alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                  Certification of the 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 Monadnock Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Karl
F. Betz, Senior Vice President and 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 and in connection with this quarterly report
on Form 10-Q that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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 company's financial condition and results of
            operations.

Date: August 8, 2008                   /s/ Karl F. Betz
                                       ----------------
                                       Karl F. Betz
                                       Senior Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                      27
In the MATTER OF William Levern PYATT, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001666 Opinion No. 27846

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted October 25, 2018 Filed November 14, 2018

John S. Nichols, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kelly B. Arnold, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

William Levern Pyatt, of Columbia, Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:

**239In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (the Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of a confidential admonition or a public reprimand. We accept the Agreement and issue a public reprimand. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

***Facts***

In November 2017, respondent's bank reported respondent had a check presented against insufficient funds on his real estate trust account (trust account). Respondent explained he forgot to tell his office manager to make a deposit to the trust account when respondent was out of town, resulting in a disbursement before deposit. Respondent also admits he did not reconcile the trust account as required by Rule 1.15, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (safekeeping of property of clients or third parties) and Rule 417, SCACR (financial recordkeeping) and was, therefore, unable to provide reconciliation reports during the Commission's investigation. However, to ensure his future compliance with both rules respondent has retained the services of a bookkeeper and a certified public accountant and has implemented electronic accounting software for the trust account.

***Law***

Respondent admits that by his conduct he has violated Rule 1.15, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (safekeeping of the property of clients or third parties), and Rule 417, SCACR (financial recordkeeping). Respondent also admits his conduct constitutes grounds for discipline pursuant Rule 7(a)(1), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR ("It shall be a ground for discipline for a lawyer to: (1) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, or any other rules of **240this jurisdiction regarding professional conduct of lawyers ....").

***Conclusion***

We find respondent's misconduct warrants a public reprimand. Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand respondent for his misconduct. Within thirty days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission. Within nine months of the date of this order, respondent shall complete Legal Ethics and Practice Program Trust Account School and Law Office Management School. Finally, for a period of two years following the date of this order, respondent shall submit his monthly bank statement, reconciliation report, and trial balance report for his trust account to the Commission.

**PUBLIC REPRIMAND.**

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, National Advisory Board will be hosting a public meeting via conference call to discuss such matters that may be presented by members, and the staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or interested others. The conference call will be on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Erika Fischer, Senior Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 205-7045 or fax (202) 481-0681.

Matthew K. Becker,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-19977 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Catherine LASSITER, Employee, Plaintiff, v. KEYSTONE FREIGHT CORP., Employer, Sedgwick CMS, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA17-881

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

AFFIRMED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4824 

To provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of land in the Coconino 

National Forest, Arizona. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2010 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of land 

in the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHAPEL OF THE HOLY CROSS LAND SALE, 

4 COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST, ARIZONA. 

5 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—Not later than one 

6 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

7 of Agriculture shall convey, by sale, to the Roman Catholic 

8 Diocese of Phoenix, Arizona (in this section referred to 

9 as the ‘‘Diocese’’), all right, title, and interest of the 

10 United States in and to a parcel of land in the Coconino 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4824 IH

1 National Forest, Arizona, consisting of the approximately 

2 11.07 acres and identified as lot 26 in section 30 of Town3 ship 17 North, Range 6 East, Gila and Salt River Base 

4 and Meridian, as generally depicted on the map entitled 

5 ‘‘Chapel of the Holy Cross Parcel, Sedona, Arizona’’ and 

6 dated October 2009. 

7 (b) CONSIDERATION.—As consideration for the con8 veyance of the parcel under subsection (a), the Diocese 

9 shall pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the fair 

10 market value of the parcel, as determined by the Secretary 

11 through an appraisal performed in accordance with— 

12 (1) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Fed13 eral Land Acquisitions; and 

14 (2) the Uniform Standards of Professional Ap15 praisal Practice (USPAP). 

