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

 

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the Form****10-Q) of Citizens Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (the “Company”), I, Ronald E. Baron, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,****hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

|   | (a) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form l0-Q. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | /s/ Ronald E. Baron` | Date: August 14, 2007 |
|--------|----------------------|-----------------------|

|   | Ronald E. Baron |
|--------|-----------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
EXHIBIT 21


                          NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH, INC.

                               ACTIVE SUBSIDIARIES
                             As of January 31, 2000


                                                State or Other
                                               Jurisdiction of
Name                                            Incorporation       % Ownership
----                                           ---------------      -----------
CZT/ACN Trademarks, L.L.C. ................      Delaware                50%
Nielsen Media Research Ltd. ...............      Nova Scotia            100%
NMR Investing I, Inc. .....................      Delaware               100%
NMR Licensing Associates, L.P. ............      Delaware             78.53%
Athenian Leasing Corporation ..............      Delaware               100%
NetRatings, Inc. ..........................      Delaware                57%
STATE v. EDWARDS

No. COA04-1659.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 18, 2005.

Certification Date November 7, 2005.

Appeal from Alleghany (02CRS50380).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Tracy M. ELLIS v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY (a Delaware Corporation) Navistar International Transportation Corporation (a Delaware Corporation) International Truck and Engine Corporation, formerly International Harvester Company, formerly Navistar International Corporation, formerly Navistar International Corporation d/b/a and t/a "International" d/b/a and t/a Navistar t/a and d/b/a International from Navistar, Kile International Trucks, Inc. (a Tennessee Corporation), General Car and Truck Leasing System, Inc. (an Iowa Corporation), Nashville Truck Company, Inc. (a Tennessee Corporation), Sofa Connection, Inc. (a Tennessee Corporation).

No. 580PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 16, 2005.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 to review an order filed by the Court of Appeals on 1 November 2004 dismissing plaintiff's appeal from orders granting summary judgment entered on 21 May 2004 and 26 May 2004 by Judge E. Penn Dameron, Jr. in Superior Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 December 2005.

David R. Payne, P.A., by David R. Payne and Peter U. Kanipe, Asheville, for plaintiff-appellant.

Northup & McConnell, P.L.L.C., by Elizabeth E. McConnell and Isaac N. Northup, Jr., Asheville, for defendant-appellee Nashville Truck Company, Inc.

Ball, Barden & Bell, P.A., by Ervin L. Ball, Jr., Asheville, for defendant-appellee Sofa Connection, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

Based on our decisions in *Tinch v. Video Industrial Services, Inc.,*347 N.C. 380, 493 S.E.2d 426 (1997) and *Pelican Watch v. United States Fire Insurance Co.,*323 N.C. 700, 375 S.E.2d 161 (1989), the order of dismissal entered by the Court of Appeals is vacated and this case is remanded for a decision on the merits.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Prohibited Personnel Practices

 (Retaliation)

By law, Federal employees authorized to take, direct 

others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel 

action may not:

 Take, fail to take, or threaten (to take or fail to take) a

personnel action because of protected 

whistleblowing

 Take, fail to take, or threaten (to take or fail to take) 

a personnel action because of protected activity

 Personnel actions include, but are not limited to, appointments, 

 promotions, disciplinary actions, transfers, reassignments, 

 performance evaluations, and other significant changes in 

 duties, responsibilities, or working conditions.

More information may be obtained from:

U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 

1730 M STREET, N.W., SUITE 218

WASHINGTON, DC 20036-4505

https://osc.gov | info@osc.gov

PHONE: (202) 804-7000* | TOLL FREE: 1-800-872-9855*

*Hearing and Speech Disabled: Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (1)

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  created  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  following  certification  is  being  made to
accompany  Catskill  Litigation  Trust's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended March 31, 2006;

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  Catskill  Litigation  Trust (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Joseph
E. Bernstein,  Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 that to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d), as applicable,  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.
                                             /s/ Joseph E. Bernstein
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Joseph E. Bernstein
                                          Title: Acting Chief Executive Officer
                                          Date:  May 11, 2006

