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

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 on Form 10-Q of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) for the
period ending January 31, 2006, I, D. Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended January 31, 2006, 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 such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended January 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 13, 2006



/s/ D. Michael ParkerD. Michael ParkerSenior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer
Lamar County Courthouse 119 N. Main Street Paris, TX 75460 

### ERIC 5. CLIFFORD DISTRICTJUDGE or P.O. Box 1118 Paris, TX 75461 Sixth Judicial District Court Presiding in Lamar & Red River County, Texas

October 28, 2015

Court ofCriminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 

## ReCEIVED IN**COU~T** 

### OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

## NOV 02 

## 2015 

## Abet

# Acosta,**C~mk**

Re: Orian Lee Scott , WR-83,185-07, -08, -09, 

### -10, -11 & -12

# (0~

# 1 HbY- o=t- 1

# o~, 

# -Oq,**~0** 

# I\\ 1

# )2.-

(903) 737-2431 fax (903) 784-7857

c:.n 0 (""") --1. N 

### co

The Court respectfully requests an extension oftime within which to complete and file Findings of Fact and Conclusions ofLaw on the six (6) cases referencedabove. The Court does not anticipate that it will take more than 30 days from this date to comply with the required filings. Your consideration for this extension and your assistance is appreciated. Respectfully,

Eric 

# s. Clifford
#### STATE v. ELAM

No. 218P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 590.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 June 1982.
#### Mary Jo FREEHILL, Appellant, v. James T. BENN, Appellee.

No. 10022.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued July 1, 1965.

Decided July 20, 1965.

*912Richard M. Millman, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Norbert J. Heubusch, Arlington, Va., for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BRYAN and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mary Jo Freehill complained of James T. Benn in the District Court in two counts. The first exhibited, and asked judgment upon, a default judgment entered by the Circuit Court for the County of Dade, Florida against Benn and in favor of Freehill. The second count pleaded the same facts and prayed the same relief as that alleged and granted in the Florida action. Benn’s motion to dismiss the first count was sustained. The ground of the ruling was that the judgment was not entitled to accordance of Constitutional full faith and credit, because he had not been served with process in that action. Hence he could not be held in default for failure to appear and defend.

The dismissal of the first count was made final and appealable by direction of the trial court. F.R.Civ.P. 54(b). On appeal, plaintiff shows that the return of service in Florida recites that Benn was there personally and appropriately served. The presumption of the execution of the writ arising from this certificate, Freehill urges, was not overridden by the evidence adduced by Benn on the motion.

Defendant testified that he was never served and, in truth, was not in Florida at the time of the service as returned. This claim the District Judge found adequately corroborated by supplementing proof. As his finding is certainly not clearly erroneous, F.R.Civ.P. 52(a), we affirm his judgment.

The disposition of this case renders moot the appellant Freehill’s motion here for a stay of the trial on Count 2 in the District Court.

Affirmed.
# C_2011317EN.01001101.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/11

---

Communication from the Commission concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2012 under certain quotas opened by the European Union for pigmeat products

2011/C 317/06

Commission Regulation (EC) No 442/2009 (1) opened tariff quotas for imports of pigmeat products. The import licence applications lodged during the first seven days of September 2011 for the subperiod 1 October to 31 December 2011 do not, for quotas 09.4038, 09.4170 and 09.4204, cover the quantities available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (2), the quantities that were not applied for are to be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, from 1 January to 31 March 2012; they are set out in the Annex to this notice.

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 129, 28.5.2009, p. 13.

1

(2)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

---

ANNEX

| Quota order number | Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 January 2012 to 31 March 2012
  (in kg) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4038 | 16 449 900 |
| 09.4170 | 2 361 000 |
| 09.4204 | 2 312 000 |

Quota order number

Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 January 2012 to 31 March 2012

(in kg)

09.4038

16 449 900

09.4170

2 361 000

09.4204

2 312 000

---
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 14 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      125
<ALLOWANCES>                                        24
<INVENTORY>                                        262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   824
<PP&E>                                              85
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,705
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,361
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       924
<SALES>                                            218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   218
<CGS>                                              297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (497)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (497)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (497)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
#### STATE BAR v. DuMONT

No. 205 PC.