16 (c) USE OF SALE PROCEEDS.—Moneys received by 

17 the Secretary from the sale of land under subsection (a) 

18 shall be deposited in the fund established by Public Law 

19 90–171 (commonly known as the Sisk Act; 16 U.S.C. 

20 484a) for use by the Secretary for the acquisition of land 

21 or interests in land from willing sellers within the 

22 Coconino National Forest. To the maximum extent prac23 ticable, the Secretary shall utilize such moneys for the au24 thorized purpose within three years of the deposit of the 

25 moneys in the Sisk Act fund. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4824 IH

1 (d) MINOR ERRORS.—The Secretary and the Diocese 

2 may make, by mutual agreement, minor boundary adjust3 ments in the parcel directed for sale under subsection (a). 

4 If there is a conflict between any map, acreage estimate, 

5 or a description of the land under this section, the map 

6 shall control unless the Secretary and the Diocese mutu7 ally agree otherwise. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Raymond A. DA SILVA, Executor of the Estate of Dolores J. Pierce, Plaintiff, v. WAKEMED, WakemMed d/b/a WakemMed Cary Hospital, and WakeMed Faculty Practice Plan, Defendants.

No. COA17-820

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

REVERSED IN PART. VACATED. REMANDED IN PART.
STATE v. Jimmy Lee FARMER

8A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 25, 2019

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, Attorney at Law, for Farmer, Jimmy Lee.

Anna M. Szamosi, Assistant Attorney General, Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 25th of January 2019 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of January 2019."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 8th day of March 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
#### In re Sterling Wayne WYATT and Ruth Ann Wyatt.

No. 10-03-078-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

May 28, 2003.

Rehearing Overruled May 28, 2003.

Sterling Wayne Wyatt, Ruth Ann Wyatt, Hewitt, pro se.

Tommy Bastían, Barrett, Burke, Wilson, Castle, Daffin & Frappier, Addison, for others.

Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.

OPINION DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING

TOM GRAY, Justice.

On April 1, 2003, we denied the relators’ motion for a writ of prohibition without an opinion. Tex.R.App. P. 52.8(d). They have filed a motion for rehearing, requesting clarification of the reason for our denial. A writ of prohibition may properly be used by this Court only to protect our jurisdiction. *In re Salas,*994 S.W.2d 422, 423 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, orig. proceeding). Its use is limited to cases in which this Court has actual jurisdiction of a pending proceeding. *Id.*The relators’ petition does not assert any manner in which our jurisdiction is in jeopardy of being lost due to the events about which they are complaining.

Relators’ motion for rehearing is denied.
#### Vincent JOHNSON, Appellant, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 1D03-1900.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 2, 2003.

Vincent Johnson, pro se, appellant.

No appearance for appellee;

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Adams v. State,*801 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); *Polilla v. State,*776 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Benjamin G. Wolff, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Clearwire Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) 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) 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  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal controls 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 controls over financialreporting.        Date: May 15, 2007 /s/ BENJAMIN G. WOLFF   Benjamin G. Wolff   Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Earl SCOTT, Appellant.

No. ED 81465.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

July 15, 2003.

John Tucci, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Charnette D. Douglass, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

*ORDER*

Earl “Foe” Scott (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of robbery in the first degree and of two counts of armed criminal action. Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motions for acquittal on the ground that the evidence presented by the State of Missouri was *850“far too insufficient and contradictory” to support the jury’s verdict.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Ke lsey and Senior Judge Hodges

GRACE C. RUTLEDGE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 19 61-02-4 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 19, 2003 E. PRESTON RUTLEDGE

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF ARLINGTON COUNTY Paul F. Sher idan, Judge (Mary Elizab eth Davis; Hofh eimer/Ferrebee, P.C., on brief), for appellant. (Martin A. Gannon; James Ray Co ttrell; David H. Fletcher; Chri stopher W. Schinstock; Kyle F. Bartol ; Gannon & Cott rell, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Grace C. Rutledge (mother) appeals th e decision of the circuit court deny ing her motion for unsupe rvised visitation with the parties' minor so n, Andrew Rutledge , and cour t-ordered therapy. On appeal, mother contends the tr ial court de nied her due process and substantial just ice by dismissi ng her motion without a hearing. Upon reviewing the re cord and the parties' briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we su mmarily affirm the decision of the tria l court.

