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



EXHIBIT 32.2

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


        In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Whitewing
Environmental Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Report"), I, Barbara Kane-Burke, hereby certify in my capacity as Chief
Financial Officer of Whitewing, 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 and belief:


         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
Whitewing.


Dated: June 15, 2004                 By: /S/ Norman Raben
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Name:   Norman Raben
                                         Title:  Chief Financial Officer


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.
In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

══════════

No. WR-92,046-03

══════════

EX PARTE DERIC EUGENE MADISON,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Cause No. W14-76000-U(C) in the 291st District Court

From Dallas County

═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Applicant was convicted in 2015 of murder and sentenced to life 

imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in 

2016. Madison v. State, No. 05-15-00859-CR, 2016 WL 7163913 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas Nov. 8, 2016) (not designated for publication). In July of 

2022, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the 

county of conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. In his 
MADISON – 2

application, he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for various 

reasons.

Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to 

further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write 

separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and 

its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua 

sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille, ___ S.W.3d ___, 

No. WR-89,851-02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) 

(Yeary, J., concurring).

The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this 

one. Applicant’s appeal was finalized when the court of appeals issued 

its mandate in June of 2017, but this writ application was not filed until 

five years later.1 The record is also silent regarding circumstances that 

may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least some explanation for the long 

delay in filing should be provided. Consistent with this Court’s 

precedent, the trial court “may sua sponte consider and determine 

whether laches should bar relief.” Smith, 444 S.W.3d at 667. If the trial 

court does so, it must give Applicant the opportunity to explain the 

reasons for the delay and give the State’s prosecutors and/or former 

counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether Applicant’s delay 

has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant’s 

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the 

diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of 

the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years 

after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe, 132 S.W.3d 434, 437–39 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)). 
MADISON – 3

claims. Id. at 670. And ultimately, the trial court may include findings 

of fact and conclusions of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its 

response to this Court’s remand order.

With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED: January 25, 2023

DO NOT PUBLISH
Slip Op. 05-12

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: HONORABLE RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, SENIOR JUDGE

SNR ROULEMENTS, KOYO SEIKO

CO., LTD., KOYO CORPORATION OF

U.S.A., NSK CORPORATION, NSK

BEARINGS EUROPE, LTD., NSK

LTD., NTN-BCA CORPORATION, NTN

BOWER CORPORATION, NTNDRIVESHAFT, INC., AMERICAN NTN

BEARING MANUFACTURING CORP.,

NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF

AMERICA, NTN CORPORATION, INASCHAEFFLER KG, INA USA

CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

THE TORRINGTON COMPANY,

DefendantIntervenor.

 

 Consol. Court No. 01-00686

 

JUDGMENT ORDER

Upon consideration of the United States Department of

Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Remand (“Redetermination Results”) filed pursuant to the Court’s

decision in SNR Roulements v. United States, Slip Op. 04-100

(Aug. 10, 2004), and all other papers filed herein, and no

parties having filed comments regarding the Redetermination

Results, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Redetermination Results are sustained in
all respects.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard W. Goldberg 

Richard W. Goldberg

Senior Judge

Date: January 27, 2005

New York, New York
##### 



Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eclipsys
Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Paul L. Ruflin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Robert
J. Colletti, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|                      |  |                                           
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                      |  | /s/ Paul L. Ruflin                        
|                      |  |                                           
|Dated: August 4, 2003 |  | Paul L. Ruflin
Chief Executive Officer    
|                      |  |                                           
|                      |  |                                           
|                      |  | /s/ Robert J. Colletti                    
|                      |  |                                           
|Dated: August 4, 2003 |  | Robert J. Colletti
Chief Financial Officer
|                      |  |                                           











---

---
EX-10.8.1






Exhibit 10.8.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1

to

WGC/WGTS LICENSE AGREEMENT




          This Amendment (this “Amendment”) dated May 20, 2008 to the WGC/WGTS License Agreement
(the “License Agreement”), entered into as of November 16, 2004, by and among World Gold
Council and World Gold Trust Services, LLC (together the “Licensor”), and State Street
Global Markets, LLC (the “Licensee”).




WITNESSES, that




          WHEREAS effective concurrently herewith the name of the streetTRACKS® Gold Trust is
changed to “SPDR® Gold Trust” (the “Trust”) and the name of the
streetTRACKS® Gold Shares is changed to “SPDR® Gold Shares” (the
“Shares”); and




          WHEREAS, Section 10(h) of the License Agreement provides that any amendment thereto shall be
in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the Licensor and Licensee; and




          WHEREAS the Licensor and the Licensee wish to amend the License Agreement to refer to the new
names of the Trust and Shares;




          NOW, THEREFORE, the Licensor and the Licensee agree as follows:




          1. Throughout the License Agreement, all references to “streetTRACKS® Gold Trust”
are hereby amended to read “SPDR® Gold Trust” and all references to
“streetTRACKS® Gold Shares” are hereby amended to read “SPDR® Gold Shares.”



          2. The foregoing amendments shall be effective as of May 20, 2008.



          3. Except as modified by this Amendment, the License Agreement shall remain unmodified and in
full force and effect.



          4. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned
to such terms in the License Agreement.



          5. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed
and delivered shall be deemed an original, but together shall constitute one and the same
amendment.



[Signature Page Follows]




 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date
first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	World Gold Council	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ James E. Burton
 

	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	James E. Burton	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	CEO	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	World Gold Trust Services, LLC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ James E. Burton	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	James E. Burton	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Managing Director	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	State Street Global Markets, LLC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Anthony Rochte	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Anthony Rochte	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Vice President	 	 






[Signature Page to Amendment No. 1 to

WGC/WGTS License Agreement]




-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1324 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1324

To deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation, Biloxi Harbor, 
                              Mississippi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 1997

   Mr. Lott introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation, Biloxi Harbor, 
                              Mississippi.

