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 September 30, 2004 (the Form10-Q) of Citizens Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (the Company), I, Beverly A. Adams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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/ Beverly A. Adams

Date: November 15, 2004

Beverly A. Adams

Chief Financial Officer
U.S. flag An official website of the United States government.
				Here's how you know we're official. **Official websites use .gov** A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure websites use HTTPS** A small lock or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to a .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Toggle navigation Toggle search National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 Search
					Search National Ocean Service


Home
				Ocean Facts

				Topics
					Explore All Topics 
                        Arctic 
                        Careers 
                        Economy 
                        Ecosystems 
                        Geodesy 
                        Hazards 
                        International
                        Navigation 
                        Observations 
                        Ocean 
                        Recreation 
                         Sea Level Rise 
                        Story Maps 
                        Tools
                
                			Education

				
				News
				Podcasts
				Video
				Images
				About Us


1. Home
2. Facts
3. What is the significance of the NOAA logo?

**What is the significance of the NOAA logo?** The NOAA logo illustrates the interconnections between the Earth, ocean, atmosphere, and ecosystems.  NOAA logo*The above design was chosen as NOAA's emblem in 1971. It remains the official emblem of the agency to this day.*  In 1970, NOAA was officially recognized and all of its components were united under a common name and mission. One year later, NOAA's first administrator, Dr. Robert White, gave NOAA employees the choice of three designs to be the official emblem for the new agency. The chosen design was made the official NOAA emblem later that year and remains the official emblem of the agency to this day. About the winning design, Dr. White remarked that: "A white, gull-like form links the atmosphere to the sea or Earth. The Earth and atmosphere and the interrelationships between the two are, of course, major concerns of NOAA. The line defining the top of the gull's wings also resemble the trough of a foaming ocean wave against the blue sky. A creature of sea, land, and air, the gull adds an ecological touch to the Earth-sky motif."
 More **Information** NOAA Heritage Program Explore NOAA's History   **Search** Our Facts    Get **Social** Social
 **Last updated:** 01/20/23 **Author:** NOAA How to cite this article Contact Us


Feedback Provide Feedback
							Contact Us
							Report an error
 Social Instagram Logo/a>


*Science. Service.Stewardship.*
 About NOS About Us
							NOS Program Offices
							Media Inquiries
							Website Acknowledgements
                            Site Index
							Disclaimer
 More Resources Freedom of Information Act
							Accessibility
							Information Quality
							Privacy Policy
							NOS For Employees
							USA.gov
 Department of Commerce
									National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
									National Ocean Service
Advanced Aerodynamics & Structures, Inc.
                                   Form 10K-SB
                 Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings


                                      For the Year Ended     For the Year Ended
                                       December 31, 1995      December 31, 1996

Loss before extraordinary item            ($1,688,000)          ($2,446,000)

Extraordinary loss on retirement
 of Bridge Notes                                                   (942,000)

Net loss                                  ($1,688,000)          ($3,388,000)

Weighted average number of Class B
 Common Stock shares outstanding            2,000,000             2,000,000

Common stock equivalents from the
 issuance of Bridge Warrants computed
 using the treasury stock method            1,400,000             1,047,000

Weighted average number of Class A
 Common Stock shares outstanding                                    499,000

                                            3,400,000             3,546,000

Loss per share before extraordinary           ($0.50)               ($0.69)
 item

Extraordinary loss per share on
 retirement of Bridge Notes                                          (0.27)

Net loss per share                            ($0.50)               ($0.96)
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                            |                                     |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                            | /s/              Tom              Yu Liu |
|   | Tom                Yu LiuChief                Executive Officer |
|   | Dated: November                14, 2007                    |

----
STATE v. BOLTON.

No. COA05-312.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from Alamance (03CRS53676).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5494 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make nondischargeable 

debts for personal injuries that result in permanent disability. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2008 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make nondischargeable debts for personal injuries that result in 

permanent disability. 

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 ‘‘Savannah’s Law’’. 

5 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

6 Section 523(a) of title 11, the United States Code, 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (18) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

9 end, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5494 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (19) by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’, and 

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (19) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(20) for a personal injury that results in a 

6 permanent disability.’’. 

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

8 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub9 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 

10 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 

11 Act. 

12 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend13 ments made by this Act shall apply only with respect to 

14 cases commenced under title 11 of the United States Code 

15 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

RUDY FRANCO, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0606 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2004-041417-001 

The Honorable Dewain D. Fox, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Amanda M. Parker 

Counsel for Respondent 

Rudy Franco, Kingman

Petitioner

FILED 8-26-2021
STATE v. FRANCO

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Acting Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge 

Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Rudy Franco seeks review of the superior court’s 

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s 

third petition. 

