alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, JeffreyCrystal, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Intertape Polymer Group Inc.; 

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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. TheCompany’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)] and internal control over financial reporting [as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)] for the Company and have: 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b. Designed such internal control over financingreporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

d. Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theperiod covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 31, 2016
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Certification of the Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Michael A. Pecchia, Chief Financial Officer of Rainbow Rentals, Inc. (the
Company) certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 of the
Company (the Report):

(1)  The Report fully complies 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 operations of the
Company.

|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael A. Pecchia                                          
|                                                                
|Michael A. Pecchia
Rainbow Rentals, Inc.
Chief Financial Officer
|                                                                
|May 14, 2003                                                    

18
EXHIBIT 32.1          

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION                  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 QuarterlyReport of Online Vacation Center Holdings Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September30, 2009as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward B. Rudner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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. |
|--|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date: November13, 2009                  

/s/ Edward B. Rudner

Edward B. Rudner        Chief Executive Officer
#### S. T. HOOKER v. J. B. HARDEE and LEON T. HARDEE.

(Filed 29 September, 1926.)

Bills and Notes — Negotiable Instruments — Fraud—Burden of Proof.

Where the holder of a note alleges he is the holder in due course, and there is allegation in reply with evidence that he acquired with knowledge of payee’s fraud, the burden is on the holder in his action on the note to show he was an innocent purchaser for value. C. S., 3033, 3036, 3038, 3040.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Nunn, J.,*at April Term, 1926, of Pitt. No error.

Action upon note executed by defendants, payable to order of the Atlantic Coast Realty Company. Plaintiff alleges that he is the holder in due course of said note. This allegation is denied in the answer of defendants, who further allege that the execution of said note was procured by the fraud of payee, and that plaintiff had full knowledge of such fraud at the time he acquired said note. The jury having found that defendants are not indebted to plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint, judgment was rendered that plaintiff take nothing by his action. From this judgment plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*J. 0-. Lanier for plaintiff.*

*F. G. James & Son for defendants.*

Peb Cueiam.

There was evidence, offered by defendants tending to show that the title of payee, by whom plaintiff alleged the note was negotiated to him, was defective, in that its execution was procured by -the fraud of said payee, C. S., 3036; plaintiff contended that such defense was not available as against him, for that he is a holder of said note in due course. The presumption, by virtue of O. S., 3040, that plaintiff, as holder of said note was a holder in due course, and therefore held the note free from any defect in the title of the payee, C. S., 3038, did not apply, upon the finding by the jury, from the evidence, that the title of payee was ■ defective as alleged by defendants. The burden was upon plaintiff to prove that he acquired title as a holder in *230due course, C. S., 3040. He was therefore required to prove that he took the note, by indorsement, of the payee, upon the conditions set out in C. S., 3033. See citations under respective sections of Consolidated Statutes.

His Honor so instructed the jury. Assignments of error based upon exceptions to the charge cannot be sustained.

We have examined the exceptions to the admission of evidence tending to show the circumstances under which the note was executed by defendants and transferred to plaintiff. This evidence was competent to sustain 'defendants’ allegations that the execution of the note was procured by fraud of the payee, and that plaintiff took the note with full knowledge of such circumstances. The exceptions cannot be sustained. Judgment affirmed. There is

No error.
TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky

2019-SC-0677-KB

ERIC SHANE GRINNELL MOVANT

V. IN SUPREME COURT

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT

ORDER 

Upon motion to show cause and without good cause shown, it is hereby 

ordered that Eric Shane Grinnell committed two violations of the conditions of 

his probation. Therefore, we extend Grinnell’s suspension until July of 2022, 

according to the terms of his original suspension and probation.

All sitting. All concur.

ENTERED: January 20, 2022.

_______________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE MINTON
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350  as Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002

I, Christopher R. Gardner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.

January 28,
2009

By:

/s/ CHRISTOPHER R. GARDNER Christopher R. Gardner Chief Executive Officer


I,
Richard C. Yonker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Vitesse
Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse
Semiconductor Corporation.