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

SECTION 1. BILOXI HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI.

    The portion of the project for navigation, Biloxi Harbor, 
Mississippi, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 
481), for the Bernard Bayou Channel beginning near the Air Force Oil 
Terminal at approximately navigation mile 2.6 and extending downstream 
to the North-South \1/2\ of Section 30, Township 7 South, Range 10 
West, Harrison County, Mississippi, just west of Kremer Boat Yards, is 
not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Range and Meadow Forage Management Research: Burns, OR
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Burns, Oregon Range and Meadow Forage Management Research People & Locations







Christie  Guetling
                        Range and Meadow Forage Management Research

                        




                        
                        Range Technician
                        Phone: (541) 573-4072
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00772-CV

IN RE R. Wayne JOHNSON

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 23, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On December 7, 2015, relator R. Wayne Johnson filed a pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus complaining of an order of dismissal signed in the underlying civil proceeding on 

October 11, 2011. The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 12,810, styled R. Wayne Johnson v. Elroy Garcia and James Allison, in the 

216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas, the Honorable N. Keith Williams presiding.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-51313 Conference Calendar

J. C. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MARGO FRASIER, Sheriff; DR. BRINSON, Medical Staff, Texas Criminal Justice; TEXAS COMMISSION ON JAIL STANDARDS, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-390-SS

-------------------- June 13, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * J. C. Carter (“Carter”), Texas prisoner # 5636, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the district court’s decision to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. By moving for IFP status, Carter is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).No. 00-51313 -2- Carter has failed to show that his appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous is taken in good faith. Accordingly, Carter’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of Carter’s complaint as frivolous and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Ctr. , 136 F.3d 458, 462-64 (5th Cir. 1998); Adepegba
v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Carter that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) WARNING ISSUED; All OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 333-4452 and No. 333-58393 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-42310
on Form S-4 and in Registration Statement No. 333-82750 on Form S-3 of EGL, Inc.
of our report dated March 29, 2000 on the consolidated financial statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows of Circle International Group,
Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1999 (not presented
separately herein) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of EGL, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2001.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Francisco, California
March 27, 2002
In the Senate of the United States,

October 21 (legislative day, October 2), 1998.

Resolved, That the Senate agree to the amendment of

the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 1364) entitled

‘‘An Act to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful Federal reports.’’ with the following

SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT:

1 Page 37 of the House engrossed amendment, strike

2 out all after line 2 down to and including line 10

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1364

SENATE AMENDMENT TO

HOUSE AMENDMENT
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 12.1

SUMMIT PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2001
(Dollars In thousands)

Earnings:
    Net income......................................................... $ 12,487
    Interest:
      Expense incurred.................................................    9,971
      Amortization of deferred financing costs.........................      343
      Rental fixed charges.............................................       78
                                                                        --------

      Total                                                             $ 22,879
                                                                        ========


Fixed charges:
    Interest expense................................................... $  9,971
    Interest capitalized...............................................    3,290
    Dividends to preferred unitholders in Operating Partnership........    3,105
    Rental fixed charges...............................................       78
    Amortization of deferred financing costs...........................      343
                                                                        --------

      Total............................................................ $ 16,787
                                                                        ========


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.....................................     1.36
                                                                        ========
ex10-3.htm


    
      

      

    

    EXHIBIT
10.3

    DAVID
H. LIPKA

    19
Oakwood Circle

    Roslyn,
New York 11576

    


    


    


    November
13, 2008

    


    


    Galaxy
Nutritional Foods, Inc.

    5955 T.G.
Lee Blvd.

    Orlando,
FL 32822

    Attention:
Michael Broll, President

    


    Re: 2007 Stay Bonus, Severance Bonus
and Sales Bonus Plan of Galaxy Nutritional Foods (the “Plan”)

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    This letter is being delivered in
connection with the contemplated closing of that certain Stock Purchase
Agreement to be dated on or about November 18, 2008 among Galaxy Partners, LLC
(“Galaxy Partners”), Galaxy Nutritional Foods, Inc. (the “Company”) and
Frederick A. DeLuca (the “Purchase Agreement”).  As I have disclosed
to the Board of the Company, I have entered into a Consulting Agreement with
Galaxy Partners and its affiliate, Fairway Dairy and Ingredients LLC, which will
become effective upon the closing of the Purchase Agreement.  In light
of the consideration which I will receive under the Consulting Agreement and for
and in consideration of $10 and other good and valuable consideration from the
Company, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, effective
upon the closing of the Purchase Agreement I hereby waive and release any rights
that I may now (or at any time in the future) have relating to the Plan,
including without limitation, as to receipt of any stay bonus, severance bonus
or sales bonus under the Plan.

    


    Sincerely,

    


    /s/ David H. Lipka

    


    David H. Lipka
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

WILLIAM DEFORTE

v.

BOROUGH OF WORTHINGTON, et al

PETITION OF: UNITED STATES COURT 

OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

EVAN TOWNSEND

v.

BOROUGH OF WORTHINGTON, et al

PETITION OF: UNITED STATES COURT 

OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 83 WM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2018, the Petition for Certification of Question 

of State Law is GRANTED. This Court shall consider the following issue:

Whether, under Pennsylvania law, (1) the Pennsylvania Borough Code 

and the Police Tenure Act must be read in pari materia, such that every 

legally authorized police force in Pennsylvania fall under the governance 

of one of those two state statutes, and (2) if not, whether the same test 

should be used to determine whether the Tenure Act's two-officer 

maximum and the Borough Code's three-officer minimum is satisfied.

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to establish a briefing schedule and list this case 

for oral argument.