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 Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
M. Sinnott, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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








Dated:  November
      12, 2009
            /s/ ROBERT M. SINNOTTRobert
      M. SinnottChief
      Financial Officer
# Official Journal C 124/18 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 124 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6518 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 124

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6518 March 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 124/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 124/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         August 12, 2021.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 6, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 717 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-121, CP2021-123.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2021-17167 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### General Utilities, Inc., Formerly Known as Combined Trucking Corp., Doing Business as General Utilities, Respondent, v Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Company, Appellant.

—In an action for a judgment declaring the obligations of the defendant pursuant to a liability insurance contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated June 18, 1984, as granted that branch of plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on its first cause of action and to dismiss certain affirmative defenses with respect to the third through fifth causes of action.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Construing the policy strictly against the insurer (see, *Breed v Insurance Co.,*46 NY2d 351, 353), Special Term was correct in holding that the policy’s exclusion from coverage of "liability assumed by'the Insured under any contract or agreement” applies only to indemnification claims. Since no extrinsic evidence has been presented, summary judgment is appropriate *(see, Fagnani v American Home Assur. Co.,*64 NY2d 967) and it was proper for Special Term to strike those affirmative defenses which raised the exclusion clause as a bar to plaintiff’s claim. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### Small *v.*Jones.

February 25, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Mathews. Bibb superior court. January *27,*1914.

*J. E. Hall*and *W. E. Martin Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Byals & Anderson,*contra.

Per Curiam.

There was evidence to support the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. None of the grounds relied on by the movant show any error against the defendant, requiring a reversal of the judgment refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish,*(7- *J-, absent.*
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,****ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Stetson,Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Robert  J. Stetson           |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
|                             |
| Robert J.  Stetson               |
| Interim  Chief Financial Officer |
| November 14,  2002               |

 

----
#### Mediterranean Contracting, Inc., Respondent, v 115 Hoyt, LLC, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 792]

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.H.O.), entered March 31, 2011, which, upon a decision of the same court dated March 24, 2011, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $60,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien filed against property owned by the defendant to recover the value of certain work performed and materials provided by the plaintiff at the property for the benefit of a tenant. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff had a valid lien on the defendant’s interest in the property, and entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” *(Vardon, Inc. v Suga Dev., LLC,*36 AD3d 897, 898 [2007], citing *Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

“A contractor who performs work for, or provides equipment to, a tenant may nonetheless impose a mechanic’s lien against the premises where the owner of the premises affirmatively gave consent for the work or equipment directly to the contractor, but not where the owner has merely approved or acquiesced in the undertaking of such work or the provision of such equipment” *(Elliott-Williams Co., Inc. v Impromptu Gourmet, Inc.,*28 AD3d 706, 707 [2006]; *see*Lien Law § 3). “To sustain the lien, *1064‘the owner must either be an affirmative factor in procuring the improvement to be made, or having possession and control of the premises assent to the improvement in the expectation that he [or she] will reap the benefit of it’ ” *(Elliott-Williams Co., Inc. v Impromptu Gourmet, Inc.,*28 AD3d at 707, quoting *Rice v Culver,*172 NY 60, 65-66 [1902]). Here, the evidence supports the Supreme Court’s finding that the defendant affirmatively consented to the work and materials described in the plaintiffs lien. Thus, the Supreme Court properly sustained the plaintiffs lien. Skelos, J.E, Dillon, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.
#### Albert YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter BRESLER, Doctor, CA Mens Colony; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17690.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 25, 2011.

Albert Young, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

April Hiroshima Gatling, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Albert Young, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his hepatitis C in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Morrison v. Hall,*261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, *Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co.,*389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Summary judgment for defendants Brown and McArthur was proper because Young failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their failure to inform Young that he had hepatitis C and provide him treatment for his Hepatitis C caused or will cause Young further injury. *See Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs,*766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (a delay in medical treatment must lead to further injury to support a claim of deliberate indifference); *see also Ochoa v. Superior Court,*39 Cal.3d 159, 216 Cal.Rptr. 661, 703 P.2d 1, 10-14 (1985) (applying the same analytic framework to the plaintiffs claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs under the state and federal constitutions).

