alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****RULE 13(a)-14(b) AND 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 Commerce EnergyGroup, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended October 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), Lawrence Clayton, Jr., Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his 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 result of    operations of the Company.Date: December 15, 2005 By:     /s/ LAWRENCE CLAYTON, JR.       Lawrence Clayton, Jr.     Chief Financial Officer     (Principal Financial Officer)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 29, 2010 

s0922 

Order 

 

September 29, 2010 

140465 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,- 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140465 

 COA: 293694 

Kalkaska CC: 00-002060-FH 

MICHAEL TIRONI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2009 

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

granting leave to appeal, we DIRECT the Kalkaska Circuit Court to submit to the Clerk 

of this Court within 28 days of the date of this order a written explanation of the 

circumstances surrounding the written communication(s) between the trial judge and the 

prosecutor that allegedly were not served on defendant and/or defense counsel, including 

the trial judge’s May 2008 memorandum to the prosecutor inquiring regarding the 

applicability of People v Nyx, 479 Mich 112 (2007), and the prosecutor’s memorandum 

responding to the court’s request. The trial judge’s written submission to this Court shall 

explain whether these documents were served on defendant or defense counsel, and if 

not, the reason for this failure of service. See Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4) 

and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.5 (prohibiting ex parte 

communications). 

We further DIRECT the prosecutor to file with the Clerk of this Court within 28 

days of the date of this order a written explanation regarding whether the documents in 

question were served on defendant or defense counsel and the reason for any failure of 

service. Defendant may file a response to the prosecutor’s written explanation within 28 

days after the prosecutor’s response is filed and served. 

We retain jurisdiction.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of National Beef Packing Company, LLC (the Company)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 27, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

     (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

|     |  |                                         |
|-----|--|-----------------------------------------|
| By: |  | /s/ John R. Miller                      |
|     |  | John R. Miller*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: July 10, 2006
Daniel H. JONES, Petitioner v. Claudia C. BONNYMAN, et al.

No. 19-5984

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5052 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain mixtures of N,NDimethylacetoacetamide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2008 

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain mixtures of 

N,N-Dimethylacetoacetamide. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MIXTURES OF N,N4 DIMETHYLACETOACETAMIDE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

HR 5052 IH 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures of N,NDimethylacetoacetamide 

(CAS No. 2044–64–6) with 

an additive that stabilizes 

color and diluted in water 

with a calculated assay of 

not less than 93% and not 

more than 99% (provided 

for in subheading 

2924.19.11) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2
FORM OF EXTENSION OF TERM
OF EMPLOYMENT PERIOD
MEMORANDUM




		
	To:
	     


		
	From:
	Patricia Smith Lawler,


EVP/Human Resources Division
		
	Re:
	Extension of Employment Period


		
	Date:
	July ___, 2019




The Board of Directors of BankFinancial, NA (the “Bank”) and its Human Resources Committee have completed their annual review of your Employment Agreement with the Bank dated _____________, and have determined to offer to amend your Employment Agreement (1) to extend the term of the “Employment Period” as referenced in Section 2(a) of your Employment Agreement to ______________; and, (2) to remove the words “was or” in the two places those words appear in Section 8(b) Non-Solicitation.
If you are agreeable to amending your Employment Agreement as provided above, please sign and date this document in the space indicated below and return it to me by no later than _________________.
If you do not sign and return this document to me by such date, the term of your Employment Period and the Anniversary Date applicable to your Employment Agreement will remain unchanged.




		
	Name:
	     




		
	Signature:
	     




		
	Date:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 126 (Friday, July 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 39520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14072]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than August 1, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Two Rivers Financial Group, Inc., Burlington, Iowa; to acquire 
Lee County Bank, Fort Madison, Iowa.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-14072 Filed 6-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
# Official Journal C 56/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 56 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6212 February 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 56

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6212 February 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2019/C 56/01 | List of competent authorities notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2019/C 56/01

List of competent authorities notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice

1

---

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

EN
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60798

Summary Calendar

JORGE PONCE,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A086 970 453

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Ponce, a native and citizen of Mexico, has filed a petition for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of the

denial of his application of adjustment of status, pursuant to Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA), INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), and

the denial of his application for cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent residents, pursuant to INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Ponce

argues that he is eligible for adjustment of status despite the permanent bar to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 2, 2012

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: 11-60798 Document: 00512041373 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2012
No. 11-60798

admissibility of § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) because 10 years have elapsed since his prior

departure from the U.S., and he therefore qualifies for an exception pursuant to

§ 1182(a)(9)(C)(ii). He also argues that this court should remand this case to the

BIA, because he is now eligible for a grant of nunc pro tunc permission to

reapply for admission because 10 years have now elapsed from his prior

departure. Finally, Ponce argues that Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzalez, 409 F.3d 246

(5th Cir. 2005), was wrongly decided.

