alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig Crowell, Chief Accounting 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, 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: February 11, 2011

| |                                                                                                                          
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By:   /s/ Craig Crowell
_____________________________
Craig Crowell
Chief Accounting Officer
Principal Accounting Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### William Soffer, Plaintiff, *v.*Joseph Frederick and Another, Defendants.

County Court, Sullivan County,

March 16, 1936.

*Joseph Kooperman,*for the plaintiff.

*Ellsworth Baker,*for the defendants.

*292Cooke, J.

During the trial of the above-entitled action the complaint was dismissed as to the defendant Joseph Frederick because it appeared that he had been adjudicated a bankrupt, etc. It is not claimed that the plaintiff, at the time he began this action, knew of such adjudication, as it took place about the same time. This action was instituted on or about July 25, 1935. Defendant was adjudicated a bankrupt on or about July 24, 1935. The plaintiff received notice of the bankruptcy proceedings on or about September 28, 1935. During the trial, defendant was permitted over plaintiff’s objection to amend bis answer setting up the defense that defendant duly filed his schedules in bankruptcy; that the claim which is the subject-matter of this action was duly listed, etc.; that this defendant was thereafter duly discharged in bankruptcy. Upon proof of these facts, the complaint was dismissed as to defendant Joseph Frederick. He asked for costs against the plaintiff. Plaintiff objected thereto. The court, with the consent of the attorneys, took the question under consideration. There was some dispute as to whether defendant was entitled to costs as a matter of right. Under section 1476 of the Civil Practice Act, it seems that costs are discretionary. In this case it does not seem that it would be the just thing to do to allow costs to this defendant against this plaintiff. This defendant conceded that he owed the plaintiff for this bill; he went into bankruptcy at about the time of the commencement of this action, and the bankruptcy proceeding and this action were pending for some time. During this period, defendant procured his discharge in bankruptcy, but did not amend his answer until during the trial, nor did he procure any restraining order in the bankrupt proceeding. Plaintiff was, therefore, justified in proceeding as he did.

Costs are not allowed to this defendant on the dismissal of the complaint as to him.

The motion to set aside the judgment entered herein against Edith Frederick is denied. No one was injured by this procedure. The jury rendered a verdict against her. No costs are allowed on this motion. Order may be agreed upon or settled on two days’ notice.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21157]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2004N-0516]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; 2005 Food Safety Survey

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``2005 Food Safety Survey'' has been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Robbins, Office of Management 
Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of May 24, 2005 (70 
FR 29768), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0345. 
The approval expires on February 30, 2008.
    A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection 
is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: October 17, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-21157 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARCHIE CURTIS BOND

No. 741SC360

(Filed 1 May 1974)

Indictment and Warrant § 3— jurisdiction of grand jury — crimes committed in another county

The grand jury of Pasquotank County had no jurisdiction to indict defendant for crimes allegedly committed in Tyrrell County and an indictment returned by the grand jury of Pasquotank County for such crimes was void.

On *certiorari*to review the order of *Copeland, Special Judge,*entered on 1 October 1973 in Pasquotank County.

Defendant was indicted by a Tyrrell County grand jury for felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny. Both offenses allegedly occurred in Tyrrell County. The case was later transferred to Pasquotank County. A Pasquotank County grand jury indicted defendant for the same offenses specified in the Tyrrell County bill.

Defendant pled guilty to both charges in Pasquotank County Superior Court and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

On 12 September 1973, defendant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. He contended that the Pasquotank County bill of indictment was void and that his detention was illegal since he had not been tried under a proper indictment. Defendant’s petition was granted. On return of the writ, judgment was entered directing that defendant be discharged.

The State’s petition for certiorari was granted by this Court in an order dated 9 January 1974.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Ralf F. Haskell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Forrest V. Dunstan and Richard E. Railey for defendant appellee.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

There is nothing in the record to show that the removal to Pasquotank County was with written consent of defendant as required by G.S. 15-135, and there is no argument that there was a defect in the original indictment which, after a valid *435removal, would have permitted the Pasquotank grand jury to return a new bill under G.S. 15-136. Except for these and other statutory provisions not material here, the grand jury of Pas-quotank County has no jurisdiction to indict for crimes committed in Tyrrell County. Since the grand jury had no jurisdiction, the indictment upon which defendant was tried is void and the judgment of Judge Copeland must be affirmed. *State v. Beasley,*208 N.C. 318, 180 S.E. 598; *State v. Mitchell,*202 N.C. 439, 163 S.E. 581. This discharge will not, however, preclude defendant from being tried upon a valid indictment in Tyrrell County, since jeopardy does not attach on a void indictment. *State v. Beasley, supra.*

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.
#### Matter of Gertrude Houg, Petitioner, *v.*Louis Houg, Respondent.

Domestic Relations Court of City of New York, Family Court Division, Borough of Manhattan,

June 10, 1936.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel [Alice E. Trubin, Assistant' Corporation Counsel,*of counsel], for the petitioner.

Raneen, J.

