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

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Alfred Riedler, Chief Financial Officer of St. Bernard Software, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Dated: November 15, 2006     
|                             
|/s/ Alfred Riedler           
|Alfred Riedler               
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4786 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4786

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2010

                                Received

               March 26 (legislative day, March 25), 2010

   Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide authority to compensate Federal employees for the 2-day 
 period in which authority to make expenditures from the Highway Trust 
                  Fund lapsed, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION AND RATIFICATION OF AUTHORITY.

    (a) Compensation for Federal Employees.--Any Federal employees 
furloughed as a result of the lapse in expenditure authority from the 
Highway Trust Fund after 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2010, through March 
2, 2010, shall be compensated for the period of that lapse at their 
standard rates of compensation, as determined under policies 
established by the Secretary of Transportation.
    (b) Ratification of Essential Actions.--All actions taken by 
Federal employees, contractors, and grantees for the purposes of 
maintaining the essential level of Government operations, services, and 
activities to protect life and property and to bring about orderly 
termination of Government functions during the lapse in expenditure 
authority from the Highway Trust Fund after 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 
2010, through March 2, 2010, are hereby ratified and approved if 
otherwise in accord with the provisions of the Continuing 
Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-68).
    (c) Funding.--Funds used by the Secretary to compensate employees 
described in subsection (a) shall be derived from funds previously 
authorized out of the Highway Trust Fund and made available or limited 
to the Department of Transportation by the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-117) and shall be subject to the obligation 
limitations established in such Act.
    (d) Expenditures From Highway Trust Fund.--To permit expenditures 
from the Highway Trust Fund to effectuate the purposes of this section, 
this section shall be deemed to be a section of the Continuing 
Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-68), as 
in effect on the date of the enactment of the last amendment to such 
Resolution.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
STATE v. Barbara Jean MYERS-MCNEIL

453P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 13, 2019

Michelle F. Lynch, Attorney at Law, For Myers-McNeil, Barbara Jean.

Christine Wright, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of March 2019 by Defendant to Withdraw as Private Assigned Counsel and to Appoint the Appellate Defender:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of March 2019."
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.7
                                                            Certificate of Trust

                             CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                      OF
                         DOMINION CNG CAPITAL TRUST II



         THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of Dominion CNG CAPITAL TRUST II (the
"Trust"), is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustees, to
form a business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. ss.
3801, et seq.).

         I.    Name. The name of the business trust formed hereby is Dominion
CNG Capital Trust II.

         II.   Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware is Bank
One Delaware, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 3 Christiana Center, 201 North
Walnut Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

         III.  Effective Date. This certificate shall be effective on March 28,
2002.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee of the Trust has executed
this Certificate of Trust as of the date first-above written.


                                            BANK ONE DELAWARE, INC.
                                            not in its individual capacity
                                            but solely as trustee of the Trust


                                            By:    /s/ Sandra L. Caruba
                                               -----------------------------
                                               Name:    Sandra L. Caruba
                                               Title:   Vice President




                                            ADMINISTRATIVE TRUSTEE
                                            not in his individual capacity but
                                            solely as trustee of the Trust


                                            By:     /s/ G. Scott Hetzer
                                               -----------------------------
                                               Name:  G. Scott Hetzer
                                               Title:    Administrative Trustee
#### Carhart *&*Brother, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*M. E. Paramore, defendant in error.

The plaintiffs in the suit having resided out of the State at the making of the contract, and continuously since, there were no legal taxes due this State upon the same, and the affidavit was unnecessary that all legal taxes had been paid.

Eelief Act of 1870. Before Judge Harvey. Floyd Superior Court. May Term, 1871.

Carhart *&*Brother sued Paramore upon his note, made in 1861. It was admitted that plaintiffs, at the making of the note, and ever since, had been citizens of New York, and defendant a citizen of Georgia. Plaintiffs kept actual possession of the note till 1869, when they sent to their attorneys in Georgia. Because plaintiffs had filed no affidavit of the payment of taxes on said claim, the Court dismissed the suit. That is assigned as error.

Alexander & Wright, for plaintiffs in error.

Smith & Branham, for defendant.

McCay, Judge.

This case stands upon the same ground as the case of *Collins vs. Miller,*from the Pataula Circuit, decided at this term, and is controlled by it.

Judgment reversed.
State or Other Jurisdiction ofSubsidiary
    
    Incorporation or OrganizationAmphion Semiconductor
    
    Northern IrelandAmphion Semiconductor, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaBrooktree Broadband Holding, Inc.
    
    DelawareConexant Broadband Communications (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaConexant Broadband (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaConexant Digital TV (Chengdu) Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaConexant Foreign Sales Corporation
    
    BarbadosConexant, Inc.
    
    DelawareConexant Korea Ltd.
    
    KoreaConexant Mauritius Ltd.
    
    MauritiusConexant Systems Asia Pacific Limited
    
    Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of ChinaConexant Systems France S.A.S.
    
    FranceConexant Systems Germany G.m.b.H.
    
    GermanyConexant Systems Holdings
    
    United KingdomConexant Systems Private Limited
    
    IndiaConexant Systems (Japan) Company Ltd.
    
    JapanConexant Systems Netherlands BV
    
    NetherlandsConexant Systems Singapore Pte. Limited
    
    SingaporeConexant Systems (Taiwan) Co., Ltd.
    
    TaiwanConexant Systems UK Limited
    
    United KingdomConexant Systems Worldwide, Inc.
    
    DelawareConexant USA LLC
    
    DelawareVirata Israel, Ltd.
    