*989The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Young’s request for appointment of new counsel after Young terminated his prior court-appointed counsel because Young failed to show “exceptional circumstances.” *Wilborn v. Escalderon,*789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986) (setting forth the standard of review).

Young’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Young’s requests for appointment of counsel and an expert, set forth in his supplement to his opening brief, are denied.

Young’s request for judicial notice of his district court filings concerning his request to terminate counsel is denied as unnecessary because those filings are part of the record.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40507 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus AUGUSTIN RAMIREZ-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-2201-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Augustin Ramirez-Reyes (Ramirez) has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramirez has not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT f L
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

PAPA JOHN’S INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
etal.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. No. 04 C 3131

ANTOIN S. REZKO, et al., \

1

Defendants.

ANTOIN S. REZKO, et al.,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)

Counter-plaintiffs, )

)

vs. )

)

PAPA JOHN’S INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)

Counter-defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants move to enter an injunction order, quash discovery and strike the
December 8, 2005, hearing date. That motion is granted in part and denied in part.

This action has been plagued by a high level of distrust on both sides, and this motion
and the response to it reflect that distrust. Plaintiffs believe that the sale of pizza stores may
be bogus and that defendants and their successor have used and continue to use proprietary
materials. Defendants insist that the sale was legitimate, they are out of the business, and
plaintiffs are just seeking to harass them and their successor by unnecessary discovery
demands and other conduct. They say that they are willing to enter into a consent injunction,
and that should end it.

As we have remarked before, we believe that plaintiffs are entitled to some limited

discovery to explore the bona fides of the sale, although they are not entitled to the wide-


No, 04 € 3131 Page 2

ranging discovery they previously sought. As to continuing use, plaintiffs’ concern seems to
be centered on the presence of Papa John’s software on computers in various stores, although
it is not at all apparent it is being used. There is also some concern that a photograph of a
Papa John’s pizza (although without any reference to plaintiff) may have been used in some
promotional effort — a use of proprietary material which, if so, borders on the trivial. We
think plaintiffs and the new owners should be able to agree to visits by plaintiffs’
representatives to the various stores to delete any Papa John’s software. We think a status
on December 8. 2005, should be devoted to determining what limited discovery may be
pursued by plaintiffs; we believe it unlikely that the parties can agree on that on their own.
If, as we suspect but cannot now determine, the sale is genuine, then a consent
injunction should end the matter. That leaves plaintiffs’ claim for profits and damages. But
that is a matter of sanctions and damages, a separate issue from injunctive relief unless the sale
was not genuine, because it relates to possible violations of prior court orders and non-compete
obligations. We have previously been led to believe that the defendants’ stores were closed
when they should have been, or shortly thereafter, although some signs and the like may have
been left in place for a time, and some stores may have been reopened by defendants under a
different name. If so, there may have been violations, and a short hearing at some convenient
time can lay that issue to rest as well. But that we can also talk about on December 8" at 10:00

a.m.

JAMES B. MORAN
ior Judge, U. S. District Court

Nav Q_, 2005.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1068

To amend section 353 of the Public Health Service Act to exempt physician

office laboratories from the clinical laboratories requirements of that section.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 25, 1997

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, and Mr. NICKLES) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend section 353 of the Public Health Service Act

to exempt physician office laboratories from the clinical

laboratories requirements of that section.

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 ‘‘Clinical Laboratory

5 Improvement Act Amendments of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF PHYSICIAN OFFICE LABORATORIES.

7 Section 353(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42

8 U.S.C. 263a(d)) is amended—
2

•S 1068 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and

2 (4) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively;

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the follow4 ing:

5 ‘‘(2) EXEMPTION OF PHYSICIAN OFFICE LAB6 ORATORIES.—

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

8 subparagraph (B), a clinical laboratory in a

9 physician’s office (including an office of a group

10 of physicians) which is directed by a physician

11 and in which examinations and procedures are

12 either performed by a physician or by individ13 uals supervised by a physician solely as an ad14 junct to other services provided by the physi15 cian’s office is exempt from this section.

