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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Wolverine Tube, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, James E. Deason, Chief Financial Officer of Wolverine Tube, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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 therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Wolverine Tube, Inc. and will be retained by Wolverine Tube, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TO BE PUBLISHED



# Supreme Court of Kentucky

2018

- SC

- 0115

- KB
DAVID JOE PORTER APPELLANT

v. IN SUPREME COURT

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION APPELLEE

OPINION AND ORDER
David Joe Porter 1 has failed to show cause at any point since the most recent Show Cause Order of December 16, 2019 , notwithstanding a generous
extension of time of nearly a year and a half, why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for 181 days for failing to abide by the conditions of this Court’s Opinion and Order of August 16, 2018, made final on August 18,
2018. Specifically, Porter has f ail ed to pay any of the $55,613.22 h e owes to
various victims of his professional misconduct in the underlying case, to provide proof of such payments, or to explain adequately why he has not reported having made even a partial payment. T he KBA’s request for Porter’s temporary suspension fr om the practice of law for 181 days is GRANTED.

1 Porter’s KBA member number is 88085. He maintains a bar roster address at 609 W. H. Dixon Boulevard, Paintsville, KY 41240.2

As a condition to any consideration for resumption of the practice of law , it being the conditional terms of the disciplinary action against him as set out in our Order in August 2018 , Porter must begin payment to his various former
clients as set out in the order and provide proof to the KBA Office of Bar
Counsel that he has begun to do so. The Court now ORDERS that:
1. Porter is adjudged to be in violation of the conditional terms of the disciplinary ac tion against him as set out in our Order dated August 16, 2018, and the KBA’s motion for suspension is GRANTED.
2. Porter is suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for 181 days, effective ten (10) days from the date of entry of
thi s Opinion and Order, with the retoration of his right to practice conditioned on the fulfillment of the following terms:

a. That Porter commits no further breach of the Supreme Court Rules governing the Practice of Law.
b. That in accordance with SCR 3.510(3) he seeks and obtains recommendation from the Kentucky Bar Association’s Character and Fitness Committee regarding his fitness to practice law, with special consideration and respect given to his ability and willingness, if any, to repay those clients he was adjudged responsible for restitution.

c. That Porter is directed to pay all costs associated with these and any other disciplinary proceedings against him which remain3 unpaid and outstanding, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
d. Should Porter violate any of the foregoing conditions during the
181

- day period of suspension, the KBA may seek to revoke suspension and consider permanent disbarment.

A ll sitting . A ll concur.

ENTERED: AUGUST 26, 2021

.

_______ _______________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE
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
 Beltsville Agricultural Research Center: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USDA Civil Rights Policy StatementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Phillip  Parnell
                        Facilities Division

                        




                        
                        Utilities Systems Repairer Operator
                        Phone: (301) 504-6211
                        
                        
                        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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 12, 2017

s0906 

# Order

Clerk September 12, 2017

153957

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153957

COA: 331229

Wayne CC: 11

- 011795

- FC

TIMOTHY EUGENE SAMPSON

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10 , 2016 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, b ecause the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Seay *v.*The State.

*Murder.*

(Decided May 16, 1911.

55 South. 611.)

*Jury; Special Venire; Order; Number.*— "Where the order fixed the number of jurors to constitute the special venire at 90, and only 77 were summoned, the jury was illegal, and a conviction by such a jury will be reversed. (Section 32, Acts 1909, page 305).

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. Samuel L. Weaver.

Dave Seay was convicted of murder and he appealed.

Reversed and remanded.

J. P. Roach, for appellant.

No brief came to the Reporter.

Robert 0. Brigkell, Attorney General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Error is confessed on the authority of *Jackson v. State,*171 Ala. 38.

SOMERVILLE, J.