No. 80 (Fall Term).

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 1.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 8 July 1981.
# C_2012181EN.01020101.xml

| 21.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 181/201 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/201

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance’

COM(2012) 52 final — 2012/0025 (COD)

2012/C 181/37

On 27 February and 16 February 2012 respectively, the Council and the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 114 and 168 (4)(c)of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance

COM(2012) 52 final — 2012/0025 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion CESE 1022/2009, adopted on 10 June 2009 (1), it decided, at its 479th plenary session of 28 and 29 March 2012 (meeting of 28 March), by 158 votes to 1 with 6 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject but to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

1

Brussels, 28 March 2012.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---

(1)  OJ C 306, 16.12.2009, p. 18.

1

---
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

JARVIS PARSONS 300 EAST 26TH STREET 

District Attorney SUITE 310 

 BRYAN, TEXAS 77803 

 

 979/361-4320 

FAX: 979/361-4368 

BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS 

August 26, 2015 

Honorable Abel Acosta 

Clerk 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308 

Austin, Texas 78711 

 

RE: Adam Brooks v. State 

 CCA no. PD-1095-15 

 COA No. 10-13-00409-CR 

 

Dear Mr. Acosta: 

Please be advised that the District Attorney’s Office is not a party to the 

appeal in the above case. Instead, the State is represented by the County Attorney’s 

Office.

 Please send all future correspondence to the Hon. Rod Anderson, County 

Attorney’s Office, 300 East 26th Street, Suite 1300, Bryan, TX 77803.

 Sincerely, 

 

 /s/ Douglas Howell, III 

 

 Douglas Howell, III 

 Assistant District Attorney 

 dhowell@brazoscountytx.gov

PD-1095-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 8/26/2015 2:31:17 PM

Accepted 8/27/2015 5:34:19 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 20 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 20 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 20 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 20 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 20 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 5 of 5
#### STATE v. RUSSELL and TATUM

No. 138 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 156.

Petition of Tatum for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 September 1974. Appeal of Tatum dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question 3 September 1974.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WALTON CONSTRUCTION 

COMPANY LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv137-SPM/WCS

CORUS BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND SETTING TIME TO RESPOND

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File

Amended Complaint (doc. 16) and the Joint Unopposed Motion for Entry of

Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and

Defendants’ Time for Response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (doc. 23). 

Upon consideration, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. The motions (docs. 16 and 23) are granted.

2. The First Amended Complaint (doc. 18) is accepted as filed.

3. Defendants shall have up to and including January 18, 2011, to file
Page 2 of 2

an answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2011.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 4:10cv137-SPM/WCS
#### STATE v. BENFIELD

No. 13 PC.

Case beow: 22 N.C. App. 330.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 August 1974. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question 30 August 1974.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      11,393,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,483,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 14,638,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,273,000
<PP&E>                                      45,491,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,798,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,966,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,653,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,988,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,223,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,966,000
<SALES>                                     42,886,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,886,000
<CGS>                                       37,546,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,542,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                991,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   411,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            580,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   580,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Peter Palluch, Appellant.

*People*v. *Palluch,*182 App. Div. 603, affirmed.

(Argued October 16, 1918;

decided November 1, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 5, 1918, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the city of New York convicting the defendant of a violation of the” Liquor Tax Law in selling liquor, to wit, hard cider, without having paid a liquor tax and without having obtained and posted the required liquor tax certificate.

*A. S. Gilbert*and *Francis Gilbert*for appellant.

*Francis Martin, District Attorney (Charles B. McLaughlin*and *Peter A. Hatting*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound and McLaughlin, JJ. Absent: Andrews, J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 61644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5438]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Notice of Sunshine Act

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, November 7, 2007, 10 a.m. Eastern Time.

