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

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofInternational Aluminum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Mitchell K. Fogelman, the Senior VicePresident-Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  November 12, 2003 | MITCHELL K. FOGELMAN            |   |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------|
|                               | Mitchell K. Fogelman            |   |
|                               | Senior Vice President - Finance |   |
|                               | and Chief Financial Officer     |   |

 

1

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**RIVERROCK ENTERTAINMENT AUTHORITY**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Joseph R. Callahan, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the River RockEntertainment Authority;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

a)    Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

c)    Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: November 14, 2007

 
| By:                     | /s/ JOSEPH R. CALLAHAN |   |
|-------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Joseph R. Callahan      |                   |
| Chief Financial Officer |                   |
|                         |                        |        |  |

 

----
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 Furniture Brands  International,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, David P. Howard, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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. of the Company.


                                /s/ David P. Howard
                              -----------------------------
                               David P. Howard
                               Title:  Chief Financial Officer
                               Furniture Brands International, Inc.
                               May 13, 2003
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

April 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135343 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135343 COA: 279086 Berrien CC: 2005-404198-FC LEON JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 7, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts

, cert gtd __ US __; 76 USLW 3496; 2008 US LEXIS 2537 (March 17, 2008).

p0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 23, 2008

Clerk
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00176-CR

RUSSELL POPE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law Number 3 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 

1967710).

The Court today considered a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant, 

Russell Pope. No decision has yet been handed down in the case. The Court grants the 

motion. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered September 24, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices 

Bland and Huddle.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH M. HAITH

No. 7315SC150

(Filed 14 March 1973)

Appeal by defendant from *Cooper, Judge,*7 August 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Alamance County.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan and Special Counsel Ralph, Moody for the State.*

*T. Paul Messick for defendant appellant.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

The defendant, Ralph M. Haith, was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with felonious escape.

The record affirmatively discloses that the defendant, represented by court appointed counsel, freely, understandingly, and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge of felonious escape. The judgment imposing a prison sentence of twenty-four months is within the limits prescribed by statute for the offense charged. G.S. 148-45.

We have carefully reviewed the record and no prejudicial error appears on the face thereof. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5446 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5446

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 16, 2010

                                Received

                           December 22, 2010

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the ``Harry T. and 
                     Harriette Moore Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE MOORE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harry T. 
and Harriette Moore Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 15, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00364-CV

TEXAS HEALTH HUGULEY, INC.,

D/B/A TEXAS HEALTH HUGULEY 

HOSPITAL FORT WORTH SOUTH, DR.

JASON SEIDEN, JOHN DOES #1-5, AND

JANE ROES #1-5, Appellants

V.

ERIN JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND NEXT 

FRIEND OF JASON JONES, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 342nd District 

Court

of Tarrant County (342-329996-21)

November 18, 2021

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial court is 

reversed and vacated.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN D. GWYNN,

Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM E. JOHNSON, P.A.,

Appellee.

No. 4D2024-0199

[August 8, 2024]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jaimie Goodman, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 50-2021-CA-011856-XXXX-MB.

Erin Pogue Newell of Open Book Appeals, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

Robert C. Johnson, Stuart Hartstone, and Daniel Lustig of Pike & 

Lustig, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Lazaro Dreke PEON, Petitioner, v. Richard THORNBURGH, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 91 Civ. 3229 (LLS).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

June 21, 1991.

*156Lazaro Dreke Peon, pro se.

James A. O’Brien, III, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STANTON, District Judge.

Petitioner Lazaro Dreke Peon seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988), asserting that he is being held by the Immigration and Naturalization Service unlawfully. Respondent argues that since petitioner is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in Raybrook, New York, which is in the Northern District of New York, this court has no jurisdiction to consider the petition.

A petition for habeas corpus must be brought against the petitioner’s custodian, and the court considering the petition must have jurisdiction over that custodian. *Billiteri v. United States Bd. of Parole,*541 F.2d 938, 948 (2d Cir.1976); *see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct.,*410 U.S. 484, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973). In this case, petitioner’s custodian is Ray-brook’s warden, rather than the Attorney General. *See Billiteri,*541 F.2d at 948. Since Raybrook is located in the Northern District of New York, the petition must be brought there. *See ibid.; In re Tripati,*836 F.2d 1406, 1407 (D.C.Cir.1988) (per curiam) (petition must be brought in district in which petitioner’s custodian is located); *Hassain v. Johnson,*790 F.2d 1420, 1420 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (same), *cert. denied,*479 U.S. 1038, 107 S.Ct. 893, 93 L.Ed.2d 845 (1987).

