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

                                                                    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 Annual Report of TransAct Technologies Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steven A. DeMartino, 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 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

Date: March 15, 2006


/s/ Steven A. DeMartino
-------------------------------------
Steven A. DeMartino
Chief Financial Officer


                                       64
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUNE-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JULY-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,070
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (475)
<INVENTORY>                                     42,137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,358
<PP&E>                                          97,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,207)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 519,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,049
<BONDS>                                        286,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   519,132
<SALES>                                         86,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,456
<CGS>                                           34,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,873
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,355)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,570)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,785)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,785)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Christopher Mapp, Respondent, v Gregory Burnham, as Chief Technology Officer of Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 9, 2007;

decided May 1, 2007

Motion to dismiss the appeal herein denied.
#### GRUBERT, Appellant, v. CITY OF OSWEGO et al. Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Dorah Grubert against the city of Oswego, Martin Golden, as administrator, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs. Decision made by the concurrence of all.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles R. Warren, Appellant, v Thomas J. Coughlin, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Memoran*1037dum: Following relator’s conviction of three counts of robbery on May 12, 1978 in Kings County, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to serve 10 to 20 years on each count "to run concurrently with each other and with Federal time presently being served”. He was then serving a 20-year sentence for bank robbery entered in United States District Court in Kentucky on March 24, 1969. He had been paroled from Federal prison in January 1976 and was returned to Federal custody on a parole violation. In 1980 he was released from Federal custody and turned over to New York State to serve his State sentence. New York State authorities computed relator’s sentence from May 12, 1978 and credited him with 89 days time served in State custody prior to his conviction. Relator’s minimum period of imprisonment was further reduced by 8 years, 1 month and 6 days to reflect time served on his "concurrent” Federal sentence prior to May 12, 1978. Based on these computations of the New York Department of Correctional Services, relator was given a minimum release date of January 1, 1980, a conditional release date of June 12, 1991 and a maximum release date of February 12, 1998 *(see,*Penal Law § 70.40 [1]; Correction Law § 803). Relator’s claims in this proceeding that his maximum and conditional release dates should have been reduced to reflect time served on his concurrent Federal sentence are without merit.

Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (a) provides that when two or more indeterminate prison sentences are made concurrent, the time served under any one of the sentences is credited against the minimum periods of all the sentences. The maximum terms "merge in and are satisfied by discharge of the term which has the longest unexpired time to run”. Penal Law § 70.30 (2-a) sets forth the rules which apply when an indeterminate sentence on a New York conviction is made concurrent with an undischarged term of imprisonment in another jurisdiction, the circumstances present in this case. Subdivision (2-a) provides that "[t]he term or terms of such imprisonment shall be calculated * * * in the same manner as where a person is under more than one sentence in this state as provided in this section”, i.e., the minimum is reduced by time served on the concurrent sentence while the maximum is determined from the sentence with the longest unexpired term. As a result, while relator remains potentially liable for the maximum 20-year sentence which does not expire until 1998, he became eligible for parole on January 1, 1980 after serving less than two years of the 10-year minimum sentence imposed in 1978. The fact that the Parole Board has denied parole since 1980 *1038does not make his sentence illegal and his claims that the maximum and conditional release dates should have been recalculated were properly rejected. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J. — habeas corpus.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. McNulty, Chief Executive 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 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 Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ John E. McNulty                            
|John E. McNulty                                
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 4, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2475 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2475

     To provide for a one-year extension of the extended period of 
 protections for members of uniformed services relating to mortgages, 
   mortgage foreclosure, and eviction under the Servicemembers Civil 
                              Relief Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2015

  Mr. Fincher (for himself and Mr. Heck of Washington) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for a one-year extension of the extended period of 
 protections for members of uniformed services relating to mortgages, 
   mortgage foreclosure, and eviction under the Servicemembers Civil 
                              Relief Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stability for Service Members Act''.

SEC. 2. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF PROTECTIONS FOR 
              MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES RELATING TO MORTGAGES, 
              MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND EVICTION UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS 
              CIVIL RELIEF ACT.

    Section 710(d) of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for 
Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-154; 126 Stat. 1208; 
50 U.S.C. App. 533 note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``December 31, 2015'' and 
        inserting ``December 31, 2016''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``January 1, 2016'' and 
        inserting ``January 1, 2017''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00013-CV

SPHERION CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

MELVIN CHOAT,

Appellee

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-2777-4

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss and an unopposed motion for 

release of bond. Per the parties’ agreement, we grant the motions and dismiss the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). We further order the District Clerk of McLennan 

County to release the bond filed in connection with this appeal. Sepada v. Barnes, NO. 

12-08-00271-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 4012 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 29, 2009, no pet.) 

(mem. op.). Costs are taxed against the party incurring same.
Spherion Corp. v. Choat Page 2

FELIPE REYNA

Justice 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 5, 2009

[CV06]
#### ZELLER, Appellant, v. MUTH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

October, 1896.)

Action by Lorenz Zeller against John Muth.

E. Miehling, for appellant.

J. Cochrane, for respondent.

No opinion. Reversed upon argument.
Order filed November 2, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00781

- CV

____________ IN THE MATTER OF I.F .M

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No
. 2

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14

- CJV

- 019259



### ORDER Appellant filed a brief that improperly names the juvenile appellant in this appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(c)

. We order a ppellant’s brief stricken. A ppellant is ordered to file a brief that does not contain the name of the juvenile appellant or any other children associated with this appeal

. Appellant’s brief is due within 10 days of the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-24-00221-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1749454

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JOSEPH DINGLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Joseph Dingler attempts to appeal from an order finding him 

incompetent to stand trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.005(c) 

(authorizing incompetency determination without trial in certain circumstances), art. 

