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

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

** AsAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection withthe periodic report of Westaff, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended July 9, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dirk A. Sodestrom, Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the datehereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the UnitedStates 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: August 23, 2005

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Dirk A. Sodestrom                              |                                                   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                               |       Dirk  A. Sodestrom |   |   |
|   |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |                                                   |
|        |        |                                                    |                                                        |  |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906  has beenprovided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
STATE v. Michael Orlando COOK.

No. 254P08-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Michael Orlando Cook, Lumberton, for Cook, Michael Orlando.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of January 2016 by Defendant for Subpoena Duces Tecum:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             441
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         931,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,302
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 866,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        409,552
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     415,396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,205
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,369
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.12
                                Letter Agreement




September 28, 2000


3220 Executive Ridge Drive
Suite 100
Vista, California 92083

         Re: Teletrac, Inc.

Dear Mr. Steven Settelmayer:

Reference is made to that certain employment agreement dated as of September 29,
1999 (the "Employment Agreement") between you and Teletrac, Inc. (the "Company")
regarding the term of your employment with the Company. This will confirm our
understanding that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

1.       Section 2 is hereby deleted and the following is inserted in its place:

         "2. Term of Employment. Unless earlier terminated as hereinafter
         provided, the term of the Employee's employment under this Agreement
         shall initially be for a period beginning on the Effective Date hereof
         and ending thirty-six months after the Effective Date. Thereafter, this
         Agreement will continue in full force and effect from year to year
         unless terminated by either the Employee or the Company by written
         notice given to the other not later than two months before the end of
         the year of such termination. The period from the date hereof until the
         date the Employee's employment hereunder is terminated (whether
         thirty-six months after the Effective Date or earlier or later as
         provided herein) is hereinafter called the "Employment Term."

2.       Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, nothing herein shall
         affect or be deemed to affect any provisions of the Employment
         Agreement, and except only to the extent that they may be varied
         hereby, all of the terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain
         unchanged and in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and
         confirmed.


<PAGE>


If the foregoing correctly sets forth our understanding concerning this matter,
please sign below and return to us an executed copy of this letter, whereupon
this letter shall become a binding agreement between us.

Sincerely,

Teletrac, Inc.


By /s/ Steven D. Scheiwe
   ---------------------------------

Name:  Steven D. Scheiwe

Title: Chief Executive Officer





Accepted and agreed to as of the date written above.


/s/ Steven Settelmayer
-------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           89546
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       5610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 98556
<PP&E>                                           87797
<DEPRECIATION>                                   27653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  158700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            23438
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         12454
<OTHER-SE>                                      122808
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    158700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                893394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (895509)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (895509)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.08)


</TABLE>
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 – Commission v Greece**

**(Case C‐481/06)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public procurement – Infringement of Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36/EC – General principles of the Treaty – Principle of equal treatment and obligation of transparency – National rules allowing use of the negotiated procedure for public supply contracts relating to certain medical equipment

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 15)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and of the obligation to ensure effective and fair competition – National provision placing all material for medical use into categories and setting a specific maximum price for each category – Provision forming part of a legislative framework which allows use of the negotiated procedure for public supply contracts in respect of whole groups of products of that nature which are not comparable. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by retaining in force Article 7(2) of Law 2955/2001 relating to the ‘Supplies of hospitals and other health units of regional health and pension schemes and other provisions’ and Joint Ministerial Decisions DY6a/oik.38611 and DY6a/oik.38609 of 12 April 2005, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001 and has infringed general principles of the Treaty, in particular equal treatment and the obligation of transparency; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
STATE v. Teon Jamell WILLIAMS.

No. 8P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Teon Jamell Williams, Tabor City, for Williams, Teon Jamell.

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

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of January 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> *517"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.03


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements of
Quintiles Transnational Corp. on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-91026,
333-16553, 333-03603 and 333-40493) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3
(Registration Nos. 333-19009, 333-28919, 333-38181, 333-40497 and 333-48403) of
our report dated July 24, 1996, with respect to the combined financial
statements of the Innovex Companies which report is included as Exhibit 99.03 to
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quintiles Transnational Corp. for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1997 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                              /s/ KPMG

Reading, England
March 27, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 671 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Filipino Veterans Family 
Reunification Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM IMMIGRANT VISA LIMIT.

    Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) Aliens who are eligible for a visa under 
                paragraph (1) or (3) of section 203(a) and who have a 
                parent who was naturalized pursuant to section 405 of 
                the Immigration Act of 1990 (8 U.S.C. 1440 note).''.
                                 <all>
```
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 September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-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 results of operations of the Company.







|Dated:  November 10, 2009 | By:  /s/ Ralph M. AmatoRALPH M. AMATO
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE J.M.

No. COA08-34.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 3, 2008.

Certification Date June 23, 2008.

Appeal from Johnston (07JA20).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 71 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 71

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize certain disabled 
  former prisoners of war to use Department of Defense commissary and 
                            exchange stores.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. Reid (for Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; which was read 
         twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize certain disabled 
  former prisoners of war to use Department of Defense commissary and 
                            exchange stores.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE STORES BY CERTAIN DISABLED 
              FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 54 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 1064 the following new section:
``Sec. 1064a. Use of commissary and exchange stores by certain disabled 
              former prisoners of war
    ``(a) In General.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 
Defense, former prisoners of war described in subsection (b) may use 
commissary and exchange stores.
    ``(b) Covered Individuals.--Subsection (a) applies to any former 
prisoner of war who--
            ``(1) separated from active duty in the armed forces under 
        honorable conditions; and
            ``(2) has a service-connected disability rated by the 
        Secretary of Veterans Affairs at 30 percent or more.
    ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) The term `former prisoner of war' has the meaning 
        given that term in section 101(32) of title 38.
            ``(2) The term `service-connected' has the meaning given 
        that term in section 101(16) of title 38.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
1064 the following new item:

``1064a. Use of commissary and exchange stores by certain disabled 
                            former prisoners of war.''.
                                 <all>
```
iii i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 No. 04-06-00848-CR

Christina Kay COOK,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2003-CR-8532

Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2008

AFFIRMED

Defendant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record and demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel

concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Defendant was informed of her right to review the record. Counsel provided

defendant with a copy of the brief and advised her of her right to file a pro se brief. Defendant has

not filed a pro se brief.
04-06-00848-CR

1

 No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008). Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must

either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely

motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX.R.APP.P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must

be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of

the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the

requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4. 

-2-

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without

merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel’s

motion to withdraw.1

 Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.);

Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
* 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. 07-40825

Summary Calendar

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JULIE A SCHEIBE, Court Reporter, 362nd District Court, Denton County,

Texas; SHERRI ADELSTEIN, Clerk, Denton County District Court; JAMIE

BOOTHE, Deputy Clerk, Denton County District Clerk; MOLLY BOWERS,

Court Reporter, 362nd District Court of Denton County, Texas 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CV-152

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Johnson, prisoner # 842458 at the Monroe, Washington,

Correctional Center, has been barred from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP)

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because, on at least three prior occasions while

incarcerated, he has brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 15, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40825

2

that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief

could be granted. See Johnson v. Rogers, 209 F. App’x 424 (5th Cir. 2006). This

appeal was therefore improvidently docketed as if Johnson were proceeding IFP

on appeal.

Accordingly, Johnson’s IFP status is decertified, and the appeal is

dismissed. Johnson has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full

appellate filing fee to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate

his appeal.

IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
# C_2008064EN.01003601.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2008 — Demp v OHIM — BAU HOW (BAU HOW)

(Case T-106/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BAU HOW - Earlier figurative marks BAUHAUS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(a) and (b), and Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 64/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Demp BV, formerly Demp Holding BV (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: R.-D. Härer, C. Schultze, J Ossing and C. Weber, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BAU HOW GmbH (Hattersheim/Okriftel, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2006 (Case R 92/2004-4) on opposition proceedings between Demp BV and BAU HOW GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Demp BV is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Demp BV is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 143 of 17.6.2006.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Gilberto MENDEZ-LEMUS.

No. COA15-183.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.