     (1)  A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906
          has been provided to Catskill Litigation Trust and will be retained by
          Catskill Litigation Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
          Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
```
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Each of the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to their knowledge:

(1)          this periodic report fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          the information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gander Mountain Company.
| Dated: June 14, 2007 |                                    |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                 | /s/ Mark R. Baker                       |
|                 | Mark R. Baker                           |
| * *             | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
| * *             | * *                                |
| * *             | * *                                |
|                 | /s/ Robert J. Vold                      |
|                 | Robert J. Vold                          |
| * *             | *Senior Vice President,*                |
| * *             | *Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer* |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ana Chiclana, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 35]

*824Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered January 11, 2002, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve her claim that prior to imposing an enhanced sentence, the court should have conducted an inquiry into the circumstances of her failure to comply with the plea agreement (see *People v Delgado,*14 AD3d 449 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 853 [2005]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court properly imposed the enhanced sentence, since the record establishes that defendant violated the terms of the plea by, among other things, leaving two programs without permission. The court was not obligated to conduct a further inquiry since defendant did not request a hearing or deny that she had committed acts that constituted violations of the plea agreement *(see People v Valencia,*3 NY3d 714 [2004]). Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
# L_2016257DE.01001701.xml

| 23.9.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 257/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 257/17

---

Berichtigung der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2016/127 der Kommission vom 25. September 2015 zur Ergänzung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 609/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates im Hinblick auf die besonderen Zusammensetzungs- und Informationsanforderungen für Säuglingsanfangsnahrung und Folgenahrung und hinsichtlich der Informationen, die bezüglich der Ernährung von Säuglingen und Kleinkindern bereitzustellen sind

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 25 vom 2. Februar 2016
  )

Seite 6, Artikel 6 Absatz 2 einleitender Satz:

Anstatt:

„Neben den in Artikel 9 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1169/2011 aufgeführten verpflichtenden Angaben sind für Säuglingsanfangsnahrung und Folgenahrung zusätzlich folgende Angaben verpflichtend:“

muss es heißen:

„Neben den in Artikel 9 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1169/2011 aufgeführten verpflichtenden Angaben sind für Säuglingsanfangsnahrung zusätzlich folgende Angaben verpflichtend:“.

---
STATE v. BREEDLOVE

No. COA04-1251.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Davidson (03CRS3861, 03CRS50411).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
52 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by Territory, FY 2022

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions) 

Humana $7.7 B

Lockheed Martin $668.1 M

Bechtel Group $384.9 M

Boeing $128.9 M

United Parcel Service, Inc. $73.2 M

Raytheon Technologies $70.1 M

Anduril Industries, Inc. $63.4 M

Inverness Technologies, Inc. $60.3 M

SourceAmerica $59.1 M

Global Asset Technologies $53.6 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

KENTUCKY

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$3.3 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

56,290

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Christian 27,614 2,337 51 185 30,187

Hardin 6,487 4,401 66 2,190 13,144

Jefferson 137 1,205 1,805 595 3,742

Madison 13 983 640 28 1,664

Franklin 17 284 1,120 0 1,421

Fayette 58 117 278 512 965

Boone 43 17 506 ND ND

Muhlenberg 0 73 332 0 405

Campbell ND 29 0 369 ND

McCracken ND 12 128 187 ND

Construction: 0% 

Research and

Development: 0%

Service: 92%

Supplies and Equipment: 7%

Active Duty: 61% Civilian: 18%

National 

Guard: 14%

Reserve: 8%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

13%

1%

1%

84%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

93%

1%

3%

3%

$5.5 $4.8 $5.7

$7.8

$9.5 $9.4 $9.6 $10.6

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

#13 #7 2.5% $3,084 #11 #32 #16 #14

$13.9 B SPENT 

IN STATE

5.3% OF 

STATE GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER 

RESIDENT

$10.6 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

56,290 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$3.3 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

$79.2 M GRANT 

SPENDING
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS

FISCAL YEAR 2018 KENTUCKY

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, (M=millions) (M=millions) B = billions)

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Jefferson

Fayette

Christian

Hardin

Madison

Boone

Graves

Boyle

Laurel

Wayne

(M = millions, B = billions)

$8.0 B

$854.5 M

$545.5 M

$445.5 M

$404.0 M

$70.3 M

$37.2 M

$36.6 M

$34.1 M

$14.6 M

Christian

Hardin

Jefferson

Madison

Franklin

Fayette

Boone

Muhlenberg

Campbell

McCracken

$1.9 B

$883.0 M

$177.1 M

$89.6 M

$63.1 M

$32.2 M

$14.8 M

$11.1 M

$7.5 M

$7.2 M

53

Jefferson

Hardin

Boone

Jefferson

Hardin

Boone

Franklin

Fayette

Campbell

Madison

Fayette

Madison

McCracken

Christian

Muhlenberg

Christian

Graves

Boyle

Wayne

Laurel
<PAGE>
                                                           EXHIBIT 23.2

                                 March 23, 2001


MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc.
155 Inverness Drive West, Suite 200
Englewood, Colorado 80112


Ladies and Gentlemen:


     Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil
and gas reserve information in the MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. Securities &
Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 and in the
MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2000
based on reserve reports prepared by Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. and
dated March 5, 2001.


                                        Sincerely,



                                        CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOEL ADRIAN CRUZ, DOC #158197, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3593 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed October 17, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Stephen M. Grogoza, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Leonard E. Neilson
                                 Attorney at Law
                            8160 South Highland Drive
                                    Suite 209
                                Sandy, Utah 84093
Phone:  (801) 733-0800                                      Fax:  (801) 733-0808


                               September 13, 2001



Securities and Exchange Commission
Office of Document Control
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

VIA:  EDGARLink

         Re:      Ammonia Hold, Inc.
                  File No. 333-29903
                  Form 10-KSB (for the period ended June 30, 2001)

To Whom It May Concern:

         Please find herewith transmitted by EDGARLink, the Form 10-KSB filed on
behalf of Ammonia Hold, Inc. for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001.

         Please direct all correspondences  concerning this  filing and  Ammonia
         Hold, Inc. to this office.

                                                Yours truly,



                                                By: /s/ Leonard E. Neilson
                                                --------------------------
                                                        Leonard E. Neilson

:ae
Attachment
#### MTO Associates, Limited Partnership, Respondent, v Republic-Franklin Insurance Company, Also Known as Republic Franklin Insurance Company, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 412]

In an action for a declaration that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying action entitled *Grosso v MTO Assoc., Ltd. Partnership,*pending in the Supreme Court, Orange County, under index No. 888/01, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated September 22, 2004, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff insured commenced this action seeking a declaration that the defendant insurance company was obligated to defend and indemnify it in an underlying personal injury action. The defendant disclaimed coverage based on lack of timely notice of the claim. The plaintiff argued that timely notice of the claim was provided to the defendant by timely notice to a nonparty insurance broker, Bradley & Barker, Inc. The defendant appeals the denial of its cross motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

In general, an insurance broker is considered the agent of the insured, not the insurance company, and notice to the broker is not deemed notice to the insurance company *(see Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp.,*31 NY2d 436, 442 n 3 [1972]). However, *“a*broker will be held to have acted as the insurer’s agent where there is some evidence of ‘action on the insurer’s part, or facts from which a general authority to represent the insurer may be inferred’ ” *(Rendeiro v State-Wide Ins. Co.,*8 AD3d 253 [2004], quoting *Bennion v Allstate Ins. Co.,*284 *1009AD2d 924 [2001]; *see U.S. Delivery Sys., Inc. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.,*265 AD2d 402 [1999]). Here, there are questions of fact whether there was a relevant agency relationship between the defendant and Bradley & Parker, Inc. Thus, the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
James Creech HERRING v. FOOD LION, L.L.C.

No. 28A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 5, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 623 S.E.2d 281 (2005), affirming in part and reversing in part an order granting a new trial entered 9 August 2004 by Judge Russell J. Lanier, Jr. in Superior Court, Lenoir County. Heard in the Supreme Court 20 April 2006.

White & Allen, P.A., by Gregory E. Floyd, Kinston, for plaintiff-appellant.

Poyner & Spruill LLP, by Timothy W. Wilson and Gregory S. Camp, Rocky Mount, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10689 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ASHTON ADELE HUGHES,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14 -CR- 418 -1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ashton Adele Hughes appeals the district court’s revocation of her supervised release, arguing that the evidence failed to establish that she violated the conditions of her supervised release by constructively possessing methamphetamine and heroin and by associating with a person convicted of a felony. A district court may revoke a term of supervised release upon a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition of

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 29, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10689 Document: 00513930574 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2017No. 16

- 10689

2 supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Hinson , 429 F.3d 114, 118

- 19 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court’s decision to revoke supervised release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Grandlund , 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995) , opinion clarified , 77 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 1996) . When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, this court must “view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to the government.” United States
v. Alaniz -Alaniz , 3 8 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. The district court can “ choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence, ” and the evidence is sufficient i f a reasonable
tri er of fact could have reached the district court’s conclusion. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, Hughes’s assertion that there was insufficient evidence to revoke her supervised release is unavaili ng. A reasonable trier of fact could determine that Hughes violated the conditions of her supervised release by possessing methamphetamine and heroin and by associating with a convicted felon while he was involved in known illegal activity. See Grandlund , 71 F.3d at 509 ; Alaniz-Alaniz , 38 F.3d at 792. Therefore, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-10689 Document: 00513930574 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2017