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 THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of The X-Change Corporation on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, George DeCourcy, Chief Financial Officer of the X-Change Corporation (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.August 13, 2007/s/ George DeCourcy
#### Donald Ray ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF MANSURA; Renea Y. Roy; Phillip Lucas, In His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the Town of Mansura, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-30656.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Donald R. Alexander, Mansura, LA, pro se.

Randall Brian Reiser, Reiser, Auzenne & Boudreaux, Alexandria, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donald Ray Alexander appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. Alexander does not challenge the district court’s determination that his motion for a new trial was not filed timely. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b).

We apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, and we liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants; however, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 28. *Grant v. Cuellar,*59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995). When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment. *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). “Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)[ (9)(A) ] requires that the appellant’s argument contain the reasons he deserves the requested relief with citation to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.” *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).

Because Alexander does not address the district court’s reason for denying his new trial motion, he has abandoned the only issue on appeal. *Brinkmann,*813 F.2d at 748. Alexander’s appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Alexander is warned that further frivolous filings in this court will subject him to sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

s1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145421

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145421

COA: 306102

Oakland CC: 2006-211099-FC

QUANDEAL DEVON BUGGS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 7, 2012 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

d1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145540

DEVENDRA SHARMA, M.D.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 145540

COA: 303913

Iosco CC: 09

- 005343

- CZ

ASCENSION HEALTH, INC., d/b/a ST.

JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM, PATRICK

MURTHA, MICHAEL WAGNER, and

CLARENCE DAVID WRIGHT,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5429 

To provide a retroactive increase in deposit insurance for depositors in certain 

institutions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 27, 2010 

Ms. HARMAN (for herself and Mr. DREIER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To provide a retroactive increase in deposit insurance for 

depositors in certain institutions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Investor Deposit Yard5 stick Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RETROACTIVE INCREASE IN DEPOSIT INSURANCE. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the in8 crease in the standard maximum deposit insurance 

9 amount pursuant to section 136(a)(1) of the Emergency 

10 Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5429 IH

1 5241(a)(1)) shall be extended to include depositors in any 

2 institution for which the Federal Deposit Insurance Cor3 poration was appointed as receiver or conservator on or 

4 after January 1, 2008, and before October 3, 2008. The 

5 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall take such ac6 tions as are necessary to carry out the requirements under 

7 section 11 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 

8 U.S.C. 1821) with respect to such depositors, without re9 gard to any time limitations under such Act. In imple10 menting this provision, any payment on a deposit claim 

11 made by the Corporation as receiver or conservator to a 

12 depositor above the standard maximum deposit insurance 

13 amount in effect at the time of the appointment of the 

14 Corporation as receiver or conservator shall be deemed to 

15 be part of the net amount due to the depositor under sec16 tion 11(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 

17 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)(B)). 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          39,200
<SECURITIES>                                   113,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,459,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (12,200)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          13,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,500)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,117,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,453,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,117,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,100
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Matthew W. Long, certify that:

 

1.        I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K /A of Supreme Industries, Inc.; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:   March 26, 2012 | By:    | /s/   Matthew W. Long     |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                        |   | Matthew   W. Long         |
|                        |   | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
#### STATE v. EDDIE BRADFORD.

(Filed 25 May, 1966.)

Appeal by defendant from *Falls, J.,*January Regular Criminal Session 1966 of Buitcombe.

This is a criminal action in which the defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with assault with intent to commit rape. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and judgment was pronounced thereon. The defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGalliard for the State.*

*Joseph Sam Schenck for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court below to sustain his motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of the State’s evidence. The defendant offered no evidence in the trial below. In our opinion the State offered ample evidence to go to the jury on the question of assault with intent to commit rape, and we so hold.

The remaining assignments of error have been examined and they present no prejudicial error.

In the trial below we find

No error.

Moore, J., not sitting.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1449 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to require warning labels for 

prescription opioids, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2019 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to require warning 

labels for prescription opioids, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lessening Addiction 

5 By Enhancing Labeling Opioids Act of 2019’’ or the 

6 ‘‘LABEL Opioids Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 305(c) of the Controlled 

9 Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 825(c)) is amended— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1449 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The Secretary’’; 

2 and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(2) The label of any container or package containing 

5 an opioid or opiate listed in schedule II, III, IV, or V shall, 

6 when dispensed (other than administered) to or for a pa7 tient, contain a clear, concise warning, in a manner speci8 fied by the Secretary by regulation, that the opioids or 

9 opiates dispensed can cause dependence, addiction, and 

10 overdose.’’. 