The order of the trial court fixed the number of jurors for the special venire at 90, including those drawn and summoned on the regular juries for the week. Sixty names were drawn for the regular juries, hut only 47 of these were summoned; and, to complete the venire, only 30 additional names were drawn and summoned. The result was that the special venire contained only 77 names, instead of 90, and was in violation of section 32 of the new jury law. On the authority of *Jackson v. State,*171 Ala. 38, 55 South. 118, the judgment of conviction will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and Sayre^ JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-26-1997
<CASH>                                            1000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


        

</TABLE>
# C_2005268EN.01001301.xml

| 28.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 268/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268/13

---

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE (CN)

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE

(Classification of goods)

(2005/C 268/05)

Explanatory notes adopted in accordance with the procedure defined in Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1)

1

The explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) shall be amended as follows:

2

On page 321 insert the following text:

with laser reading system

This subheading covers radio-broadcast receivers, combined with a sound recording or reproducing apparatus with a laser reading system, whether or not combined with other sound recording or reproducing apparatus (for example of the cassette-type) or a clock.’

with laser reading system

The explanatory notes to subheading 8527 13 10 apply, mutatis mutandis.’

with laser reading system

The explanatory notes to subheading 8527 13 10 apply, mutatis mutandis.’

with laser reading system

The explanatory notes to subheading 8527 13 10 apply, mutatis mutandis.’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 493/2005 (OJ L 82, 31.3.2005, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 256, 23.10.2002, p. 1.

2

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002


I, John P. Saldarelli, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of American
Property Investors, Inc., the General Partner of American Real
Estate Holdings Limited Partnership (the
Registrant), certify that to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the American Real Estate
Holdings Limited Partnership, quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2004 of the Registrant
(the Report):



| |                                                                                                                                                                    
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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 Registrant.



| |                       
| | ----------------------
| | /s/ JOHN P. SALDARELLI
| |                       



| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | John P. Saldarelli                                   
| | Treasurer and Chief Financial
    Officer            
| | American Property Investors, Inc.,                   
| | the General Partner of                               
| | American Real Estate Holdings Limited
    Partnership

Date: December 15, 2004
#### Nuris Baez, Respondent, v First Liberty Insurance Corporation, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 892] —

In an action, inter alia, to recover under an insurance policy, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated March 1, 2011, as, upon denying those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were for summary judgment on the first and fourth causes of action, determined that the defendant’s disclaimer of coverage was untimely.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff sought coverage under an insurance policy issued by the defendant, and when the defendant disclaimed coverage, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover under the policy. Upon denying those branches of the plaintiffs cross motion which were for summary judgment on the first and fourth causes of action, the Supreme Court, in an order dated March 1, 2011, inter alia, determined that the defendant’s disclaimer of coverage was untimely. The defendant appeals from so much of the order as made that determination. The appeal must be dismissed, however, as findings of fact and conclusions of law are not independently appealable *(see Soehngen v Soehngen,*58 AD3d 829, 830 [2009]; *Higgins v Higgins,*50 *1251AD3d 852, 852 [2008]; *Cosh v Cosh,*45 AD3d 798, 799 [2007]; *Griggs v Griggs,*44 AD3d 710, 711 [2007]; *ELRAC, Inc. v Belessis,*303 AD2d 445, 446 [2003]; *Naar v Litwak & Co.,*260 AD2d 613, 614 [1999]).

To the extent that the defendant raises an argument on appeal regarding its motion for leave to amend its answer, that motion was not addressed by the Supreme Court, and, thus, remains pending and undecided *(see Katz v Katz,*68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]). Angiolillo, J.P., Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1274 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1274

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the Internal 
Revenue Service from using the threat of audit to compel agreement with 
the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment or the Tip Rate Determination 
                               Agreement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 8, 1997

 Mr. Campbell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the Internal 
Revenue Service from using the threat of audit to compel agreement with 
the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment or the Tip Rate Determination 
                               Agreement.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment Agreement and 
        the Tip Rate Determination Agreement are voluntary agreements 
        developed by the Internal Revenue Service and the restaurant 
        industry as a means of improving the reporting of tip income;
            (2) there have been reports that the Internal Revenue 
        Service may be compelling members of the restaurant industry to 
        accept such voluntary agreement by using the possibility of 
        audit to intimidate; and
            (3) the Internal Revenue Service has the authority to 
        perform audits to assure taxpayer compliance with the internal 
        revenue laws.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USING THE THREAT OF AUDIT TO COMPEL AGREEMENT 
              WITH THE TIP REPORTING ALTERNATIVE COMMITMENT.

