alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles R. Waldron,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 1, 2011 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Learning Tree International, Inc.



|             |  |  |  |  |  |     |  |                          
|------------ |  |  |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------
|May 10, 2011 |  |  |  | 
|             |  |  |  | 
|             |  |  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    CHARLES R.
WALDRON
|             |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Charles R. Waldron       
|             |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Learning Tree International, Inc. and will be retained by Learning Tree International, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification is being furnished solely to accompany
this report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
# C_2021245EN.01000101.xml

| 24.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.9854 - KHS/FERRUM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/01)

On 17 May 2021, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (‘Merger Regulation’).

On 15 June 2021, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 27.5.2021, p. 12.

(2)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-78,944-03

EX PARTE REGINALD WAYNE EMERSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F89-91792-N IN THE 195 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of burglary of a

vehicle and sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment.

Applicant contends, in relevant part, that the September 18, 2018, parole revocation hearing

violated due process, and that he was denied his right to counsel. Based on materials provided by

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Pardons and Paroles Division, and the Classification and

Records Department, the trial court determined that, under the unique facts of this case, fundamental

fairness required that Applicant be provided with counsel. Accordingly, the revocation of
2

Applicant’s parole violated due process. The trial court also found insufficient evidence of the two

alleged violations that resulted in revocation. The court recommends that Applicant be reinstated

to parole and that any collateral consequences, such as forfeiture of time credits due to the improper

revocation, be removed.

The trial court’s determination that the record shows a due process violation is supported by

the record. Relief should be granted. The Pardons and Paroles Division shall either reinstate

Applicant to parole or reopen the revocation proceedings. Applicant’s remaining claims lack merit

and are denied.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: December 11, 2019

Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1997 CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR
THE 12 MONTHS  ENDED  DECEMBER  31,1997,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         586,468
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,297,774
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  5,478,291
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      11,668,946
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        11,666,662
<LOANS>                                     13,645,908
<ALLOWANCE>                                    300,686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,519,187
<DEPOSITS>                                  28,656,542
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            327,927
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,645
<OTHER-SE>                                     187,434
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              33,519,187
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,166,776
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,041,868
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                93,760
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,302,404
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,210,611
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,926
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,075,867
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  (3,000)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 419
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                947,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                402,209
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     402,209
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   254,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.17
<LOANS-NON>                                        126
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    199
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               292,367
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   15,643
<RECOVERIES>                                    13,756
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              294,254
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            21,085
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        273,169
        

</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2640 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion from 

gross income for discharge of consumer indebtedness. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2015 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. HUNTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

an exclusion from gross income for discharge of consumer indebtedness. 

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 ‘‘Consumer Debt For5 giveness Tax Relief Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR DISCHARGE 

7 OF CONSUMER INDEBTEDNESS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 108(a) 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik10 ing ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (D), by striking the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2640 IH

1 period at the end of subparagraph (E) and inserting ‘‘, 

2 or’’, and by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(F) the indebtedness discharged is quali4 fied consumer indebtedness.’’. 

5 (b) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO QUALIFIED CON6 SUMER INDEBTEDNESS.—Section 108 of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following: 

9 ‘‘(j) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO QUALIFIED CON10 SUMER INDEBTEDNESS.— 

11 ‘‘(1) QUALIFIED CONSUMER INDEBTEDNESS

12 DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the term 

13 ‘qualified consumer indebtedness’ means any indebt14 edness of a natural person arising out of a trans15 action in which the money, property, or services 

16 which are the subject of the transaction are pri17 marily for personal, family, or household purposes. 

18 ‘‘(2) OVERALL LIMITATION.—The aggregate 

19 amount of discharged indebtedness treated as quali20 fied consumer indebtedness for the taxable year shall 

21 not exceed the excess (if any) of— 

22 ‘‘(A) $2,500, over 

23 ‘‘(B) the aggregate amounts treated as 

24 qualified consumer indebtedness with respect to 

25 such taxpayer for all prior taxable years.’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2640 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to indebtedness discharged after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 ImproveNet, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ( "ImproveNet") on Form 10-QSB, for the period ended September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report") I, James R. Schroepfer, Chief Financial Officer, 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 ImproveNet.

ImproveNet, Inc.

