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

Certifications

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended April 1, 2006 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |     |  |                                                     
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 16, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ BRYANT P. BYNUM                                 
|                   |  |     |  | Bryant P. Bynum                                     
|                   |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as
part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBITB 

4810-3966-9932. I 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4935-2 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 13:52:15 Page 1

of 3
COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY 

COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2019 

THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2019 

TASK1 

CODE DESCRIPTION1 HOURS AMOUNT 

Cl00 Fact Gathering 49.30 $14,327.40 

C200 Researching Law 0.50 $200.00 

Lll0 Fact Investigation/Development 47.10 $18,840.00 

L120 Analysis/Strategy 13.90 $6,760.00 

L130 Experts/Consultants 1.20 $600.00 

L143 eDiscovery - Identification and Preservation 0.40 $200.00 

L200 Pre-Trial Pleadings and Motions 1.50 $750.00 

L310 Written Discovery 21.60 $10,010.00 

L330 Depositions 13.80 $5,920.00 

L650 Review 11.50 $2,760.00 

L670 Production 4.40 $770.00 

P1002 Project Administration 16.10 $9,870.50 

P240 Real and Personal Property 39.50 $15,551.00 

P300 Structure/Strategy/ Analysis 120.80 $76,727.09 

1 These Task Codes and Descriptions were used by Coblentz in conjunction with pre-petition 

time entries and invoices as required by Debtors prior to the filing of these Bankruptcy Cases, 

and Coblentz continues to use them in conjunction with post-petition time entries and invoices in 

these Special Counsel matters. In connection with additional services Coblentz now is required 

to perform in connection with these bankruptcy cases (e.g., in connection with Coblentz's 

retention application, monthly fee statements, fee applications, or the like), Coblentz further 

specifies the time and fees for any such additional services in footnote 2 below. 

2 This Task Code includes (a) 3.7 hours ($2,305.10 in fees) related to Coblentz's Seventh and 

Eighth Monthly Fee Statements, (b) 3.1 hours ($1,93 1.30 in fees) related to Coblentz's First 

Interim Fee Application, ( c) .5 hours ($311.50 in fees) related to Bankruptcy Court procedures re 

retention of expert witness in Special Counsel litigation matter, and ( d) 6.4 hours ($3,987.20 in 

fees) related to the Fee Examiner's Motion for Approval of Fee Protocols and limited joint 

opposition to same. 

48 I 0-3966-9932.1 Exhibit B 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4935-2 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 13:52:15 Page 2

of 3
TASK1 

CODE DESCRIPTION1 HOURS AMOUNT 

P400 Initial Document Preparation/Filing 20.70 $13,413.60 

P500 Negotiation/Revision/Responses 20.60 $13,322.00 

P600 Completion/Closing 18.50 $11,988.00 

P800 Maintenance and Renewal 2.20 $1 ,425.60 

Total: 403.60 $203,435.19 

48 10-3966-9932. I Exhibit B 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4935-2 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 13:52:15 Page 3

of 3
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                           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 SteelCloud, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas P. Dunne
Chief Executive 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 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.

Dated March 13, 2003

                                             By: /s/ Thomas P. Dunne
                                                 -------------------------------
                                             Name:  Thomas P. Dunne
                                             Title: Chief Executive Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5658 

To revise the definition of ‘‘manufactured home’’ under the Manufactured 

Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 to clarify the 

exclusion of certain recreational vehicles, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Mr. STUTZMAN (for himself, Mrs. WALORSKI, and Mr. DUFFY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To revise the definition of ‘‘manufactured home’’ under the 

Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 to clarify the exclusion of certain 

recreational vehicles, 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 ‘‘Recreational Vehicle 

5 Certainty Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ‘‘MANUFACTURED HOME’’. 

7 Paragraph (6) of section 603 of the Manufactured 

8 Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5658 IH

1 (42 U.S.C. 5402(6)) is amended by striking ‘‘self-pro2 pelled recreational vehicle’’ and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘recreational vehicle that is designed as temporary living 

4 quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use 

5 and built in compliance with consensus standards for such 

6 products, including (A) a self-propelled motorhome or rec7 reational vehicle trailer that is towed by another vehicle 

8 without a special highway use permit and is regulated by 

9 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as a 

10 vehicle, and (B) a park model recreational vehicle that has 

11 a gross area of not greater than 400 square feet based 

12 on the exterior dimensions of the unit measured at the 

13 largest horizontal projections in the setup mode, excluding 

14 any loft area having less than 5 feet in ceiling height, roof 

15 overhangs, and exterior porch or deck area’’. 

