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

I, Edward J. Puisis, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Dayton
Superior Corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending June
     27, 2003 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)) and

     The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

Dated: August 13, 2003

                                      /s/ Edward J. Puisis

                                      Edward J. Puisis

                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
VACATE ORDER AND DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 17, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01316-CV 

JOHN SEAY, Appellant 

V. 

DEL ROY FUNDS, LP, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06072-E 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Molberg 

This is an appeal from an order in a forcible detainer lawsuit awarding 

possession of the subject property to appellee. Before the Court is appellee’s 

motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. Appellee recites in the motion that a writ of 

possession was executed, and appellant is no longer in possession of the property. 

The only issue in a forcible detainer suit is the right to immediate possession 

of the premises. See Olley v. HVM, L.L.C., 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Unless an appellant has a potentially 

meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession, the issue of possession and 
 –2– 

the case become moot when the appellant is no longer in possession of the 

premises. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 

787, 790 (Tex. 2006). When a case becomes moot on appeal, an appellate court 

must vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case. See City of Dallas v. 

Woodfield, 305 S.W.3d 412, 416 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). 

More than ten days have passed since appellee filed its motion to dismiss 

and appellant has not filed a response. Because nothing in the record before us 

shows appellant has a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual 

possession of the property, we grant appellee’s motion, vacate the trial court’s 

December 2, 2022 order, and dismiss the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 

Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 790. 

221316F.P05 

 

/Ken Molberb/

KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JOHN SEAY, Appellant 

No. 05-22-01316-CV V. 

DEL ROY FUNDS, LP, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06072-

E. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. 

Justices Carlyle and Smith 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial 

court’s December 2, 2022 order and DISMISS the case. 

 We ORDER that appellee DEL ROY FUNDS, LP recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellant JOHN SEAY. 

Judgment entered April 17, 2023
Ernest Lee DEAN, aka Earnest Lee Dean, petitioner, v. OREGON.

No. 17-5343.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.
# Official Journal C 168/15 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 168 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6315 May 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 168

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6315 May 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 168/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 168/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Richard CROUSE, et al., petitioners, v. TOWN OF MONCKS CORNER, et al.

No. 17-242.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 23.1

Report of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors, on Financial Statement Schedule

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of InsWeb Corporation as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended, and have issued our report
thereon dated January 25, 2002, except for Note 19, as to which the date is March 28, 2002 (included elsewhere in this Annual Report). Our audit also included the 2001 data
included in the financial statement scheduled listed in Item 14(a)(2) of this Annual Report. This schedule is the responsibility of management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audit. The financial statement schedule of InsWeb Corporation for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, was audited by other auditors whose report dated January 31, 2001, expressed
an unqualified opinion on the financial statement schedule when read in conjunction with the related financial statement.

In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Sacramento,
California
January 25, 2002

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  350,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                    67,397
<INVENTORY>                                     31,456
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               380,196
<PP&E>                                         932,103
<DEPRECIATION>                                 220,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,490,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,600
<BONDS>                                        662,442
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           753
<OTHER-SE>                                     590,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,490,845
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,200,036
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  893,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                91,449
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                84,555
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                100,303
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,894
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             59,409
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,409
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77
        

</TABLE>
K.H., petitioner, v. WISCONSIN

A.S.F., petitioner, v. Wisconsin; and M.W., petitioner, v. Wisconsin.

No. 17-8620.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I denied.
Exhibit
31.3CERTIFICATION

I,
Patricia Graham, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Global Aircraft Solutions,
Inc.

2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 annual
report;

3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 annual report;

4. The
registrants other certifying officers 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 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of 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 controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

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 21,
2007

| | /s/   
Patricia GrahamPatricia GrahamChief Accounting Officer(Principal Operating Officer)
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 IA Global, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Scott, Chief
Operating and 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

         (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
Company for the dates and periods covered by the Report.

         This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance
by the Chief Executive and Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company with
the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not
be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as
specifically required by law.

                                        /s/ Mark Scott
                                        Mark Scott
                                        Chief Operating and Financial Officer
                                        July 15, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4200 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4200

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 321 South 1st Street in Montrose, Colorado, as the ``Sergeant David 
                      Kinterknecht Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT DAVID KINTERKNECHT POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 321 South 1st Street in Montrose, Colorado, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant David Kinterknecht Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
David Kinterknecht Post Office''.
    (c) Repeal of Previous Designation.--Section 1 of Public Law 115-
366 is hereby repealed, and the designation made and references deemed 
in subsections (a) and (b), respectively, of such section shall have no 
force or effect.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4200

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 321 South 1st Street in Montrose, Colorado, as the ``Sergeant David 
                      Kinterknecht Post Office''.
```
Valentin MUNIZ-SAAVEDRA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6678.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 11/16/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       67,558
COMMITMENTS
  20,635    2,094    6,880   25,144   43,074   52,659   52,048   14,899   15,510

CHANGES FROM 11/09/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -5,721)
  -1,803     -382   -1,918     -884   -3,518   -4,605   -5,818   -1,116       97

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    30.5      3.1     10.2     37.2     63.8     77.9     77.0     22.1     23.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       88)
      34        7       21       31       28       72       54
```

----

Updated November 19, 2010
# Official Journal C 299/5 Au

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 299 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 655 August 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 299

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 655 August 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 299/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 299/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 299/02 | State aid – Czechia – State aid SA.58207 (2021/N) – Support for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant at the Dukovany site – Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 5 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2022/C 299/02

State aid – Czechia – State aid SA.58207 (2021/N) – Support for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant at the Dukovany site – Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Caylin P. BLACK, petitioner, v. Ron NEAL, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison.

No. 17-6303.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10113

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN RAY CHEEK,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-157-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent John Ray Cheek has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Cheek has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and

the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Cheek’s response. 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 22, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-10113 Document: 00512120315 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2013
No. 12-10113

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-10113 Document: 00512120315 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2013
Shawn McCLAIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6949.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

*710Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
BAMBERGER ROSENHEIM, LTD., petitioner, v. OA DEVELOPMENT, INC.

No. 17-569.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Motion of The Center for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution In Israel for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1170

KAMAL BITTAR, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-166-769) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Gary Shulman, SHULMAN & WEISS, L.L.P., Paterson, New Jersey, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Jennifer J. Keeney, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kamal Bittar, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); Stewart v. INS , 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Bittar , No. A72-166-769 (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
Torrance BUNCH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6896.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.