/s/ James R. Schroepfer
----------------------------------
James R. Schroepfer
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 15, 2004
**Exhibit 23.2**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the (i) Registration Statements (Form S-3 No.333-75798 and No. 333-123577) of Endwave Corporation and related Prospectuses and (ii) RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 No. 333-49012) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan, 2000 Equity IncentivePlan, 2000 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan ofEndwave Corporation and ( Form S-8 No. 333-115183) pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan and2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Endwave Corporation of our report dated February 3, 2004, withrespect to the statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows and schedule ofEndwave Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003, included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPPalo Alto, California
#### Harvest O. TOOMER, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2010-7120.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2011.

Tara K. Hogan, Department of Justice, David J. Barrans, Kristiana M. Brugger, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Harvest O. Toomer, Jacksonville, FL, for Claimant-Appellant.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. That court dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the 120-day appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The appellant sought this court’s review.

This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of our decision in *Henderson v. Shinseki,*589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc) (affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is not subject to equitable tolling). In *Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,*-U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and concluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that the appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional, we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

*951(1) The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Soto, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered March 12, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The allegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor combined with the testimony offered after the court had instructed the prosecutor to advise his witnesses not to volunteer such testimony did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Schaeffer,*56 NY2d 448; *People v Marrero,*110 AD2d 785). The trial court sustained all objections to the comments and testimony and delivered prompt curative instructions to the jury to disregard the statements *(see, People v Arce,*42 NY2d 179, 187; *People v Burwell,*63 AD2d 685). Furthermore, the court gave explicit instructions to the jury both before the trial and in the charge that its verdict should be reached only on the basis of testimony offered by competent witnesses and that any statement deemed stricken from the record should not be considered at all *(see, People v Garcia,*72 AD2d 356, *affd 52*NY2d 716).

Nor was the defendant denied a fair trial by the fact that the court did not charge the jury on the possibility that he could have possessed a controlled substance unknowingly. Here, where there was no claim of unknowing possession, the court’s charge that the defendant’s guilt of each element of the crime must be established beyond a reasonable doubt was sufficient *(see, People v Gambino, 52*AD2d 957; *People v Ostin,*62 AD2d 1004). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Alberto DiBella, certify that:

         I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Enviro Voraxial Technology,
Inc.;

         1. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         2. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         3. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

                  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
         caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

                  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
         controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
         about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
         of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
         evaluation; and

                  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
         registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal
         quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
         or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditor and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

                  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
         the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
         which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's
         ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
         and
<PAGE>
                  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
         management or other employees who have a significant role in the
         registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2008


/s/ Alberto DiBella
-------------------
Alberto DiBella
Principal Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2645 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2645

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to prevent the Thrift Savings 
        Fund from investing in any company that boycotts Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2015

  Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to prevent the Thrift Savings 
        Fund from investing in any company that boycotts Israel.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON INVESTMENT OF THE THRIFT SAVINGS FUND.

    Section 8438 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
                            ``(i)(I) Notwithstanding any other 
                        provision of law, no amounts may be invested 
                        under this section in any company that boycotts 
                        Israel.
                            ``(II) In this clause--
                                    ``(aa) the term `boycotts Israel' 
                                means engaging in actions that are 
                                politically motivated and are intended 
                                to penalize, inflict economic harm on, 
                                or otherwise limit commercial relations 
                                with Israel or companies based in 
                                Israel or in territories controlled by 
                                Israel; and
                                    ``(bb) the term `company' means any 
                                sole proprietorship, organization, 
                                association, corporation, partnership, 
                                joint venture, limited partnership, 
                                limited liability partnership, limited 
                                liability company, or other entity or 
                                business association, including all 
                                wholly owned subsidiaries, majority-
                                owned subsidiaries, parent countries or 
                                affiliates of those entities or 
                                business associations, that exist for 
                                the purpose of making profit.''.
                                 <all>
```
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: DESIGNATION OF CHAIR OF MINOR COURT RULES COMMITTEE : : : : NO. 401 MAGISTERIAL DOCKET

**ORDER PER**  **CURIA M:**  AND NOW , this 20 th day of J uly, 2016, Magisterial District Judge Anthony W . Saveikis is hereby designated as Chair of the Minor Court Rules Committee commencing August 28, 2016.
# C_2021090EN.01000101.xml

| 17.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9455 — Compass/Fazer Food Services)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 90/01)

On 28 January 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9455. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9455. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---