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

 

**Certification of theChief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

In connection with theperiodic report of Westaff, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended January 24, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dirk A. Sodestrom, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of thedate hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of theUnited States Code, that:

 

(1)                                  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)                                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates andfor the periods indicated.

 

 
| Date: March  9, 2004 |   |                                               |               |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                 |   |                                               |               |
|                 |   | By:                                                |               | /s/ Dirk A.  Sodestrom |   |
|                 |   |                                               | Dirk A.  Sodestrom |
|                 |   | Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                      |        |                                                    |                    |  |  |  |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. andfurnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
STATE v. Earl James WATSON.

No. 387P05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Earl James Watson, Badin, for Watson, Earl James.

David Learner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of December 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

Ervin, J. recused.
# C_2008142EN.01003701.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/37

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008 — PTV v OHIM (map&guide travelbook)

(Case T-219/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 142/67)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1





Certification





I, Andrew F. Puzder, hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CKE Restaurants, Inc. for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2011 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CKE Restaurants, Inc.





Date: April 15, 2011
/s/ ANDREW F. PUZDERAndrew F. Puzder

Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 671 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the 

numerical limitations on immigrant visas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. REID, Mr. INOUYE, Mrs. BOXER, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans 

from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas. 

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 the ‘‘Filipino Veterans 

5 Family Reunification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM IMMIGRANT VISA LIMIT. 

7 Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the 

9 end the following: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 671 IS

1 ‘‘(F) Aliens who are eligible for a visa 

2 under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 203(a) 

3 and who have a parent who was naturalized 

4 pursuant to section 405 of the Immigration Act 

5 of 1990 (8 U.S.C. 1440 note).’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 14**CONSENT OF T. WYTHES**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated July 31, 2006, entitled “Penasquito FeasibilityStudy: 100,000 MTPD NI 43-101 Technical Report” (the “Penasquito Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to our name in connection with information relating to the Penasquito Report,and the properties described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ T. Wythes
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

y0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

139738

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139738 COA: 292826 Ottawa CC: 03-026672-FC KENNETH L. KRUITHOF, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 14, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7710

GARY LEROY HAYES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STAN BURTT, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(4:06-cv-01951)

Submitted: June 25, 2008 Decided: August 28, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Leroy Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-2-

PER CURIAM:

Gary Leroy Hayes seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hayes has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina, v. Carlton Washington TOMLINSON, Defendant.

No. COA14-1016.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 1, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINON**

No Error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1149/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1149/2014 of 28 October 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1149/2014                     

# of 28 October 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing                           a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79,                           (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 October 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997  
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1997    
<CASH>                                       311,358
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             429,076
<PP&E>                                     4,482,434
<DEPRECIATION>                             (357,599)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             4,738,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        181,441
<BONDS>                                    1,715,387
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                  725,495
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                 2,116,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               4,738,734
<SALES>                                      301,920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             306,324
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                112,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,206
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            52,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               71,384
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           71,384
<DISCONTINUED>                                 3,632
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  54,077
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .86
        


</TABLE>
# C_2010288EN.01007601.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/76

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2010 — Hanot v Commission

(Case F-30/06) (1)

()

(2010/C 288/144)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 50.

---
# C_2009090EN.01002202.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2009 — Aker Warnow Werft and Kvaerner v Commission

(Case T-68/05) (1)

1

(State aid - Shipbuilding - Former German Democratic Republic - Aid paid to cover losses from shipbuilding contracts - Competition aid - No excess payment)

2009/C 90/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Aker Warnow Werft GmbH (Rostock, Germany); and Kvaerner ASA (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: M. Schütte, lawyer, and B. Immenkamp, Solicitor, and then by M. Schütte)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/374/EC of 20 October 2004 on a State aid measure implemented by Germany for Kvaerner Warnow Werft (OJ 2005 L 120, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2005/374/EC of 20 October 2004 on a State aid measure implemented by Germany for Kvaerner Warnow Werft; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2005/374/EC of 20 October 2004 on a State aid measure implemented by Germany for Kvaerner Warnow Werft;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Aker Warnow Werft GmbH and Kvaerner ASA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Aker Warnow Werft GmbH and Kvaerner ASA.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21

