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



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

HOMEBANC CORP.

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with HomeBanc Corp.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report), I,
Kevin D. Race, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby 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; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kevin D. Race      
|                        |  |     |  | Kevin D. Race          
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4557 

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide for notice to, and 

input by, State insurance commissioners when requiring an insurance 

company to serve as a source of financial strength pursuant to such 

Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2014 

Mr. POSEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide 

for notice to, and input by, State insurance commissioners when requiring an insurance company to serve 

as a source of financial strength pursuant to such Act. 

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 ‘‘Policyholder Protection 

5 Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SOURCE OF STRENGTH. 

7 Section 38A of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 

8 (12 U.S.C. 1831o–1) is amended— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4557 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and 

2 (e) as subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(c) AUTHORITY OF STATE INSURANCE REGU6 LATOR.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of section 

8 5(g) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 

9 U.S.C. 1844(g)) shall apply to a savings and loan 

10 holding company that is an insurance company, an 

11 affiliate of an insured depository institution that is 

12 an insurance company, and to any other company 

13 that is an insurance company and that directly or 

14 indirectly controls an insured depository institution, 

15 to the same extent as such section 5(g) applies to 

16 a bank holding company that is an insurance com17 pany. 

18 ‘‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Requiring a 

19 bank holding company that is an insurance com20 pany, a savings and loan holding company that is an 

21 insurance company, an affiliate of an insured deposi22 tory institution that is an insurance company, or any 

23 other company that is an insurance company and 

24 that directly or indirectly controls an insured deposi25 tory institution to serve as a source of financial 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 4557 IH

1 strength under this section shall be deemed an ‘ac2 tion of the Board that requires a bank holding com3 pany to provide funds or other assets to a subsidiary 

4 depository institution’ for purposes of such section 

5 5(g).’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 18, 2018

Gretchen Engel, Attorney at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Durham, Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches.

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. to admit W. Kerrel Murray Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of July 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2209

L. RUTHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GETTYSBURG COLLEGE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.

(CA-01-1034-A)

Submitted: February 22, 2002 Decided: March 15, 2002

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Ruther, Appellant Pro Se. Chandra Dore Lantz, HIRSCHLER,

FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX & ALLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

L. Ruther appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

civil action. The record does not contain a transcript of the

hearing on conducted on September 14, 2000. Ruther has the burden

of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of

the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. R.

App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. Local R. 10(c). Appellants proceeding on

appeal in forma pauperis are entitled to transcripts at government

expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994).

By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production

of a transcript at government expense, Ruther has waived review of

the issues on appeal which depend upon the transcript to show

error. Keller v. Prince George’s Co., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th

Cir. 1987). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Stephen R. Kerrigan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Coinmach Service Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which the statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: August 9, 2007   /s/ Stephen R. Kerrigan   Stephen R. Kerrigan   Chief Executive Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4554 

To amend the securities laws to improve private market offerings, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2014 

Mr. MULVANEY (for himself and Mrs. WAGNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the securities laws to improve private market 

offerings, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Restricted Securities 

5 Relief Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPROVING PRIVATE MARKET OFFERINGS. 

7 (a) REVISIONS TO REGULATIONS.—The Securities 

8 and Exchange Commission shall— 

9 (1) revise section 230.144(d)(1)(i) of title 17, 

10 Code of Federal Regulations, to change the holding 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4554 IH

1 period for restricted securities issued by an issuer 

2 that is, and has been for a period of at least 90 days 

3 immediately before the sale, subject to the reporting 

4 requirements of section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities 

5 Exchange Act of 1934 from 6 months to 3 months; 

6 and 

7 (2) revise section 230.144(i) of title 17, Code of 

8 Federal Regulations, to permit an issuer of securi9 ties that was described under paragraph (1) of such 

10 section 230.144(i) that has ceased to be an issuer 

11 described under such paragraph to sell such securi12 ties (subject to the requirements of such section) 

13 after two years has elapsed from the date that the 

14 issuer files a Form 8–K with the Commission stat15 ing that the issuer is no longer described under 

16 paragraph (1) of such section. 