11 (b) REGULATIONS.— 

12 (1) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Health 

13 and Human Services shall prescribe regulations 

14 under section 503(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

15 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)) to implement 

16 the amendment made by subsection (a) and such 

17 regulations shall be effective not later than 2 years 

18 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

19 (2) INTERIM RULES.—The Secretary of Health 

20 and Human Services may issue the regulations re21 quired under paragraph (1) by interim rule to the 

22 extent necessary to comply with the timing require23 ment in paragraph (1). 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-03310-LLS Document 7 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03310-LLS Document 7 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-2146

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

Sherman Burks, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 29, 1995

 Filed: January 19, 1996 ___________

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Sherman Burks, an African-American, appeals the 97-month

sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to

distributing cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1). We affirm.

Following the preparation of his presentence report, Burks

objected to his offense-level calculation. Burks contended that no

scientific difference existed between crack cocaine and powder

cocaine, and that the penalty provisions set forth in 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b) were thus void for vagueness or rendered inapplicable by

operation of the rule of lenity. He also argued that Congress

enacted section 841(b) in an arbitrary and irrational manner,
-2-

resulting in a disparate impact upon African-Americans in violation

of his due process and equal protection rights.

Burks relied on United States v. Davis, 864 F. Supp. 1303

(N.D. Ga. 1994), appeal pending (No. 95-8057 11th Cir.), in which

the district court, after an evidentiary hearing, held that the

terms "cocaine" and "cocaine base" were synonymous; that the

penalty provisions of section 841(b) set forth a scientifically

meaningless distinction between cocaine and cocaine base; and that

the heightened penalties for cocaine base must be ignored by

operation of the rule of lenity. 864 F. Supp. at 1309. In

support, Burks submitted copies of the Davis court records--

including Davis's memorandum of law, the hearing transcript, and

the district court's decision.

In addition, Burks sought a downward departure under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(b) and U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, based on the United States

Sentencing Commission's February 1995 report concluding that the

100-to-1 ratio between the penalties for crack cocaine and powder

cocaine was not justified, and a proposed Guidelines amendment--

which would have eliminated the 100-to-1 ratio--forwarded by the

Commission to Congress for its consideration. Burks renews his

claims on appeal.

We conclude Burks's void-for-vagueness and rule-of-lenity

arguments are foreclosed by our decision in United States v.

Jackson, 64 F.3d 1213, 1219-20 (8th Cir. 1995); his due process and

equal protection arguments are foreclosed by our decision in United

States v. Jackson, 67 F.3d 1359, 1367 (8th Cir. 1995); and his

downward-departure argument is foreclosed by our decision in United

States v. Higgs, No. 95-1928, slip op. at 2, 1995 WL 716193 (8th

Cir. Nov. 9, 1995) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 06-16] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a seciton 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 06-16 with attached transmittal, policy justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: November 4, 2005.

L.M. Bynum,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 68402)          ( print page 68403)          ( print page 68404)          ( print page 68405)          ( print page 68406)          ( print page 68407)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 05-22412  Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Hanover Direct, Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 2-92383, 2-94286, 33-52059, 33-52061, 33-52353, 33-52687, 33-58756,
33-58758, 33-58760, 33-66394, 333-3871, 333-02743, 333-03871, 333-13817,
333-25141, 333-51433, 333-80007, 333-91687, 333-91689, 333-88148, 333-88156 and
333-101564) on Form S-8 of Hanover Direct, Inc. of our report dated March 25,
2003, except as to note 6, which is as of April 2, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheet of Hanover Direct, Inc. as of December 28, 2002 and
the related consolidated statements of income (loss), shareholders' deficiency,
and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related 2002 consolidated
financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 28, 2002
annual report on Form 10-K of Hanover Direct, Inc.

     Our report dated March 25, 2003 contains an explanatory paragraph relating
to the fact that the 2001 consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Hanover Direct, Inc. were audited by other auditors who
have ceased operations. Our report also refers to the adoption in 2002 of the
provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets."

     Our report also indicates that the Company's consolidated balance sheet as
of December 28, 2002 has been restated to classify certain debt as current. As
discussed above, the 2001 financial statements of Hanover Direct, Inc. were
audited by other auditors who have ceased operations. As described in Note 21,
these financial statements have been amended to reflect the restatement of the
consolidated balance sheet as of December 29, 2001 in order to classify certain
long-term debt as current.

KPMG LLP

New York, New York
April 9, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     consolidated financial statements of the Company for the three months
     ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
     such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000054291
<NAME>                        KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         16
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  303
<ALLOWANCES>                                   6
<INVENTORY>                                    521
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               942
<PP&E>                                         1,968
<DEPRECIATION>                                 930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          610
<BONDS>                                        979
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          18
<PREFERRED>                                    2
<COMMON>                                       15
<OTHER-SE>                                     66
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,154
<SALES>                                        566
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               566
<CGS>                                          481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               20
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                19
<INCOME-TAX>                                   7
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            12
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   12
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>