alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32.2**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code**

I, John P. Sanders,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of Westaff, Inc.(the “Company”), that, to the best of my knowledge;

(1)                                  TheQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 20,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:   March 6, 2007                |                 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|                                                |                 |   |
| By:                                                 | /s/ John P.  Sanders |   |   |   |
| John P. Sanders                                     |                 |   |
| *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |                 |   |
|                                                     |                      |        |  |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by § 906 has been provided to Westaff, Inc. and willbe retained by Westaff, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135990 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135990 

 COA: 282796 

Macomb CC: 02-001451-FC 

02-001454-FC 

WILLIAM J. CUSTER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Aron HARPER.

No. 337P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Leslie S. Robinson, Greenville, Attorney at Law, for Harper, Aron.

Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th of October 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 28th of January 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th of October 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 28th of January 2016."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 787 

To impose a 2-year moratorium on implementation of a proposed rule relating 

to the Federal-State financial partnerships under Medicaid and the State 

Children’s Health Insurance Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Mr. MARTINEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To impose a 2-year moratorium on implementation of a 

proposed rule relating to the Federal-State financial 

partnerships under Medicaid and the State Children’s 

Health Insurance Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MORATORIUM ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PRO4 POSED RULE RELATING TO THE FEDERAL5 STATE FINANCIAL PARTNERSHIPS UNDER 

6 MEDICAID AND SCHIP. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find8 ings: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 787 IS

1 (1) The proposed rule published on January 18, 

2 2007, on pages 2236 through 2258 of volume 72, 

3 Federal Register (relating to parts 433, 447, and 

4 457 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations) would 

5 significantly change the Federal-State financial part6 nership under the Medicaid and the State Children’s 

7 Health Insurance Programs by— 

8 (A) imposing a cost limit on payments 

9 made under such programs to governmentally10 operated providers; 

11 (B) limiting the permissible sources of the 

12 non-Federal shares required under such pro13 grams and the types of entities permitted to 

14 contribute to such shares; and 

15 (C) imposing new requirements on partici16 pating providers under such programs. 

17 (2) More time is needed to determine how the 

18 proposed rule would impact States, particularly with 

19 respect to those States with Medicaid or State Chil20 dren’s Health Insurance Programs that are oper21 ating under financing arrangements that have been 

22 approved by the Secretary of Health and Human 

23 Services through the waiver process established 

24 under section 1115 of the Social Security Act and 

25 have been properly following the intent and purpose 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•S 787 IS

1 pose for which such funding arrangements were es2 tablished. 

3 (3) Permitting the proposed rule to take effect 

4 without allowing sufficient time for further study of 

5 the effect of the implementation of the rule could 

6 have a negative impact for States, particularly 

7 States with Medicaid or State Children’s Health In8 surance Programs operating under financing ar9 rangements that would be affected by such rule and 

10 that have been approved by the Secretary of Health 

11 and Human Services through the section 1115 waiv12 er process. 

13 (b) MORATORIUM ON IMPLEMENTATION.—Notwith14 standing any other provision of law, the proposed rule 

15 published on January 18, 2007, on pages 2236 through 

16 2258 of volume 72, Federal Register (relating to parts 

17 433, 447, and 457 of title 42, Code of Federal Regula18 tions), shall not take effect before September 1, 2009. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
# C_2008142EN.01000701.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-418/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - EAGGF - Arable crop sector - Clearance of EAGGF accounts - Reliable and operational inspection system - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Flat-rate correction - Retrospective application of the rules relating to checks - Implicit obligations - Principle of proportionality - Legal certainty - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2008/C 142/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Hubert and L. Van den Broeck, Agents, H. Gilliams, P. de Bandt and L. Goossens, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 Belgium v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction of 2 % of the expenditure declared by Belgium in respect of arable crops.

Belgium

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
----

(2004/C 65 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1866/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Price dispersion

Is the Commission able to give figures for price dispersion within the United States monetary union for comparison with the price dispersion in the EU as a whole (as detailed in single market reports), in the euro-area, and in the Member States that do not participate in the euro?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

A Commission paper published in 2001 (European Economy, Supplement A, No 7, July 2001) compared price dispersion in the Union and the United States (US) per product group for the year 1998. Overall price dispersion in the US was found to be about three percentage points lower than in the Union in 1998, i.e. before the introduction of the euro. The paper concluded that there was scope for Union price dispersion to fall further towards the level of price dispersion in the US. According to the Commission's calculations overall price dispersion in the euro area was only marginally lower than in the Union in 1998.

Looking at sectors, the price levels for housing were more dispersed in the euro area than in the Union as a whole, however for all the other product groups price dispersion was lower in the euro area than in the Union.

The table below presents the data from this paper whilst adding data on price dispersion in the euro area. The European and American price dispersion data are based on different sources and are not fully comparable (please refer to the notes below the table). The Commission plans to update this analysis and to look more closely at the euro area data.

Price dispersion in the Union, euro area and in the United Sates in 1998 (1)

USA data for price dispersion across 14 cities. EU data for price dispersion across the 15 Member States. Euro area data for the 12 euro area members.

USA data are collected excluding indirect taxes. EU data have been adjusted to exclude VAT and excise taxes.

USA data are for individual products. EU data use the nearest comparable product group from Eurostat's PPP data.

In addition to the Commission's work, two recent studies have compared price dispersion in the euro area and the US using a different data source (the Economist Intelligence Unit):

The first of these studies found that price dispersion for tradable products was higher in the euro area (excluding Greece) than in the US in 1999. The second study, carried out one year later, found that by 2001 price dispersion for tradable products in the euro area (excluding Greece) was close to the level in the US. Both studies found that price dispersion for non-tradable products was lower in the euro area (excluding Greece) than in the US. The data for both studies pre-date the introduction of euro notes and coins.

