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 Annual Report of Whitney Information Network,Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Ronald S. Simon, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

 

(1)                                  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

Dated:  November 24, 2004

 

 
|   |   |   |   |   | /s/Ronald S.  Simon                         |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |   | Name: Ronald  S. Simon                      |   |
|   |   |   |   |   | Title:  Acting Principal Accounting Officer |   |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO THE DOMESTIC 

RELATIONS PROCEDURAL RULES 

COMMITTEE 

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 751

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2024, Ann M. Funge, Esquire, Philadelphia, is 

hereby appointed as a member of the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee 

for a term of five years, commencing April 1, 2024.
.-..., -: < 

. ,, . "'.'- 8: ........... -:A':., ......... i: ,, ij.. . . 

'i . ,,,. '!'.\ ;:; C,.~ :. , 

. I,,:, ; . . : t 

. !i ,..... :! .. , . 

, . z: ">,. ..I , . i c ,,I'i : .. . . , *. . . . : . <......I. . ...... :': f,: , , . . ., . ' ,.. ,. :I . . . * >

\; 

/. _.. . ......... ... ......... UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i ....... . .- :I ...... 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - 

. . ..: , . . .A :'.: ?:-I.? ...--.- :,& ,. .. ....... ..--. ~. . ....... .... ---. ......... 7 I:' 

..... 

............................................................... X 

IN RE: Fosamax Products Liability : 

Litigation 1: 06-md-1789 (JFK) 

Order ............................................................... X 

This Document Relates to: All Actions : 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

This order amends the Court's Memorandum Opinion and 

Order dated September 12, 2007. The parties' briefs on the 

sharing of costs related to document production shall be 

submitted by October 9, 2007. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New ~ork, New York 

September 17, 2007 

JOHN F. KEENAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03465-JFK Document 10 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. EDMISTEN

No. 10.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 326.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 6 December 1977.
Mercantile Bank of St. Louis N. A.
Mercantile Tower
P.O. Box 524
St. Louis, MO  63166-0524
314-425-2525

January 17, 1997



Mr. Ronald L. Krutzman
Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
Laclede Gas Company
720 Olive Street
St. Louis, MO  63101

Dear Ron:

Mercantile Bank of St. Louis National Association is pleased to provide a
$10,000,000 line of credit maturing January 31, 1998 to Laclede Gas Company
for general corporate purposes and for commercial paper backup.

All borrowings will be priced at your option, at Mercantile's Prime rate,
floating, IBOR adjusted + 3/8%, or CD's adjusted + 1/2% for available
maturities to 90 days.  Notes issued under this line shall not exceed 90
days.  If a whole note is outstanding with a maturity before January 31,
1998, the note shall be renewed in whole or in part provided no note shall
mature later than January 31, 1998.

Interest shall be payable at maturity or on date of repayment.  Interest
shall be computed on the basis of actual 365/366 for prime borrowings and
actual 360 basis for IBOR or CD loans.  Notes issued may be prepaid at any
time without penalty, subject to standard funding loss provisions.

We may terminate this agreement at any time if we determine, in good faith,
that we are not satisfied with your conditions, operations or performance,
financial or otherwise.

It is understood that any loans obtained by any subsidiary of Laclede Gas
Company, whether or not they are guaranteed by Laclede Gas Company, are
excluded from this agreement and shall not be charged against the line of
credit described above.

Nothing in this letter is intended to alter the arrangements set forth in
the agreement dated December 23, 1996 or the  availability of up to
$22,500,000 of advances thereunder from Mercantile Bank of St. Louis
National Association on the terms set forth in said December 23, 1996
agreement.

We appreciate the opportunity to service your credit needs and to continue
the long standing relationship between our companies.  If the foregoing is
acceptable to you, please sign and date below.

                                     MERCANTILE BANK OF ST. LOUIS N.A.

                                     By:  /s/ Timothy W. Hassler
                                     Name:  Timothy W. Hassler
                                     Title:  Assistant Vice President
                                 
                                 Page 24<PAGE>
<PAGE>
Accepted this 17th day of January, 1997

LACLEDE GAS COMPANY

By:  /s/ Ronald L. Krutzman
Name:  Ronald L. Krutzman
Title:  Treasurer and Assistant Secretary  




















































                                Page 25
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-4 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 11 of 11
#### SEDERS v. POWELL, COMR. OF MOTOR VEHICLES

No. 30 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 491.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 April 1979. Motion of defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 April 1979.
Submitted on record and briefs March 15,

appeal dismissed April 14, 1999

#### WILLIE ALEXANDER, *Appellant, v.*Dan JOHNSON, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, *Respondent.*

(97-07-29043M; CA A100965)

978 P2d 454

Bob Pangburn filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Judy C. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Brewer, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Appeal dismissed. *Jones v. Thompson,*156 Or App 226, 968 P2d 380 (1998).
incident would result in his being punished twice for the same action in

two different jurisdictions. The district court denied appellant's writ petition and, on appeal from that determination, he reiterates the arguments that he advanced before the district court.

