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 Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Steinkopf, 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 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/ Timothy J. Steinkopf                         
|Timothy J. Steinkopf                             
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|May 4, 2005
alpert2010incentive.htm


Exhibit 10.12


 


Irv Alpert


Executive Vice President, Business Development


2010 Variable Compensation Plan


Objective:  Focus on Greater Transaction Value








	
 


2010 Corporate Accounts IOP1 Bookings Plan


 


 


	
 


New Bookings*


 

	
 


 


Transaction Value2

	
 


 


% Commission

	
 


% Accelerated Commission


 


	
>$250,000

	
14%

	
20%


	
$100,000 - $249,000

	
10%

	
15%


	
$30,000 –  $99,000

	
7%

	
10%


	
$20,000 - $29,000

	
4%

	
4%


	
<$20,000

	
1%

	
1%


	
 


Renewed Accounts*


 

	
 


Percentage of Existing


Accounts Renewed


 

	
 


 


% Commission


	
Up to 80%

	
3%


	
Above 80%

	
7%


	
 


New Bookings from National Account*


 

	
 


Transaction Value


 

	
 


% Commission


	
>$20,000

	
7%


	
 


Renewed Bookings from National Account*


 

	
 


Percentage of IOP Bookings Plan


 

	
 


% Commission


	
Up to 80%

	
0%


	
Above 80%

	
5%







*           Commission paid quarterly.



















  
1 Internal Operating Plan




  
2 Mr. Alpert shall receive a commission for any pilot transaction that results in a New Booking within six months of execution of the pilot equal to the % Commission set forth above less any commissions already paid for the pilot transaction.
#### John Probasco *against*Joachim Hartough.

CERTIORARI.

If a defendant, in a causo pending before a justice of the peace, and in which if he has a defence, is led into a mistake with regard to the time to which the cause is adjourned, and the trial is had in his absence, and without his knowledge; this court will reverse the judgment.

By the affidavits taken in this cause, under a rule of this court, it appeared, that on the 11th day of October, to which time the cause had been adjourned, on the application of Probasco, the defendant, below, the said “ defendant, called at the office of the justice, for the purpose of applying for a further adjournment thereof. That the justice, was not in his office, but that William. Letson, a partner in trade of said justice, was there; and upon Probasco’s enquiring for said justice, and informing the said Letson of his business, was told that Hartough, had sent a letter that morning, and solicited a farther adjournment for a fortnight; and as the parties both requested it, such further adjournment would be granted. And that said Letson, further told Probasco, that it was unnecessary for him to remain until the said justice came in, as he would notify the justice of the application.’-' That in consequence of this information, Probasco went home, and at the expiration of said fortnight, came prepared with his witnesses to try the cause, when he was informed, for the first time, that judgment had been rendered against him. That he was totally uninformed of the day of the trial, of said cause. And that he had a just and legal defence to make on the merits of the. action.

It further appeared, by the affidavit of Letson, that Joachim Hartough, the plaintiff below, sent a letter to the justice, in which he requested an adjournment of his suit against Probasco, for two weeks. But the cause was actually

*66adjournéd only for one week, and that Hartough appeared on the day of the trial, and insisted upon having the cause tried, and that -it was tried in the absence of Probasco the defendant below.

*Vroom,*for the plaintiff, in certiorari, moved to reverse the judgment of the justice, because Probasco, was surprised and deceived as to the time \ of the trial, and had not an opportunity of being heard; and cited 2 *Fen. Fep.*630; 1 *South Rep.*288.

By the Court.

The act of the legislature, relative to the trial of small causes, says, “ that to prevent fraud and surprise, the justice may grant adjournment,” and in this case we are inclined to think, he ought to have granted the adjournment for two weeks. This is not so strong a case as that of *Trueax*v. *Roberts*. 1 *South.*288; and we think the judgment o.ught to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                   5
<LEGEND>
                            The Schedule contains summary financial information 
                            extracted from the financial statements for Charter 
                            Municipal Mortgage Acceptance Company and is        
                            qualified in its entirety by reference to such      
                            financial statements                                
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                       0001043325                                   
<NAME>                      Charter Municipal Mortgage Acceptance Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                4,184,277
<SECURITIES>                                        148,143,267
<RECEIVABLES>                                         1,191,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                            138,000
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         10,168
<PP&E>                                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      155,057,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 2,818,980
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                          151,873,746
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        155,057,167
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      8,664,640
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      1,401,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       7,263,068
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                          7,263,068
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
                                               


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,907
<SECURITIES>                                     8,414
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (35)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,131
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,927
<PP&E>                                           6,845
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,726)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              947
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,071
<SALES>                                          4,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,796
<CGS>                                            3,748
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,749)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,749)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant

vs.

RASHARD PERRY,

Respondent.