----

(1)  Price dispersion calculated as the coefficient of variation of price levels.

----
# CE2004088EN.01013501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/135 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/135

---

(2004/C 88 E/0142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3185/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Duty free allowances in the Canary Islands

Subject:

Why can the Canary Islands impose tighter limits on EU citizens importing and exporting duty free items than other parts of the EU?

If this activity is based on a derogation to normal EU rules, when is the derogation scheduled to end?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

(17 December 2003)

Certain territories, including the Canary Islands, are excluded from the fiscal territory of the Community (1), mainly for historical or geographical reasons. Being outside the fiscal territory, the Canary Islands may impose restrictions on the import and export of goods by travellers coming from the Union which are at variance with those otherwise applied within the Community.

1

The special status granted to the Canary Islands is not limited in time. It may however be brought to an end, either at the initiative of the Commission (2), presenting the necessary proposals, or, as far as excise duty is concerned, by notice submitted by Spain (3).

2

3

---

(1)  See Article 3(3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977 and Article 2 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

1

(2)  See Article 3(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive.

2

(3)  See Article 2(2) of Directive 92/12/EEC.

3

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Kevin Cyrus JONES.

No. COA15-848.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60984

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEVEN GOINS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:95-CR-100-2

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Goins, federal prisoner number 06314-112, appeals from the

district court’s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2002). We review the district court’s denial for an abuse of

discretion. See United States v. Boe, 117 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir. 1997); United

States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009 (5th Cir. 1995).

Goins’s motion for a reduction of sentence based upon a retroactive

amendmentto the United States Sentencing Guidelines relies upon Amendment

506 to the Guidelines, which was effective November 1, 1994. U.S. SENTENCING

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 8, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60984

1 We also note the district court’s accurate observation that application of

Amendment 506 and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. LaBonte,

520 U.S. 751 (1997) would be precluded, because Goins was not sentenced as a

Career Offender under USSG § 4B1.1. 

2

GUIDELINES MANUAL app. C, amend. 506 (Nov. 1994) (amending USSG § 4B1.1,

cmt., n.2). Because Goins was sentenced on August 28, 1996, Amendment 506

would not apply retroactively to him, as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and

USSG § 1B1.10. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Goins’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.1

To the extent that Goins raises arguments based on United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), such arguments are foreclosed. The application of

Booker is limited to cases pending on direct review or not yet final as of January

12, 2005. Booker, 543 U.S. at 268; United States v. Gentry, 432 F.3d 600, 605

(5th Cir. 2005). Because Goins’s judgment was entered on September 4, 1998,

Booker does not apply. 

Goins’s appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Goins has previously received

warning from this court that the filing of future frivolous appeals may result in

sanctions. See United States v. Goins, No. 03-60904 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2004). We

again caution Goins that further frivolous filings may result in the imposition

of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary penalties, and restrictions on his

ability to file appeals in this court and actions in any court subject to this court’s

jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
No. 07-60984

3
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54942-54945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18513]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[FDA 225-05-3000]


Memorandum of Understanding Between the Food and Drug 
Administration and the Veterans Health Administration

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of 
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA and the Veterans Health 
Administration (VHA). The purpose of this MOU is to extend an existing 
formal collaboration between FDA and VHA for the purpose of developing 
and implementing terminology standards for medication information.

DATES: The agreement became effective June 28, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Levin, Health and Regulatory 
Data Standards (HFD-001), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers 
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-5411.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which 
states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others 
shall be published in the Federal Register, the agency is publishing 
notice of this MOU.

    Dated: September 8, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[[Page 54943]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.000


[[Page 54944]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.001


[[Page 54945]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.002

[FR Doc. 05-18513 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
State v. Calvin Renard Carter.

193P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 24, 2016

Mr. Richard J. Costanza, Southern Pines, Attorney at Law, For Carter, Calvin Renard.

Ms. Kristin Jo Uicker, Attorney at Law, Mr. James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of May 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of May 2016."
Exhibit 99.14
 CONSENT OF M. HESTER
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 31, 2006 entitled Technical Report
NI 43-101F1 Los Filos Project, Mexico (the Los Filos Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Los Filos Report, the Los Filos Mine
and the Marlin Mine, and the properties described therein.
  /s/ Michael G. HesterName:
    Michael G. Hester, FAusIMMTitle:
    Vice President
----

(2004/C 33 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2316/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   Knowledge of languages in the Union

Following the widespread introduction of new multi-media technologies, for example DVD technology, Europeans can buy films and watch them in the various Union languages. However, increasingly often DVD's on the market offer films in two language versions at the most, and do not always provide subtitles for each language version.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's desire to improve the teaching and learning of languages in the Union.

The Honourable Member may be interested to know that the Commission has recently published a Communication to the other institutions (1)‘Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: an Action Plan 2004-2006’.

The Communication specifically refers to the potential of new technologies for promoting language learning:

Furthermore, the Commission proposes to launch a study to analyse the potential for greater use of subtitles in film and television programmes to promote language learning and to examine ways and means of encouraging greater use of sub-titled audio-visual material for language learning purposes.

Regarding the second question, and more specifically about the legislative steps, one should stress that the Commission does not have the competence to take initiatives of a legislative nature in this field.

In conclusion, the Commission considers multilingual DVDs as one of several possible tools for creating an environment in Europe which is more ‘language-friendly’, and would encourage their use as such.

----

(1)  COM(2003)449 final.

----