    Israel
**Exhibit    23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the    Registration Statement on    Form S-8    (Nos.    33-38340,33-38339,33-63025,333-83028,333-91420,333-122357)    of RTI International Metals, Inc. of our report dated    February 28, 2007 relating to the financial statements,    financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of    the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting    and the effectiveness of internal control over financial    reporting, which appears in this    Form 10-K.     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### MARY ELIZABETH WORTHINGTON v. SOLOMAN ALLEY WORTHINGTON

No. 758DC385

(Filed 5 November 1975)

Appeal and Error § 57— findings supported by evidence — court on appeal bound

The court on appeal is bound by the findings of fact made by the trial court where there is some evidence to support those findings.

Appeal by defendant from *Nowell, Judge.*Judgment entered 17 February 1975 in District Court, Lenoir County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 September 1975.

Defendant, age 68, appeals from an order directing him to pay alimony pendente lite and counsel fees to plaintiff from whom he was separated on 29 December 1974 following their marriage on 26 December 1974.

*Jones and Wooten, by Lamar Jones, for 'plaintiff appellee.*

*Turner and Harrison, by J. Harry Turner and Fred W. Harrison, for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

Although we express no opinion on whether we would have reached the same result on the evidence before the court at the hearing for alimony pendente lite, there is some evidence to support the findings of fact made by the trial judge, and we are bound by them. The findings of fact are sufficient to support the order and it is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Morris and Clark concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
Consolidated  Balance  Sheet  as of  December  31,  2000,  and the  Consolidated
Statement  of  Operations  for the year ended  December 31, 2000 of Mission West
Properties,  Inc.,  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to  such
financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001067419
<NAME>                                         Mission West Properties, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         4,691
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         841,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (34,022)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 826,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       17
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   826,910
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,944
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               16,521
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,579
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            12,579
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   12,579
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .72



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

 

2013 Bonus Plan

 

The Compensation Committee of the Board recommends to the Board a tiered payment cash bonus plan for the Company’s management team for fiscal year 2013 based on the following parameters (the “2013 Cash Bonus Plan”):

 

·                  For those individuals whose bonus is based on the overall performance of the Company; the bonus for the year will be based 40% on the overall EBITDA target for the year, 20% on the Snack Division, 20% on the Frozen Division, and 20% on achievement of individual performance objectives.  If you are paid on the results of either the Snack or Frozen division, then your bonus will be based 20% on the overall company, 60% on your division and 20% on achievement of individual performance objectives.

 

·                  The EBITDA portion of the bonus will be payable on a linear scale between 85% of the targeted EBITDA and 100%. At 85% of the targeted EBITDA the bonus will be 0%.  The bonus will be calculated using the formula “[percent of achievement of EBITDA minus 85%] divided by 15”, thus if 86% of EBITDA earnings are achieved then 6.7% of the bonus is earned, and if 93% of EBITDA earnings are achieved then 53.3% of the bonus is earned.

 

·                  If the Company achieves 100% of the targeted EBITDA earnings, then 100% of the bonus for financial results for the period would be payable.

 

·                  If the Company exceeds the targeted EBITDA earnings for the year then the bonus for financial results would be payable at the like percentage (point for point) up to an additional 25% maximum (30% for the members of the Leadership Team) (e.g. if EBITDA is 103% of the targeted budget, then 103% of available bonus for financial results would be payable).

 

The Compensation Committee retains the discretion to adjust EBITDA targets in order to accomplish the purposes of the 2013 Cash Bonus Plan in light of unforeseen facts and circumstances.

 

1
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

Y.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHATHAM POST 

OFFICE, Chatham, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0191

Issued: December 17, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On November 17, 2020 appellant filed an appeal from a May 7, 2020 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0191.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the May 7, 2020 decision was November 3, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until November 17, 2020, more than 180 days after the May 7, 

2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0191 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0191 is dismissed.

Issued: December 17, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
**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**

|   | 3. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Mark Murphy         |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Mark                Murphy             |   |
|   | Chief                Financial Officer |   |

----
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAC QUELINE C . SIM ONELLI, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ITY OF C ARM EL-B Y -THE-SEA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16664 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-01250-LB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia La ure l D. B e e le r, M a g istra

te Judge , Pre siding * * Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 *** B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Ja c que line Sim one lli a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion he r takings a c tion a rising out of 

# F IL ED MAR 04 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The pa

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).the C ity

of C arm e l-by -the -Se a ’ s a pprova l of a

de ve lopm e nt ne xt to Sim one l li’ s prope rty . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, C olw e ll v . De

p’t of He a l th &Human Se rv s ., 558 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th C i r. 2009), and we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Sim one lli’ s a c tion a s unripe be c a use Sim one lli ha d not be e n de nie d c om pe n sation through a

ny sta t e c ourt proc e dure s. Se eW illiamson C

nty . of Re g’l Planning C

omm’n v . Hamilton Bank , 473 U.S. 172, 175 (1985); se ealso San Remo Hote l v . C ity & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 145 F.3d 1095, 1101-02 (9th C ir. 1998) (e xpla ining tha t ta kings c la im s are unripe until the pla i ntiff ha s sought a

nd be e n de nie d c o m

pe nsation through the

sta te ’ s proc e dure s, and tha t a bste ntion is “ i rre le va

nt” sinc e the re are no c la i m s from whic h to a

bsta in). The C ity ’ s re que sts to dism iss thea p pe a l, a nd to strikeSim one lli’ s de c la ration, pre se nte d in its a

n s we ring brie f, are de nie d. AFFIRM E D .

1 3 - 1 6 6 6 4 2