See Rule 5A:27.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.Background Mother and E. Preston Rutledge (father) were divorced by final decree on February 27, 1997. In a May 10, 2000 order, father was awarded sole legal and physical custody of Andrew. The court allowed mother supervised visitation with Andrew on alternate Sunday afternoons through the Visitation Services Program of Northern Virginia Family Service, until further order of the court. On June 7, 2002, mother moved the court for unsupervised visitation and court-ordered therapy. After considering mother's written motion and father's written opposition, the court denied mother's motion. Mother acknowledges she was informed of the court's denial of her motion on June 26, 2002. Mother failed to file a motion to reconsider or any other form of objection to the court's ruling. Analysis This Court will not consider an argument on appeal that was not presented to the trial court. Ohree v. Commonwealth , 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998); Rule 5A:18. The requirements of Rule 5A:18 apply equally to constitutional claims. Deal v. Commonwealth , 15 Va. App. 157, 161, 421 S.E.2d 897, 900 (1992). "The goal of the contemporaneous objection rule is to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials by allowing the trial judge to intelligently consider an issue and, if necessary, to take corrective action." Campbell v.

- 2 -Commonwealth , 12 Va. App. 476, 480, 405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991). Appellant failed to voice her objections before the trial court at any time. Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of this question on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. Therefore, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.

- 3 -
[J

- 37

- 2022]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF

NICHOLE MISSINO AS A REPUBLICAN

CANDIDATE FOR REPRESENTATIVE IN

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE

165TH PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE

LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT THERESA FLANAGAN MURTAGH,

Objector

APPEAL OF: NICHOLE MISSINO :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 55 MAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court at No. 203 MD 2022 dated April 8, 2022.

SUBMITTED: April 14, 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: April 14, 2022

AND NOW , this 14 th day of April, 2022, the order of the Commonwealth Court

granting the petition to set aside the nomination petition of Nichole Missino is AFFIRMED

.

The parties’ Joint Application to Dispatch with Order of a Transcript is GRANTED

.
#### David H. DOTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D03-1889.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 31, 2003.

*828Appellant, pro se.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the appellant is entitled to additional prison credit, we reverse.

On March 21, 1989, the appellant was convicted of three counts of burglary and three counts of grand theft and was sentenced to concurrent terms of five years’ imprisonment for burglary and concurrent terms of five years’ probation for grand theft. On July 17, 2000, the appellant was convicted of violating his probation, the trial court revoked his probation, and the trial court resentenced the appellant to three years’ probation. On February 14, 2002, the appellant was convicted of violating his probation a second time and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The trial court did not grant the appellant any prison credit because the appellant had not served any time in prison on the grand theft charges.

The appellant’s original written judgment and sentence and his scoresheet show that the appellant’s offenses were scored together. When a trial court sentences a probationary term on some of the appellant’s convictions consecutively to an incarcerative term on the appellant’s other offenses, the appellant is entitled to credit for the time he served in prison on the incarcerative portion of his sentence against the total sentence imposed after revocation of probation on the probationary portion of his sentence. *Hodgdon v. State,*789 So.2d 958, 962-963 (Fla.2001); *Veach v. State,*814 So.2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s motion to correct his illegal sentence and remand for the trial court to grant the appellant the proper amount of prison credit.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF, BROWNING, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
<page>				       EXHIBIT 32.02


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 Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Charter WCM
L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Christian
Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
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 Partnership.








By:	  /s/	Christian Angstadt

Name:		Christian Angstadt
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		March 27, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6040

ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ANITA SMITH, M.D., Medical Director of Valley

Community Services; PATRICIA PORTER, M S W,

Forensic Evaluator,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-95-333-2)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a

filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th

Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the

case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee

order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM A. JORDAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 652 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.