The Double Jeopardy Clause under the United States Constitution protects a defendant from both successive prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V; 

### United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688,695-96 (1993); 

### see also Nev. Const. art. 1, § 8; 

### Jackson v. State, 128 Nev. „ 291 P.3d 1274, 1278 (2012) (recognizing that the federal and Nevada Constitutions provide the same protections against double jeopardy). Double Jeopardy protections, however, are not implicated here because the purpose of the parole revocation hearing at issue in this case is to determine whether the Parole Board will reinstate appellant's original sentence for the underlying crime due to his apparent parole violations, not to punish appellant for the conduct that led to the parole revocation hearing. 

### See United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 104-05 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing that the revocation of parole is viewed as the reinstatement of a previous sentence, not as punishment for the actions resulting in the revocation). This is true even if the parolee is subjected to more than one parole revocation based on the same underlying act, as appellant alleges is the case here. 

### See United States v. Clark, 984 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that the revocation of both probation and supervised release related to two prior convictions based on a single action by the offending party was permissible and did not implicate double jeopardy). Accordingly, we conclude that the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A me,

### , J.

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's petition for a writ of prohibition, Reno Newspapers, 

### 126 Nev at , 234 P.3d at 924, and we therefore

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

\CA.-k Lat-aa i 

### ,J. Hardesty

J. Douglas

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge William Cato Sells, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 3

(G) 1947A 

### e
Case 1:07-cv-03500-PAC     Document 3      Filed 09/13/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03500-PAC     Document 3      Filed 09/13/2007     Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15068-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-2      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 1 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-2      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 2 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-2      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 3 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-2      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 4 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-2      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 5 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-2      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 6 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-2      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 7 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-2      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 8 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-2      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 9 of 9
#### ACKER v. BARNES

No. 37 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 750.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1977.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of The Enstar Group, Inc.
(the "Corporation") for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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
Corporation.

/s/ Cheryl D. Davis
---------------------------------------------
Cheryl D. Davis
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Corporate
Taxes, and Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer)
September 19, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Enstar Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Enstar Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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 Annual Report of Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Verheecke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



/s/    ROBERT
VERHEECKERobert Verheecke Chief Financial OfficerBlue Coat Systems, Inc. July 14, 2004
#### STATE v. CAMP

No. 8 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 109.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 30 August 1974.
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB     Document 18      Filed 01/28/2008     Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. BULLOCK

No. 35 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 1.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 February 1976. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 3 February 1976.
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 3 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-6 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-05401-FDB Document 19 Filed 09/26/2002 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-6 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-05401-FDB Document 19 Filed 09/26/2002 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-6 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-05401-FDB Document 19 Filed 09/26/2002 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-6 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 4 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-05401-FDB Document 19 Filed 09/26/2002 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-6 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 5 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-05401-FDB Document 19 Filed 09/26/2002 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-6 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 6 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-05401-FDB Document 19 Filed 09/26/2002 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-6 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 7 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-05401-FDB Document 19 Filed 09/26/2002 Page 7 of 7
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-91737, 333-34552, 333-45486, 333-49842, 333-52012, 333-65192, 333-82864, 333-113544, 333-120976, 333-123230, 333-132406, 333-142234, 333-144605, 333-146-969, 333-149601, 333-151810, and333-157845, Form S-3 No. 333-55744 and Form S-3ASR 333-152752) of Blue Coat Systems, Inc. of our reports dated June 17, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Blue Coat Systems, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2009. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

San Jose,California 

June 17, 2009
Exhibit 31(a)
Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
I, Joseph P. Keithley, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of KeithleyInstruments, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and reportfinancial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 9, 2004 /s/ Joseph P. Keithley   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE v. RICHARDS

No. 31.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 686.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 13 August 1974. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 13 August 1974.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO U.S.C. 18, SECTION 1350



In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, (the "Report") by Tankless Systems Worldwide, Inc., (formerly Elution Technologies, Inc.), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:



1.

The Report complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Registrant.





Dated:  May 2, 2005



/s/ Thomas Kreitzer

Name:  Thomas Kreitzer

Title: Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Thomas Kreitzer

Name:  Thomas Kreitzer

Title: Principal Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1891 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1891

 To provide for the inclusion on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall of 
the names of the soldiers who died on Flying Tiger Flight 739 on March 
                               16, 1962.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2019

  Mr. Peters introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the inclusion on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall of 
the names of the soldiers who died on Flying Tiger Flight 739 on March 
                               16, 1962.

    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 ``Flying Tiger Flight 739 Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION ON THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL WALL OF THE NAMES OF 
              THE SOLDIERS WHO DIED ON FLYING TIGER FLIGHT 739 ON MARCH 
              16, 1962.

    (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall authorize the 
inclusion on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in the District of 
Columbia of the names of the 93 soldiers who died on Flying Tiger 
Flight 739 when it crashed in the Pacific Ocean en route to Vietnam on 
March 16, 1962.
    (b) Required Consultation.--The Secretary of Defense shall consult 
with the Secretary of the Interior, the American Battle Monuments 
Commission, and other applicable authorities with respect to any 
adjustments to the nomenclature and placement of names pursuant to 
subsection (a) to address any space limitations on the placement of 
additional names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall.
    (c) Nonapplicability of Commemorative Works Act.--Chapter 89 of 
title 40, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Commemorative 
Works Act''), shall not apply to any activities carried out under 
subsection (a) or (b).
                                 <all>
```