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         205,726
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  260,821
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               504,970
<PP&E>                                         448,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                 282,993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,039,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          469,114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           577
<OTHER-SE>                                     459,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,039,108
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,391,587
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,366,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (38,537)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (5,251)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 68,544
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,647
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,897
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,897
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62
        

</TABLE>
<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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Marketing WorldWide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Marvin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to 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; and

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

/S/ JAMES MARVIN
-----------------------
James Marvin
Chief Financial Officer
Date: May 10, 2006



                                       25
CORREA v. KMART CORP.

No. COA05-926.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
Summary of Certain Director and Executive Compensation



 Exhibit 10.48 
  
 Description of the Compensation of 
 ITT Educational Services, Inc.’s 
 Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

  
 On May 3, 2005, Daniel M. Fitzpatrick was elected Senior
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant by its Board of Directors, effective June 6, 2005. Under the terms of his employment arrangement with the Registrant, Mr. Fitzpatrick will receive a base salary payable at an annual rate of
$235,000. Mr. Fitzpatrick was also granted a stock option as of June 6, 2005 to purchase 18,245 shares of the Registrant’s common stock at a price equal to the fair market value of the stock at the close of business on June 3, 2005. The option
will vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from the date of grant and will expire on the seventh anniversary date of the grant. Mr. Fitzpatrick will participate in the Registrant’s 2005 Executive Bonus Parameters disclosed
in the Registrant’s current report on Form 8-K dated January 25, 2005 and incorporated herein by reference. 
  
 In his new position, Mr. Fitzpatrick will also have an allowance to be used for tax return preparation and financial planning, and tickets to sporting,
theater and other events.
STATE of North Carolina v. Errol Lloyd ALLEN.

No. 33P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Don Willey, for Errol Lloyd Allen.

Michael D. Youth, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of January 2006 by Defendant 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 2nd day of March 2006."
Billy Scott BOST, and wife, Denise H. Bost v. Debra E. BOST, unmarried, Bobbi Bost Bruehl, and husband, Keith Bruehl.

No. 56P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Rebecca J. Davidson, Lillington, for Bobbi & Keith Bruehl.

W. Woods Doster, Sanford, for Billy & Denise Bost.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of February 2006 by Defendants (Bobbi & Keith Bruehl) 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 2nd day of March 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Sebastian X. MOORE.

No. 409P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 13, 2005.

Sebastian X. Moore, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th day of August 2005 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Denied by order of the Court in Conference this the 13th day of September 2005."

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 7th day of September 2005 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th day of September 2005."
10-Q Exhibit 32.2: Certifications 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 iShares COMEX Gold Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Latham, Chief Financial Officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 Trust at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                              |  |            
|----------------------------- |  | -----------
|Date:                         |  | May 9, 2008
|                             
|/s/ Michael A. Latham        
|Michael A. Latham *          
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Latham is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE C.E.

No. COA04-685.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from Wayne, (03J235).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 847 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5479 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2008 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 25, 2008 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 117 North Kidd Street in Ionia, Michigan, 

as the ‘‘Alonzo Woodruff Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ALONZO WOODRUFF POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 117 North Kidd Street in Ionia, 

6 Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Alonzo 

7 Woodruff Post Office Building’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5479 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Alonzo Woodruff Post 

5 Office Building’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Calendar No. 847 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5479 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice Building’’. Ionia, Michigan, as the ‘‘Alonzo Woodruff Post al Service located at 117 North Kidd Street in 

JUNE 25, 2008 

Reported without amendment 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5219 

To authorize appropriations for the seafood inspection regime of the Food 

and Drug Administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2008 

Mr. WEINER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations for the seafood inspection regime 

of the Food and Drug Administration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

4 SEAFOOD INSPECTION REGIME OF FDA. 

5 For the purpose of implementing the seafood inspec6 tion regime of the Food and Drug Administration, there 

7 is authorized to be appropriated $6,750,000 for fiscal year 

8 2009. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
STATE v. VERBAL.

No. COA05-1000.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Moore (03CRS50551, 03CRS50674).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
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

November 3, 2010

d1103

Order 

November 3, 2010

141996 & (36)

In re PEOPLE v LARRY KING.

_________________________________________

ERIC L. VANDUSSEN, SC: 141996

Appellant. COA: 294682

Shiawassee CC: 09-008600-FH

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the October 14, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.