not preponderat e against the findings of the tr ial cou rt. Further, the petitioner

failed to demonstrate that, but for coun sel's performance, he would have insisted upon going to trial. Accordin gly, pursuant to Ru le 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Costs a re taxed tothe state as the appellant is indigent.

All of which is so ORDERED. ENTER:

________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE CONCUR:

_________________________ PAUL G. SUMM ERS, JUDGE

_________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDG E
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rakem Cooke, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 804]

Appeal by the defendant from a second resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed November 13, 2009, which, upon his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, imposed a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate sentence of imprisonment previously imposed upon his first resentence on February 17, 2000.

Ordered that the second resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant was still serving his first resentence when the second resentence was imposed, the second resentence to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS) did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621, 630-633 [2011]; *People v Thompson,*92 AD3d 812 [2012]; *People v Harris,*86 AD3d 543, 543-544 [2011]). As the second resentence was limited to the correction of the erroneous failure to impose PRS at the original sentencing and the first resentencing, we have no authority to reduce the sentence of imprisonment in the interest of justice on this appeal *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d at 635; *People v Adams,*85 AD3d 1192, 1193 [2011]; *People v Myrick,*84 AD3d 1272 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.
# L_2008143EN.01005501.xml

| 3.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 143/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 143/55

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 of 30 May 2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 142 of 31 May 2008
  )

In the contents on page 1 of the cover and in the title on page 1:

for:

‘Council Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 of 30 May 2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)’,

read:

‘Commission Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 of 30 May 2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)’.

---