January 28,
2009

By:

/s/ RICHARD C. YONKER Richard C. Yonker Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation and will be retained by Vitesse Semiconductor
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 -0.21 -0.24 -6% -6%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: B5.8. Beginning in 2028, create a Basic Minimum Benefit (BMB) within Social 

Security (i.e., the cost of the BMB would be charged as a cost to the OASI Trust Fund), with the following 

specifications: (1) Eligibility for the BMB would be limited to OASI beneficiaries who have attained normal 

retirement age (NRA) or above. OASI beneficiaries under NRA would not be eligible for the BMB. (2) The 

BMB would be calculated on a household basis and split equally between members of the household. In 

the case of a married couple, both spouses would need to claim any Social Security benefits for which 

they are eligible before they could receive the BMB. If both spouses have claimed and one is NRA or 

above and the other has not yet attained NRA, only the half of the BMB for the spouse over NRA would 

be payable. (3) The BMB amount for single beneficiaries would be equal to either: 1) the BMB base 

($604 in 2015) - 0.70 * current monthly OASI benefit (not including any BMB), if positive; or 2) zero. (4) 

The BMB amount for married beneficiaries would be equal to either: 1) the BMB base ($906 in 2015) - 

0.70 * total household monthly OASI benefits (not including any BMB), if positive; or 2) zero. (5) The BMB 

bases for singles and couples would be updated annually for changes in the average wage index (AWI). 

(6) Single filers with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) over $30,000 and joint filers with AGI (including 

taxable SS benefits) over $45,000 would be subject to clawback of the BMB through the income tax 

system. Any BMB would be reduced by one dollar for every dollar of income above the thresholds. 

(Thresholds, in 2015 dollars, would be indexed to chained CPI-U.) Clawbacks would be credited back to 

the OASI Trust Fund.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 06/06-0347]

Notice is hereby given that Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P., 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 2230, Austin, TX 78701, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR part 107). Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P. proposes to provide debt financing to Everspring, Inc., 1007 Church Street, Suite 420, Evanston, IL 60201. UTIMCO, an Associate of Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P., holds an indirect ownership interest in Everspring, Inc. of greater than 10 percent. Therefore, Everspring, Inc. is an Associate of Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P.

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a) of the Regulations because Everspring, Inc. is an Associate of Escalate Capital Partners SBIC III, L.P. Therefore this transaction requires a prior SBA exemption.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Mark L. Walsh,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2016-01412 Filed 1-22-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATEOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18United States Code**

The undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officerof Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”), hereby certifies thatthe Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2005, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuantto Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that informationcontained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retainedby the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

Date: February 22,2006
| /s/ DAN  C. TUTCHER                                  |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dan C. Tutcher  President and Principal Executive Officer |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,708
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  106,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     33,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,723
<PP&E>                                         219,859
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,892
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 675,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,579
<BONDS>                                        312,012
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    208,251
<COMMON>                                         6,196
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   675,678
<SALES>                                        330,604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               330,604
<CGS>                                          258,074
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  258,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (284)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,510
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Momolu B. Stewart, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED AUG - 5**;r'~1** Clerk, U.S. District &bankruptcy Cour1Sforthe District of Columbia v. ) ) ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil ActionNo. 

# 10 1313

Ass't

# u.s. Attorney Albert A. Herring 

### et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court onreview ofplaintiffs

### pro se complaint and application to proceed 

### informapauperis. The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1915A. Under that statute, the Court is required to screen a prisoner's complaint and dismiss it if, among other grounds, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted. Plaintiffis a District ofColumbiaprisoner at the Federal Correctional Center in Coleman, Florida. He sues the assistant United States attorney who prosecuted him and a Metropolitan Police Department crime scene investigator for allegedly conspiring to lie during his criminal trial about "akey piece ofevidence - a bullet." CompI. at 5. Plaintiffseeks declaratory relief and monetary damages totaling $400 million. Because by his own acknowledgment plaintiffs success on the merits ofthe complaint would necessarily invalidate his conviction, he cannot recover monetary damages without first establishing that the conviction has been invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal,

### expunge[ ment] by executive order, declar[ation ofinvalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... a federal court's issuance ofa writ ofhabeas corpus." Heck 

### v. Humphrey, 

### 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Plaintiffhas made no such showing here. In addition, "it is well-settled that a [person] seeking relieffrom his conviction or sentence may not bring []

an action" for injunctive and declaratory reliefbecause he has an available remedy in habeas. Williams 

### v. Hill, 

### 74 F.3d 1339,1340 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing Preiser 

### v. Rodriguez, 

### 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Chatman-Bey 

### v. Thornburgh, 

### 864 F.2d 804, 808-10 (D.C. Cir. 1988»; see LoBue 

### v. Christopher, 

### 82 F.3d 1081, 1082-84 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratoryjudgment action where habeas corpus 

### remedy was available in the location ofplaintiffs custodian). Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed. See Stewart 

### v. Assistant UnitedStatesAttorney, 

### Civil Action No.10-1014 (D.D.C., June 17,2010) (dismissing under Heck). 

### A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

# Dat~-F-- __ ' 2010

2