                   Subsidiaries of the Company as of 12/31/00



Accord Realty Management Corporation
Acorn Properties Inc.
Anchor Property Corp.
Anchor Systems Corp.
Bfed I Corp.
555 Biltmore, Inc.
200 Boston Post Inc.
Branchview, Inc.
Capitol View Inc.
Case Optics, Inc.
426 Central Inc.
Clayton Blackbear, Inc.
Colonial Bristol Inc.
Concordia Mortgage LLC
DFI Property I L.L.C.
The Dime Agency, Inc.
Dime Capital Partners, Inc.
Dime Capital Trust I
Dime Capital Trust II
Dime Commercial Corp.
Dime Consulting Group, Inc.
Dime Cre, Inc.
Dime Florida Consolidation Corp.
Dime Mortgage of New Jersey, Inc.
Dime NJ Agency, Inc.
Dime Securities, Inc.
DNJ Agency, Inc.
The E-F Battery Accord Corporation
Fairfield Financial Holdings Inc.
F.C. Ltd.
Garden Management Co., Inc.
Granny Road Land Corp.
Harmony Agency, Inc.
Lakeview Land Corp.
Lawrence Avenue Corp.
Lincoln Realty Capital, Inc.
Lincoln Rre Corporation
Lincoln Ventures Group Ltd.
L.V.S. Corporation
Maple Real Property Management Inc.
Mid Country Inc.
Namco Asset Management Inc.
Namco Securities Corp.
Namis Insurance Agency of Massachusetts, Inc.
Namis Insurance Services of Kentucky, Inc.
Namis Insurance Services of Nevada, Inc.
Namis Insurance Services of Texas, Inc.
Nickel Purchasing Company, Inc.
North American Insurance Agency of Ohio, Inc.
North American Mortgage Company
North American Mortgage Insurance Services
North Properties, Inc.
Northeast Appraisals, Inc.
Northshore Consolidation Corp.
847218 Ontario Limited
847219 Ontario Limited
847220 Ontario Limited
847221 Ontario Limited
620-622 Pelhamdale Avenue Owners Corporation
Pembroke and Livingston, Inc.
Plainview Inn, Inc.
Reservoir Avenue Management, Inc.
Sivage Financial Services, LLC
Sky Resort, Inc.
Somerset Consolidation Corporation
Sonoma Conveyancing Corporation
Uniondale Holdings Inc.
Wappingers Falls Development Corp.
Windy Ridge Corp.
Yellowstone Venture, Inc.
WILKES v. CITY OF GREENVILLE.

No. 368PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 20, 2016.

Anita B. Hunt, Durham, for Wilkes, Johnnie.

Matthew P. Blake, Cary, for City of Greenville, et al.

J. William Crone, IV, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

J. Timothy Wilson, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Bruce A. Hamilton, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Tracey L. Jones, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Allison B. Schafer, Legal Counsel/Director of Policy, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Christine Teresa Scheef, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, et al.

Angela Farag Craddock, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of May 2016 by Employers Coalition of North Carolina, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, and American Insurance Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of May 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
EXHIBIT (21)

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF LACROSSE FOOTWEAR, INC.

                                       Jurisdiction
                 Name                of Incorporation    Percent Ownership

                                                         Direct    Indirect
    Clintonville Products, Inc.         Wisconsin         100%

    Hillsboro Footwear, Inc.            Wisconsin         100%

    Danner Shoe Manufacturing Co.       Wisconsin         100%

    Rainfair, Inc.                      Wisconsin         100%

    Pro-Trak Corporation                Wisconsin         100%

    Pro-Trak of Virginia, Inc.           Virginia                    100%1


   -----------------
   1    Direct percent ownership by Pro-Trak Corporation.
* 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. 07-20591

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ-CEPEDA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-170-ALL

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Rodolfo Rodriguez-Cepeda appeals from his bench trial conviction for

illegal reentry into the United States after deportation for an aggravated felony.

Rodriguez-Cepeda’s sole argument on appeal is that the record is insufficient to

establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the record does not contain

the stipulated facts introduced at his bench trial. This court reviews the entire

record to determine whether the district court’s finding of guilt is supported by

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20591

2

“any substantial evidence.” United States v. Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d 225, 234

(5th Cir. 2003).

After Rodriguez-Cepeda filed his appellate brief, this court granted the

Government’s motion to supplement the record with a copy of the stipulated

facts, as well as an affidavit from the prosecutor attesting that the submitted

copy is identical to the written stipulation introduced at Rodriguez-Cepeda’s

bench trial. Rodriguez-Cepeda has not responded to the Government’s motion.

Based on the record as supplemented, the evidence was sufficient to support the

district court’s finding of guilt.

The district court’s judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Archimede N. NKIAM.

No. 385P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 23, 2015.

Daniel M. Blau, Raleigh, for Nkiam, Archimede N.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion***438The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of November 2015 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of November 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dale Patrick MARTIN, Defendant.

No. COA15-830.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.