16 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

17 Not later than the expiration of the 90-day period 

18 beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

19 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall issue 

20 such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the 

21 amendments made by section 2. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Caroline Spicer, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Thomas B. Myres, sheriff, defendant in error.

(Montgomery, Justice, was providentially prevented from presiding in this case.)

1. The 7th section of the Relief Act of 1868 does not excuse the sheriff from making a levy, but authorizes the defendant to file an affidavit after the levy has been made, and then directs that the sheriff shall suspend the sale and return the papers to the Court. (R.)

2. The sheriff having failed to discharge his duty in not levying upon the property of the defendant, as he was instructed to do, the rule should have been made absolute against him for the amount'of the execution, provided the land was worth that much, and if not, then for the value of the land. (R.) i

Rule against sheriff. Relief Act of 1868. Before Judge Clark. Schley Superior Court. November Term, 1872.

Eor the facts of this case, see the decision.

W. A. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a rule against the sheriff of Schley county, calling upon him to show, cause why he should not pay to the plaintiff the amount of an execution placed in his hands for collection against the defendant. The sheriff admits in his answer to the rule, that in December, 1868, the execution was placed in his hands with instructions to levy the same on a plantation known as the Edward’s place, as the property of the defendant; that the reason he did not levy the *fi. fa.*on the property, was because the defendant presented to him an affidavit, dated 27th February, 1869, in which he stated that he wished to take the benefit of the Act of 1868, for the relief of debtors, and that he returned the *fi. fa.*to the Court from whence it issued without making ány levy on the defendant’s property. Upon this showing of the sheriff, the Court discharged the rule, and the plaintiff excepted. The 7th section of the Act *560of 1868, did not excuse the sheriff from making a levy on the land as he was instructed to do, and as it was his duty to have done; that section of the Act only authorizes the defendant to file an affidavit after the levy has been made, and then the sheriff shall receive the defendant’s affidavit, suspend the sale, and return the papers to the Court. The levying the execution on the defendant’s property is the foundation for the subsequent proceedings provided for by the Act. By failing to make the levy, the property may now be in the possession of a *bona fide*purchaser from the defendant for a valuable consideration for four years, and thereby the plaintiff be injured by the loss of her debt. "Whereas, if the sheriff had levied the execution as it was his duty to have done, that state of things could not occur. The sheriff having failed to discharge his duty in not levying upon the property of the defendant as he was instructed to do, the rule should have been made absolute against him for the amount of *thefi. fa.}*provided the land was worth that amount, and if not, then for the value of the land.

Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46942

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ESPERANZA ELIDA ESPINOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: July 6, 2020

Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Christopher S. Nye, District Judge. 

Appeal, dismissed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Esperanza Elida Espinoza was found guilty of four counts of felony injury to children. 

Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The district court sentenced Espinoza to a unified term of eight years 

with three years determinate on each count. Judgment was entered on February 22, 2019, and 

Espinoza filed a notice of appeal on April 8, 2019, (forty-five days later). Espinoza is mindful of 

the fact that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Nevertheless, Espinoza appeals asserting 

that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences. 

Pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 21, failure to file a notice of appeal with the clerk of the 

district court within the time limits prescribed by the appellate rules deprives the appellate courts 

of jurisdiction over the appeal. Idaho Appellate Rule 14 provides, in part:
Any appeal . . . may be made only by physically filing a notice of appeal 

with the clerk of the district court within 42 days from the date evidenced by the 

filing stamp of the clerk of the court on any judgment, order, or decree of the 

district court appealable as a matter of right in any civil or criminal action.