However, as respondent suggests, in the interest of justice, to avoid unnecessary delay of consideration of the petition’s merits, this action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (1988), rather than dismissed.

Accordingly, the clerk of the court is ordered to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard L. Browdy, Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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.   To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of the Company as of and for the period covered by the report.





Date:  August 12, 2005             By: /s/ Richard L. Browdy
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                      Richard L. Browdy, Chief Financial Officer
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5017 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To ensure the availability of loan guarantees for rural 

homeowners. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5017 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Housing Preser3 vation and Stabilization Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. LOAN GUARANTEE FEES. 

5 (a) UP-FRONT FEES.—Paragraph (8) of section 

6 502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 

7 1472(h)(8)) is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(8) GUARANTEE FEES.—With respect to a 

9 guaranteed loan under this subsection, the Secretary 

10 may collect from the lender, at the time of issuance 

11 of the guarantee, a fee equal to not more than 4.0 

12 percent of the principal obligation of the loan, as de13 termined sufficient by the Secretary to cover the 

14 costs (as such term is defined in section 502 of the 

15 Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 

16 661a)) of loan guarantees under this subsection.’’. 

17 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 739 of the 

18 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Adminis19 tration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2001 (as 

20 enacted by Public Law 106–387; 114 Stat. 1549A–34) is 

21 hereby repealed. 

22 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF AMOUNT OF LOAN GUARAN23 TEES.—Section 513 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 

24 U.S.C. 1483) is amended by adding at the end the fol25 lowing new subsection: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5017 RFS 

1 ‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION FOR LOAN GUARANTEES.—The 

2 Secretary may, to the extent approved in appropriation 

3 Acts, guarantee loans under section 502(h) in aggregate 

4 amounts not to exceed $30,000,000,000 for fiscal year 

5 2010.’’. 

6 SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

7 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

8 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

9 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

10 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

11 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

12 by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 

13 House of Representatives, provided that such statement 

14 has been submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 27, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VA

MEDICAL CENTER, Richmond, VA, Employer, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0684

Issued: October 29, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Douglas Sughrue, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 25, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a purported April 9, 2019 decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 21-0684.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.2 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed the appeal.3 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

adverse decision of OWCP dated April 9, 2019.

4

 As there is no final adverse decision issued by 

OWCP dated April 9, 2019 over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board

concludes that the appeal docketed as Docket No. 21-0684 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as Docket No. 21-0684 is 

dismissed. 

Issued: October 29, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board notes that on March 26, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a final adverse overpayment decision of 

OWCP datedSeptember 28, 2020. Appellant’s appeal from that decision will proceed under Docket No. 21-0696.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**Certificationof the Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

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

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofInternational Multifoods Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended November 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Gary E. Costley, the Chairman ofthe Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company, for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | /s/ Gary E.  Costley                                     |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **Gary E. Costley**                                      |
|   | **Chairman  of the Board & Chief Executive Officer** |

 

 

Date:  January9, 2004

 

----
#### RUTH FOSTER v. THOMAS D. FOSTER

No. 751DC176

(Filed 7 May 1975)

Divorce and Alimony § 16— alimony — defense of adultery — absence of finding

When adultery is pleaded in bar of a demand for alimony or alimony *pendente lite,*an award will not be sustained in the absence of a finding of fact on the issue of adultery in favor of the party seeking the award.

Appeal by defendant from *Chaffin, Judge.*Judgment entered 22 January 1974 in District Court, Pasquotank County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 April 1975.

■The appeal is from an order awarding alimony pendente lite and counsel fees.

' No counsel for plaintiff.

*White, Hall, Mullen & Brumsey, by Gerald F. White and H. T. Mullen, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

Plaintiff seeks alimony, alimony pendente lite and counsel fees. Defendant pleaded his spouse’s adultery in bar of her right to recover. The order from which defendant appeals contains no finding on the issue.

When adultery is pleaded in bar of a demand for alimony or alimony pendente lite, an award will not be sustained in the absence of a finding of fact on the issue of adultery in favor of the party seeking the award. *Austin v. Austin,*12 N.C. App. 286, 183 S.E. 2d 420. The court also failed to find facts to support the award of counsel fees. The judgment is vacated and remanded.

Vacated and remanded.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.