    Section 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
examination of books and witnesses) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
    ``(d) No Threat of Summons or Examinations To Compel Agreement With 
Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment or the Tip Rate Determination 
Agreement.--The Secretary shall not use the threat of making an 
examination or issuing a summons under subsection (a) to compel a 
taxpayer to agree to or sign the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment 
Agreement (TRAC) or the Tip Rate Determination Agreement (TRDA).''
                                 <all>
```
#### CAZIARC v. ABRAM FRENCH CO

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 27, 1895.)

Pleading—Bill of Particulars.

In an action for services, defendant set up in what way he claimed plaintiff had broken the contract of employment. *Held,*that defendant should be required to furnish a bill of particulars as to the time and place of the occurrences on which he intended to offer proof, but not to disclose his evidence, or the names of the witnesses.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Arthur W. Caziarc against Abram French Company for services. From an order requiring defendant to furnish a bill of particulars, defendant appeals.

Modified.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

Butler, Stillman & Hubbard, for appellant.

Peck & Field, for respondent.

*972PRATT, J.

This is an appeal from an order requiring the defendant to serve a verified bill of particulars of the matter set up in the answer. In addition to a general denial, the defendant has set up in what way he claims the plaintiff has broken the contract of employment, and it is only fair the plaintiff should be apprised of the time and place when and where the occasions took place upon which he intends to offer proof. He will not be required to disclose his evidence, or the names of his witnesses. The order went too far in requiring the defendant to state the names of the persons in whose presence the plaintiff- was intoxicated. With the modification of striking out that part of the order, the order appealed from is affirmed, without costs to either party. All concur.
ex10-6.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.6

     

    CHANGE
IN CONTROL AGREEMENT

    


    WHEREAS, Iron
Mountain Incorporated (the “Company”) has granted and may hereafter grant the
undersigned (the “Optionee”) one or more options (the “Options”) to purchase
shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 (the “Common Stock”),
pursuant to option agreements between the Company and Optionee (each, an “Option
Agreement”); and

    


    WHEREAS, the
Optionee and the Company desire to provide to the Optionee an additional
component of “Good Reason” as used in connection with a “Vesting Change in
Control” regarding all outstanding Options held by the Optionee as of the date
hereof and as hereafter may be granted under Option Agreements between the
Company and the Optionee (as amended and as may be amended or entered into in
the future, the “Stock Option Agreements”);

    


    NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter contained, the Optionee and the Company agree that the existing
Option Agreements are hereby amended to, and future Option Agreements will,
provide, notwithstanding any other provision in a Stock Option Agreement or the
plan(s) with respect to which such Options are granted (collectively, the
“Plans”) to the contrary:

    


    1.           That
the definition of the phrase “Good Reason” as used in connection with a “Vesting
Change in Control” shall include the following additional
component:  “a material diminution in the responsibilities or title of
the Optionee’s position with Iron Mountain and/or the assignment to Optionee of
duties and responsibilities that are generally inconsistent with the Optionee’s
position with Iron Mountain immediately prior to the Vesting Change in
Control.”  For the avoidance of doubt, “Good Reason” will have
occurred if the foregoing component or one of the components of “Good Reason” in
the Plans shall have occurred.

     

    2.           Except
as otherwise provided herein, all other terms and conditions of each Stock
Option Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

     

    Capitalized terms
not defined herein have the same meaning given to them in the applicable Stock
Option Agreement, or if not defined therein, the applicable Plan.

     

    IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Optionee and the Company have executed this Change in Control
Agreement this 10th day of December, 2008.

    


     

    
      


      


      
        	
                IRON
      MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED

              	
                OPTIONEE

              
	 
      	 
      
	
                By: /s/ Linda
    Rossetti

              	
                /s/
      Brian P. McKeon

              
	
                Its:  Executive
      Vice President, 

                    Human
      Resources and Administration

              	
                Name: Brian
      P. McKeon