Both parties present. It sometimes becomes necessary for the court to chart and blaze a new path. As a cold legal proposition, probably the court should make an order in this case *895requiring the respondent to contribute to the support and maintenance of the petitioner. The law, however, must in its application reflect a high sense of justice and a response to that which conscience dictates. While it is true that as between the spouse who is chargeable with the duty of providing for a dependent and the community, the obligation rests first on the spouse. Public policy would be shocked beyond mention if in an instance such as is before me an order should be made to require the respondent to contribute to the support of the dependent spouse. In extension of public policy no order should be made in this proceeding against the respondent. The uncontradicted testimony in this case discloses a situation which shakes faith in human beings. Petitioner was convicted of prostitution and served a term of 100 days for having committed the act of prostitution. After she was discharged from the workhouse she contracted a bigamous marriage; and I might say, brazenly and unconcernedly admits it. The report submitted to me by the clinical department of the court indicates the dread disease of syphilis in the petitioner and which finding is supported by a blood test made under the Wasserman system by the board of health in the city of New York. I cannot bring myself to sign an order requiring the respondent here to support the petitioner, even if the petitioner will continue to be a public charge. It is much better that the community should continue to provide for her than to do violence to decent instincts, conscience and justice which an order upon the respondent would be tantamount to. Accordingly petition is dismissed and corporation counsel is given exception to the dismissal.
<Page>


                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of
this Registration Statement File No. 333-40410 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Seven on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONBY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Curtis L. Garner, Jr.,certify that:

 

1.               I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Otelco Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such 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 included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a.               designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b.              evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.               disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a.               all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.              any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date:   May 9, 2005

 

 
|    /s/ Curtis L. Garner, Jr. |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Curtis L. Garner, Jr.                       |   |
| *Chief Financial Officer*                   |   |

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20281

Conference Calendar

 

STANLEY LAMAR REED, also known

as Stanley Johnson,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MONTGOMERY WARDS; MAXWELL I CHUKU,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-3934

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Stanley Lamar Reed appeals the district court’s dismissal of

his civil rights complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1994). Although not for the reasons advanced by Reed, the

district court’s dismissal of the complaint under Heck arguably

was in error. See Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.

1995)(claim of unlawful arrest, standing alone, does not
No. 96-20281

- 2 -

implicate the validity of a criminal prosecution following

arrest). Nevertheless, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Reed’s 

complaint because it seeks relief against private parties and

fails to allege a constitutional violation by a state actor. See

Yeager v. City of McGregor, 980 F.2d 337, 339 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 510 U.S. 821 (1993). 

 AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of River Rock Entertainment Authority (the “Authority”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedofficers does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officers knowledge:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Authority.
| By:                     |   | /s/ SHAWN S. SMYTH     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|
| Shawn S. Smyth          |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 14, 2007         |
|                    |
|                    |   |                   |
| By:                     |   | /s/ JOSEPH R. CALLAHAN |   |
| Joseph R. Callahan      |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 14, 2007         |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the River RockEntertainment Authority and will be retained by the River Rock EntertainmentAuthority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5213 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5213

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 
              coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2010

 Mr. Garamendi (for himself, Mr. Farr, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Schrader, Ms. 
Zoe Lofgren of California, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Wu, Mr. Thompson 
of California, Ms. Chu, Mr. Filner, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Baird, Ms. Roybal-
   Allard, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Harman, Mr. Dicks, Mr. George Miller of 
   California, Mr. Berman, Mr. Stark, and Mr. Schiff) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 
              coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

    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 ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 
              SHELF OFF THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND 
              WASHINGTON.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(q) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section or any other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue 
a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil or 
natural gas in any area of the outer Continental Shelf off the coast of 
the State of California, Oregon, or Washington.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10v.

                                    AGREEMENT


         This Agreement is made as of March 13, 2002, by and between Winnebago
Industries, Inc., an Iowa corporation (the "Company") and Bruce D. Hertzke
("Hertzke").

         RECITALS:

         WHEREAS, Hertzke is Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
President of the Company and has made and is expected to continue to make major
contributions to the profitability, growth and financial strength of the
Company;

         WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the Company, considering the
past and future services of Hertzke, to improve the security and climate for
objective decision making by providing for the personal security of Hertzke;

         WHEREAS, Hertzke, who has been an employee of the Company since October
4, 1971, has been a participant in the Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred
Compensation Plan (the "Plan") since 1983, has made several contributions to the
Plan subsequent to 1992 and he is not vested in such 1993 and subsequent
deferrals because of a Plan change adopted in 1992 which provided that for 1993
and subsequent deferrals vesting occurred upon five years of service after each
deferral and attaining age 55 (Mr. Hertzke's date of birth is July 6, 1951);

         WHEREAS, Hertzke has been the most adversely impacted of any
participant in the Plan by amendments made to the Deferred Compensation Plan in
1994;

         WHEREAS, at a meeting held on January 16, 2002 the Board of Directors
of the Company took action to immediately vest Hertzke in any post-1992
deferrals to the Plan and authorized Raymond M. Beebe, Vice President-General
Counsel and Secretary, on behalf of the Company to execute an agreement with Mr.
Hertzke to such effect:

                  AGREEMENT:

                  It is therefore agreed by and between the Company and Hertzke
         that the rule change adopted in 1992 which provided that for 1993 and
         subsequent deferrals to the Plan vesting occurs upon five years of
         service after each deferral and attaining age 55 is hereby waived as to
         Hertzke and that any contributions which Hertzke made to the Plan in
         1993 and subsequent years are by the terms of this Agreement
         immediately vested as of March 13, 2002.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the
         date set out above.


WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES, INC.


By:
    ------------------------------------------    ------------------------------
    Raymond M. Beebe                              Bruce D. Hertzke
    Vice President-General Counsel & Secretary
**Exhibit32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

 

I, Saed Mohseni, Chief Executive Officer, inconnection with the Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmick’s SeafoodRestaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2005 (the “Report”),hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.           The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934  and

2.           The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants,Inc.

 

 
| /s/ SAED MOHSENI        |
|-------------------------|
| Saed Mohseni            |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

Dated: August 8, 2005

 

 

 

----
<Page>
                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 333-39608 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Ten on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002