Ponce did not argue to the BIA, as he does before this court, that the

accrual of 10 years since his last departure from the U.S. made him eligible for

an exception to the bar of inadmissibility. He also did not argue to the BIA, as

he does before this court, that the accrual of 10 years makes him eligible for a

grant of nunc pro tunc permission to reapply for admission. As Ponce did not

make these arguments in his direct appeal to the BIA, in a motion to reopen, or

in a motion for reconsideration, he has failed to exhaust these issues, and this

court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Omari v.

Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137

(5th Cir. 2004).

Ponce seeks to preserve appellate review of whether Mortera-Cruz was

wrongly decided. Ponce challenged the holding in Mortera-Cruz in his appeal to

the BIA and therefore he exhausted this issue. Because the Supreme Court has

issued no intervening precedent, and this court has not reconsidered the issue

en banc, Mortera-Cruz remains the law of this circuit. See Burge v. Parish of St.

Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999).

PETITION DENIED.

2

Case: 11-60798 Document: 00512041373 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2012
235 F.2d 780

#### Burton E. CARR and Marie A. Carr, Husband and wife, Appellants, v. CITY OF ANCHORAGE, a Municipal Corporation, and Merrill Chitty, Appellees.

No. 14242.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 13, 1956.

*358Bell & Sanders, Anchorage, Alaska, for appellants.

John Rader, Anchorage, Alaska, for appellees.

Before STEPHENS, ORR and POPE, Circuit Judges.

POPE, Circuit Judge.

In this action appellants claimed damages from the City of Anchorage and its Engineer and Building Inspector, the appellee Chitty, on the ground that the City, acting by and through Chitty, oppressively and fraudulently delayed the issuance of a building permit to appellants, and in the process lost a valuable set of appellants’ plans. They prayed judgment against the defendants and each of them in the amount of $18,731.36. The complaint alleged joint and several liability on the part of both defendants on account of the tortious acts described. Both defendants moved to dismiss. The City’s motion was granted; that of Chitty denied, D.C., 114 F.Supp. 439, 14 Alaska 409, and judgment entered dismissing the action against the City. The Carrs appeal from that judgment.

The record shows no attempt to make an express determination that “There is no just reason for delay” in the language of Rule 54(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. *359Indeed, according to our decision in Steiner v. 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation, 9 Cir., 220 F.2d 105, the making of such a determination would not have sufficed to make the trial court’s decision appealable, since there is here a single claim asserted jointly against multiple parties.

The judgment here is one which, wholly apart from Rule 54(b), would not be appealable. Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 590, 37 L.Ed. 443; cf. Sears Roebuck Co. v. Mackey, 1956, 351 U.S. 427, footnote 3, 76 S.Ct. 895. We are therefore without jurisdiction of the appeal.

But one point remains. If our decision in Steiner was wrong, and if the proper rule is that a determination under Rule 54(b) would serve to make this decision appealable, then it would be appropriate to do as we did in Burkhart v. United States, 9 Cir., 210 F.2d 602, and remand the case to permit the court to make the Rule 54(b) determination. Since the grant of certiorari in Sears Roebuck Co. v. Mackey, supra, it has been plain that the decision in that case, which was certain to lay at rest some questions concerning Rule 54(b), might require a re-examination of our Steiner case. The Second Circuit has disagreed with us, see Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 2 Cir., 224 F.2d 198; 204, while the Seventh Circuit has followed Steiner. Hardy v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 7 Cir., 222 F.2d 827.

But we find nothing in the Sears Roebuck case or in the accompanying case of Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., 351 U.S. 445, 76 S.Ct. 904; which suggests any reason why this division of this court should fail to follow Steiner. Accordingly, since no determination that there is no just reason for delay will make this decision appealable, we simply dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction to entertain it.
STATE of North Carolina v. Gloria Dale WILKERSON.

No. 8P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2005.

Peter Wood, for Wilkerson.

Wendy L. Greene, Assistant Attorney General, James E. Hardin, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of January 2005 by Defendant-Appellant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of February 2005."
EXHIBIT 32.1

INFORMATION ARCHITECTS
CORPORATION 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 Information Architects Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William Overhulser, Interim Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Information Architects Corporation and will be retained by Information Architects
Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

|Date: April 14, 2005 |  | BY: /s/ William Overhulser
William OverhulserInterim Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of National Beef Packing Company, LLC (the Company)on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 24, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

     (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

|   |   |                                    |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| By:    |   | /s/ John R. Miller                      |
|   |   |                                    |
|   |   | John R. Miller*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: January 8, 2008
STATE of North Carolina v. Jeffery B. LINEBERGER.

No. 150P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 6, 2004.

Jeffery B. Lineberger, Pro Se.

Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th day of March 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the Orders of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of May 2004."
# L_2016075EN.01007201.xml

| 22.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 75/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 75/72

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/113 of 28 January 2016 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of high fatigue performance steel concrete reinforcement bars originating in the People's Republic of China

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 23 of 29 January 2016
  )

On page 16, title:

for:

‘Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/113’,

read:

‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/113’.

---
STATE v. DAVIS

COA03-910.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 17, 2004.

Certification Date September 7, 2004.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
William L. EDWARDS, Petitioner v. TEXAS

No. 19-6446

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District denied.