16 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—A clinical laboratory

17 described in subparagraph (A) is not exempt

18 from this section when it performs a pap smear

19 (Papanicolaous Smear) analysis.

20 ‘‘(C) DEFINITION.—For purposes of sub21 paragraph (A), the term ‘physician’ has the

22 same meaning as is prescribed for such term by

23 section 1861(r) of the Social Security Act (42

24 U.S.C. 1395x(r)).’’;
3

•S 1068 IS

1 (3) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph

2 (3) (as so redesignated) by striking ‘‘paragraph (3)’’

3 each place that such term appears and inserting

4 ‘‘paragraph (4)’’; and

5 (4) in paragraphs (4) and (5) (as so redesig6 nated), by striking ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ each place that

7 such appears and inserting ‘‘paragraph (3)’’.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: To announce a list of senior executives who comprise a 
standing roster that will serve on IRS's Fiscal Year 2021 Senior 
Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Boards.

DATES: This list is effective September 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharnetta A. Walton, Director, Office 
of Executive Services at (202) 317-3817 or Malaika Green, Deputy 
Director, Office of Executive Services at (202) 317-3823, IRS, 1111 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this board 
shall review and evaluate the initial appraisals of career senior 
executives' performance and provide recommendations to the appointing 
authority on performance ratings, pay adjustments and performance 
awards. The senior executives are as follows:

Justin L. Abold-LaBreche
David P. Alito
Robin D. Bailey, Jr.
Scott A. Ballint
Lisa J. Beard-Niemann
Robert J. Bedoya
Michael C. Beebe
Jennifer L. Best
Carol A. Campbell
John V. Cardone
Anthony S. Chavez
James P. Clifford
Amalia C. Colbert
Erin M. Collins
Lucinda J. Comegys
Kenneth C. Corbin
Robert S. Cox
Tracy L. Deleon
Brenda A. Dial
Joseph Dianto
Donald C. Drake
Elizabeth A. Dugger
Sheila Eason
Michelle L. Eldridge
James L. Fish
Sharyn M. Fisk
Nikole C. Flax
Julie A. Foerster
Jeff D. Gill
Linda K. Gilpin
Dagoberto Gonzalez
Dietra D. Grant
Darren J. Guillot
Valerie A. Gunter
Todd L. Harber
Barbara Harris
Gearl D. Harris
Keith A. Henley
Anita M. Hill
Robert E. Hill
John E. Hinding
Carrie Y. Holland
Yumin Hsu
Scott E. Irick
Barry W. Johnson
Nikki C. Johnson
William H. Kea, Jr.
Lou Ann Kelleher
Andrew J. Keyso, Jr.
Edward T. Killen
James C. Lee
Terry L. Lemons
Sunita Lough
Robert W. Malone
Heather C. Maloy
Lee D. Martin
Kevin Q. McIver
Karen A. Michaels
Kevin M. Morehead
Robin L. Moses
Bryan L. Musselman
Frank A. Nolden
Douglas W. O'Donnell
Deborah T. Palacheck
Kaschit D. Pandya
Holly O. Paz
Scott D. Reisher
Bridget T. Roberts
James D. Robnett
Richard L. Rodriguez
Clifford R. Scherwinski
Frederick W. Schindler
Verline A. Shepherd
Nancy A. Sieger
Susan A. Simon
Eric D. Slack
Harrison Smith
Tommy A. Smith
Jeffrey J. Tribiano
Kathryn D. Vaughan
Shanna R. Webbers
Lavena B. Williams
Maha H. Williams
Lisa S. Wilson
Sheila D. Wright

    This document does not meet the Treasury's criteria for significant 
regulations.

Douglas W. O'Donnell,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, Internal Revenue 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17111 Filed 8-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```