PLACE: Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of 
the EEOC Office Building, 1801 ``L'' Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507.

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the public.

Matters to be Considered

Open Session

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
    2. Obligation of Funds for a Three-Month Extension of the National 
Contact Center Contract.

    Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be 
open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and 
voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission 
meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides a 
recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission 
sessions.)
    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) 
at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides 
sign language interpretation at Commission meetings for the hearing 
impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made 
by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above.


CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Stephen Llewellyn, Executive 
Officer on (202) 663-4070.

    This Notice Issued October 29, 2007.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 07-5438 Filed 10-29-07; 1:34 pm]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-M
EXHIBIT 99.2
                            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 Lescarden Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

   (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 result of
        operations of the Company.


                         /s/ William E. Luther
                             William E. Luther
                     President and Chief Executive Officer
                             January 5, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORP., 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-32/RS-CJK

FAYE JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

From the pleadings, it appears that common questions of law or fact are involved 

in the five trademark infringement suits filed in this Court: Slep-Tone Entertainment 

Corp. v. David Morgan, et al., Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Kara-O-King Inc., et 

al., Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Faye Johnson, et al., Slep-Tone Entertainment 

Corp. v. Arther Allen, et al., and Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Tequila Mexico of 

Pensacola Inc., et al. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a) (2), and with the consent of Chief 

Judge Casey Rodgers and Senior Judge Stephan Mickle, the five cases shall be 

consolidated and assigned to me. In addition, pursuant to Fla. N.D. Loc. R. 3.1(C), the 

venue for the Pensacola and Gainesville cases shall be transferred to the Panama City 

division. 

Case 5:10-cv-00071-RS-CJK Document 72 Filed 08/29/11 Page 1 of 2
IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Clerk shall consolidate cases 1:10cv27-SPM/GRJ, 5:10cv71-RS/CJK, 

5:11cv32-RS/CJK, 5:11cv69-RS/EMT, and 3:11cv191-MCR/EMT. 

2. The Clerk shall file a copy of this Order in each of these cases. 

3. All future pleadings should be filed only in case 5:11cv32-RS/CJK. 

4. The Motion to Set Aside the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29) in 5:11cv69 is 

GRANTED. A new scheduling order will be forthcoming for the consolidated 

cases. 

ORDERED on August 29, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:10-cv-00071-RS-CJK Document 72 Filed 08/29/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CALVIN D BURNS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00047-MP -GRJ

TRAVIS BOATWRIGHT, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the

Sheriff of Lafayette County and several Deputy Sheriffs for an incident which allegedly

occurred on May 6, 2005. (Doc. 1). The Court has reviewed the complaint and finds

that it fails to state a claim for relief and should be dismissed. Pursuant to the Prison

Litigation and Reform Act, the Court shall dismiss a case if the Court determines that

the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1). 

Plaintiff claims that during an arrest on May 6, 2005, the sheriff and several

deputies made racial remarks and handcuffed him in a unnecessarily tight manner. He

also alleges that they brought false charges against him to force him to be a

confidential informant. 

The complaint was filed on March 29, 2010. (Doc. 1). Federal courts apply their

forum state's statute of limitations for prisoner suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989); Uboh
Page 2 of 2

v. Reno, 141 F.3d 1000, 1002 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Kelly v. Serna, 87 F.3d 1235,

1238 (11th Cir.1996). In Florida, the personal injury limitations period is four years from

the date of the alleged unconstitutional act. Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d

1175, 1188 (11th Cir. 1999). The complaint, here, was filed nearly five years from the

date of the alleged unconstitutional acts and therefore would be barred by the statute of

limitations. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 

That the cause be DISMISSED as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 8 day of November 2010. th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a

copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific

objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations.

Case No: 1:10-cv-00047-MP -GRJ
#### ABSHER v. FURNITURE CO., INC.

No. 122 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 753.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 February 1980.