Therefore, due to the untimely filing of Espinoza’s notice of appeal, this Court lacks 

jurisdiction and this appeal is hereby dismissed.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 1 of

20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 2 of

20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 3 of

20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 4 of

20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 5 of

20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 6 of

20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 7 of

20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 8 of

20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 9 of

20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 10

of 20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 11

of 20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 12

of 20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 13

of 20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 14

of 20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 15

of 20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 16

of 20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 17

of 20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 18

of 20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 19

of 20
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4497 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:39:03 Page 20

of 20
Exhibit 32.1



Certifications



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 17, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ ROBERT VOR BROKER                
|                   |  |     |  | Robert Vor Broker                    
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
NO. 07-07-0394-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 19, 2007

	______________________________

	BRANDON ZAVALA, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. A 13799-0008; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	On August 27, 2007, the trial court convicted appellant Brandon Zavala of possession of marijuana, more than four ounces but less than one pound, and sentenced him to two years confinement in a state jail.  See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121 (a),(b)(3) (Vernon 2003).  On September 20, 2007, appellant filed a motion for new trial and notice of appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a), 26.2(a)(2).  The clerk of the trial court has provided us with documentation that on October 11, 2007, the trial court granted appellant’s motion for new trial.  

	If the trial court grants a new trial, it restores the case to its position before the former trial.  See Tex. R. App. P. 21.9.  Because there is no longer an adjudicated issue for appellate review, we have no jurisdiction over the case except to dismiss the appeal.  See Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 643-44 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1996, no pet.). 

	Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

						James T. Campbell

						         Justice

Do not publish.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13188]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12151 and <greek-i>12152]


North Dakota Disaster Number ND-00022

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Dakota 
(FEMA-1907-DR), dated 04/30/2010.
    Incident: Flooding.
    Incident Period: 02/26/2010 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 05/22/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/29/2010.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/31/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of North 
Dakota, dated 04/30/2010, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Eddy, Mcintosh.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-13188 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Thomas Richardson, Appellant, v. Richard English and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent. Opinion by

Hardin. P. J.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00018-CV

EX PARTE TODD WARREN ALTSCHUL

From the 74th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2402-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Todd Warren Altschul attempts to appeal the trial court's decision to deny Altschul's 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. In a letter dated January 27, 2021, the Clerk of this Court 

notified Altschul that the appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared no final, appealable 

order or judgment had been signed by the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; 42.3; 44.3. In the 

same letter, Altschul was warned that the Court would dismiss this appeal unless, within 14 days 

from the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. 

Altschul filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to Altschul filing a new notice of 

appeal when a written order is signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Ex Parte Altschul Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Neill, and

Justice Scoggins1

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered March 3, 2021

[CV06]

1 The Honorable Al Scoggins, Senior Justice of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice 

of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
December 15, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DANTE TERRELL WILLIAMS, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00139-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
#### Alexander Buchanan, Appellant, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburgh Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman. J.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62892-62893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29811]



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

[[Page 62893]]


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Collection of Information Submitted for OMB Review

    In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on 
proposed data collection projects, the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request 
more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the 
data collection plans and instruments, call Herman Fleming NSF 
Clearance Officer of (703) 306-1243.
    Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
propose collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information on respondents, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    Send Comments to Herman Fleming, Clearance Officer, National 
Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 485, Arlington, VA 
22230. Written comments should be received by December 20, 1995.
    Proposed Project: Fastlane Baseline Data Collection.
    Abstract: Information will be collected from faculty and 
administration at 21 colleges and universities. The purpose of the data 
collection is to establish baseline measures of applicant burden and 
customer perceptions about the NSF and Federal grant application 
process. The baseline measures will be used in future years to measures 
the effect of Fastland (NSF's electronic proposal preparation system) 
and will provide customer input to the system design. The data will 
also be used by NIH and the Department of Energy for similar purposes.
    Respondents/Burden hours: 320 respondents (16 individuals at 20 
institutions) will be interviewed for about one-hour each.

    Dated: November 30, 1995.
Herman G. Fleming,
NSF Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-29811 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M