_________________________________

Docket Number 2023-0424

Enforcement Activity No. 7793662

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: January 11, 2024

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Timothy G. Stueve

Appearances:

Alfred Lee Willett

USCG Marine Safety Unit Savannah

For the Coast Guard

Rashard Perry, Pro Se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about November 30, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval 

of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and 

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated January 11, 2024, at

Alameda, California

 

_____________________

Honorable Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
#### Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York, Formerly Industrial Commissioner, Appellant, v. Mary Chudzik, as Administrator of the Estate of Stanley Chudzik, Deceased, Respondent.

*1036Memorandum: The Commissioner of Labor, as judgment creditor of an unemployment insurance tax debt, appeals from an order denying a motion to vacate three orders which denied applications to extend a levy upon the personal property of the judgment debtor. The order was based on the court’s prior decisions which declared Labor Law § 573 (2) unconstitutional for failure to require that notice of exempt property be given the judgment debtor *(Commissioner of Labor of State of N. Y. v Chudzik,*126 Misc 2d 968; 123 Misc 2d 959). The court reasoned that compliance with an unconstitutional statute is a nullity.

Although the amount of the debt has been satisfied, we do not consider this appeal moot because the constitutional issue, involving a statute of State-wide application, is likely to recur *(see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715; *Le Drugstore Etats Unis v New York State Bd. of Pharmacy,*33 NY2d 298, 301; *Matter of Gold v Lomenzo,*29 NY2d 468, 475-476). We note that although the court decided the constitutional issue on its own motion without notifying the Attorney-General *(see,*Executive Law § 71), the Attorney-General did appear, and has been afforded an opportunity to uphold the validity of the statute, and in fact represents the Commissioner on this appeal.

Special Term erred in declaring the statute unconstitutional. Since notice of exempt property must be given to a judgment debtor pursuant to CPLR 5222 (d) and 5232 (c), the failure of Labor Law § 573 (2) to require such notice does not render the statute unconstitutional because the two statutes, covering the same general subject matter, should be construed together and applied harmoniously and consistently (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 221). This rule of statutory construction is particularly appropriate here since Labor Law § 573 (2) incorporates by reference CPLR article 52 in authorizing a Sheriff or Labor Department employee to "proceed upon the warrant in the same manner, and with like effect, as that provided by law in respect to executions issued against property upon judgments of a court of record”. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Horey, J. — vacate prior orders.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2620 Received in Senate (RDS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2620

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 24, 2015

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the United States Cotton Futures Act to exclude certain cotton 
            futures contracts from coverage under such Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUDING CERTAIN COTTON FUTURES CONTRACTS FROM COVERAGE 
              UNDER UNITED STATES COTTON FUTURES ACT.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c)(1) of the United States Cotton 
Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15B(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``except that any cotton futures contract'' 
        and inserting the following: ``except that--
                    ``(A) any cotton futures contract'';
            (2) in subparagraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (1)), 
        by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) any cotton futures contract that permits 
                tender of cotton grown outside of the United States is 
                excluded from the coverage of this paragraph and 
                section to the extent that the cotton grown outside of 
                the United States is tendered for delivery under the 
                cotton futures contract.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply 
with respect to cotton futures contracts entered into on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Jan T. Vilcek, Respondent, and Enzo Biochem, Inc., Appellant.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on April 23, 1986, and order of said court entered on July 3, 1986, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Gammerman, J. Claimant-respondent shall recover of appellant one bill of $50 costs and disbursements of these appeals. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch and Milonas, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in
her capacity as an officer of SPACEHAB, Incorporated ("SPACEHAB"), that, to the
best of her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SPACEHAB on Form 10-Q for the
period ended December 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of SPACEHAB.

Date: February 12, 2003



                                     /s/ Julia A. Pulzone
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Julia A. Pulzone
                                     Senior Vice President, Finance
                                     and Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

November 20, 2013

s1113 

# Order

Clerk November 20, 2013

147059

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147059

COA: 308852

Oakland CC: 2002

- 184901

- FH

BILLY JOE ENGLISH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 8, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, purs uant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals. The

defendant’s delayed application was not untimely under MCR 7.205(F)(4) because, under

the unique circumstances presented, it was reasonable for appointed appellate counsel to

calculate the due date for the delayed application from the date he received official and

final notice that the outstanding transcript did not exist. On remand, the Court of Appeals

shall decide whether to grant, deny, or or der other relief, in accordance with MCR

7.205(D)(2).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### Ackerman *et al.,*Appellants, *v.*Burdick, Respondent.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
# C_2023167EN.01013701.xml

| 11.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/137 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/137

---

P9_TA(2022)0399

Amending Decision (EU) 2015/2169 on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea

European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 November 2022 on the draft Council decision amending Decision (EU) 2015/2169 on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (12600/2022 — C9-0343/2022 — 2022/0257(NLE))

(Consent)

(2023/C 167/28)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (12600/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (12600/2022),

| — | having regard to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part,

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 91, Article 100(2), Article 167(3), Article 207 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0343/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 91, Article 100(2), Article 167(3), Article 207 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0343/2022),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A9-0277/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A9-0277/2022),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the draft Council decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Republic of Korea. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---