46B.054 (providing for uncontested incompetency finding). But such an order is not 

subject to interlocutory appeal. See id. art. 46B.011 (prohibiting interlocutory appeal 

from “determination or ruling under Article 46B.005”); MacWilliams v. State, No. 04-

24-00060-CR, 2024 WL 950606, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 6, 2024, no 

pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining that order 

finding defendant incompetent to stand trial is not subject to interlocutory appeal); 

accord. Scott v. State, No. 03-24-00165-CR, 2024 WL 2001609, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin 

May 7, 2024, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Salas v. State, No. 

02-22-00056-CR, 2022 WL 2753448, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 14, 2022, no 

pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 

Because an appealable order or final judgment is necessary for this court to 

obtain jurisdiction, see Salas, 2022 WL 2753448, at *2; McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 

161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam), and because there is no 

record of either in this case, we warned Dingler that we would dismiss his appeal 

unless he showed grounds for continuing it. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Dingler

responded by summarizing the issues he intends to raise on appeal—“two questions 
3

of first impression” and various constitutional challenges—but he did not identify any 

legal basis for our exercise of jurisdiction over those issues.1

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.2 Tex. R. App. P. 

43.2(f).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Do Not Publish

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

Delivered: August 1, 2024

1Dingler later filed a motion for emergency relief as well, complaining of 

“increased restraint of [his] liberty” at the jail. But, like his response to our letter 

warning of dismissal, Dingler’s motion did not identify a legal basis for our exercise of 

jurisdiction.

2All motions pending in this appeal are denied.
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.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

# AGENCY:

 National Endowment for the Arts.

# ACTION:

Notification of Availability.

# SUMMARY:

The National Endowment for the Arts is requesting proposals leading to the award of one (1) Cooperative Agreement for the continued management and administration of a Career Development Program for Stage Directors, and a Career Development Program for Stage Designers. These Programs enable emerging Stage Directors and Stage Designers to work in situations, including residency and/or mentoring activities, that will develop their artistic skills and enhance their contributions to America's nonprofit professional arts institutions and their audiences. The recipient of the Cooperative Agreement will be responsible for all aspects of the program including the solicitation of applications from Stage Directors and Stage Designers, convening of selection panels, administering twelve awards of $17, 500 each to the successful applicants, and the development and coordination of appropriate residencies or other appropriate placement situations for the Directors and Designers. Those interested in receiving the Solicitation package should reference Program Solicitation PS 00-03 in their written request and include two (2) self-addressed labels. Verbal requests for the Solicitation will not be honored. It is anticipated that the Program Solicitation will also be posted on the Endowment's Web site at http://www.arts.gov.

# DATES:

 Program Solicitations PS 00-03 is scheduled for release approximately May 1, 2000 with proposals due by May 31, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

 Requests for the Solicitation should be addressed to the National Endowment for the Arts, Grants & Contracts Office, Room 618, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20506.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 William Hummel, Grants & Contracts Office, National Endowment for the Arts, Room 618, 1100 Pennsylvania  Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20506 (202-682-5482).

William I. Hummel, 

Coordinator, Cooperative Agreements.

[FR Doc. 00-9513  Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,659,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  680,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,770,265
<PP&E>                                       4,017,987
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,542,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,220,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,670,602
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,121
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,443,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,220,981
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,287,790
<CGS>                                           97,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,155,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (13,832,023)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (13,832,023)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                    (153,126)
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,985,149)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.63)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Alan J. Kaplan, Appellant, v Louis D. LaPolla, as Mayor of the City of Utica, et al., Respondents.

Memorandum: The petition was properly dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner fails to allege or demonstrate an injury in fact *(see, Matter of MFY Legal Servs. v Dudley,*67 NY2d 706; *Matter of Department of Personnel v City Civ. Serv. Commn.,*60 NY2d 436, *rearg denied sub nom. Matter of City of New York v City Civ. Serv. Commn.,*61 NY2d 759; *Matter of Bradford Cent.*
      *972
      *School Dist. v Ambach,*56 NY2d 158). While it is true that the Court of Appeals has embraced an expanded view of standing to permit so-called "taxpayer” suits, such actions are authorized where the suit challenges or relates to fiscal matters or where the failure to accord standing would present an "impenetrable barrier” to any judicial scrutiny *(New York State Coalition for Criminal Justice v Coughlin,*64 NY2d 660; *Matter of Urban League v County of Monroe,*49 NY2d 551; *Boryszewski v Brydges,*37 NY2d 361; *see also,*State Finance Law § 123-b; General Municipal Law § 51). Neither concern is presented in this case. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. STEVE WAYNE CAMP, Defendant - Appellant. No. 11-36079 D.C. No. 9:11-cv-00101-DWM
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Subm itted October 8, 2013 * * Portland, Oregon Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Steve Cam

p appeals the perm anent injunction entered by the district court following a jury verdict in favor of Am erican National Property and Casualty 

# FILED
OCT 10 2013 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

* * The panel unanim ously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Com

pany in its action to enforce the parties’ non-com pete and trade secret agreem ents. We dism iss in part and affirm in part. Cam p’s challenges to paragraphs one and two of the perm anent injunction
are m oot because by their explicit term s they expired on the sam e date – March 3, 2012 – as the non-com pete agreem ent which they enforced. See Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc. , 709 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2013) (challenges to an injunction that has expired on its own term s are m oot unless the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception applies). Contrary to Cam p’s assertion, paragraph three of the perm anent injunction, which concerns trade secrets, does not im pose on Cam p a perpetual obligation to preserve Am erican National’s records. Rather, the plain language only prohibits Cam p from “using” Am erican National’s trade secrets and “spoiling” Am erican National’s records, nothing m ore. AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

2