17 (b) COVERED SECURITIES.—Section 18(b) of the Se18 curities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77r(b)) is amended by 

19 adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(5) SECURITIES OFFERED OR SOLD UNDER

21 RULE 144A.—A security is a covered security if it is 

22 offered or sold in compliance with the conditions set 

23 forth in section 230.144A of title 17, Code of Fed24 eral Regulations.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Official Journal L 51/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 51 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5824 February 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 51

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5824 February 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/288 of 17 December 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund with regard to the period of time and the dates for the inadmissibility of applications | 1 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/289 of 23 February 2015 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 7 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/290 of 20 February 2015 on the compliance of 2014 unit rates for charging zones under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 and repealing Decision 2013/631/EU
  (notified under document C(2015) 882) | 10 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/288 of 17 December 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund with regard to the period of time and the dates for the inadmissibility of applications

1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/289 of 23 February 2015 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

7

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/290 of 20 February 2015 on the compliance of 2014 unit rates for charging zones under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 and repealing Decision 2013/631/EU
  (notified under document C(2015) 882)

(notified under document C(2015) 882)

10

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Angel Soto, by His Father and Natural Guardian, Carlos Soto, et al., Appellants, v Enterprise Rent A Car, Also Known as ELRAC Inc., et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 604]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County .(Pincus, J.), dated February 14, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the infant plaintiff, Angel Soto, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The affirmed report prepared by an orthopedist, Dr. William J. Kulak, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, established a prima facie case that the infant plaintiff, Angel Soto, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]). We note that the Supreme Court providently *568exercised its discretion in refusing to consider a physician’s affidavit which was submitted by the plaintiffs after the return date of the motion *(see, Risucci v Zeal Mgt. Corp., 258*AD2d 512). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff, v. MDC INVESTMENTS, LLC and First Community Bank, Defendants.

No. COA17-598

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009102EN.01003701.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/37

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2009 — Patsarika v Cedefop

(Case F-63/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Contract staff - Reassignment - Rights of the defence - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Default procedure)

2009/C 102/53

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maria Patsarika (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, Agent, assisted by P. Anestis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of annul the decision of Cedefop of 20 September 2006 terminating the applicant's fixed-term contract at the end of her probationary period and, second, an action for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Ms Patsarika to bear three-quarters of her own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Ms Patsarika to bear three-quarters of her own costs;

| 3. | orders the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of Ms Patsarika's costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of Ms Patsarika's costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 283 of 24.11.2007, p. 43.

1

---
ex10-19.htm


EXHIBIT 10.19


 




PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 



	$50,000.00   	May 9, 2013





 


 


For value received, Guardian 8 Holdings, a Nevada corporation (the “Maker”) promised to pay to C. Stephen Cochennet, or its registered assigns or successors in interest (the “Holder”) the Principal Amount and Interest (both as defined below) in the manner and upon the terms and conditions as set forth in that Term Note (“Note”) in the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), dated December 10, 2012, as extended on March 10, 2013, which Note becomes due and payable on or about May 9, 2013.




By execution by the parties herein, this Promissory Note Extension Agreement extends the Maturity Date of the Note to and including July 9, 2013. All terms and conditions of the Note shall remain the same other than the Maturity Date.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker and Holder have caused this Promissory Note Extension Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.


 


“Maker”


Guardian 8 Holdings


a Nevada corporation


 


 


By: /s/ Kathleen Hanrahan                                                                


                                                                                                Kathleen Hanrahan, Chief Financial Officer


 


“Holder”




 


/s/ C. Stephen Cochennet                                                                


C. Stephen Cochennet
STATE v. Juan Foronte MCPHAUL

421PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 1, 2018

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for McPhaul, Juan Foronte.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

William P. Hart, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Sara B. Warf, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law.

James B. Gatehouse, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Professor Brandon Garrett, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of July 2018 by Professor Brandon Garrett, et al. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of August 2018."

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 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel P. OBrien, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DANIEL P. OBRIEN                               
|Daniel P. OBrien                                   
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|September 9, 2008