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

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation (the “Company”),I, Mark A. Wendel, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(a)           the Form 10-Q fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)           the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial conditionand results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for,the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Date:  August 7, 2009 | /s/  Mark A. Wendel                                       |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Mark  A. Wendel                                           |
| ** **                 | **Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer** |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1405

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff/Counter Defendant – Appellee,

v.

B. DIANE TAMARIZ-WALLACE,

Defendant/Counter Claimant – Appellant,

and

DIANE TAMARIZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A.; MORAN INSURANCE SERVICES, 

INC.; GEORGE T. MORAN, INC.; C. DAVID WALLACE,

Defendants,

and

NATIONWIDE BANK; CORRIGAN INSURANCE, INC.; WILLIAM P. 

CORRIGAN, JR.; C.W. HAYES, III; CHARLENE E. HARDEE; SAMUEL 

BRADSHAW, IV; JOHN PAUL PURSSORD,

Counter Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-00667-JFM)

Submitted: January 27, 2017 Decided: February 16, 2017

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew S. Grimsley, CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA, 

Cleveland, Ohio; John Singleton, SINGLETON LAW GROUP, PA, 

Lutherville, Maryland, for Appellant. Quintin F. Lindsmith, 

James P. Schuck, BRICKER & ECKLER, LLP, Columbus, Ohio; Patricia 

McHugh Lambert, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

B. Diane Tamariz-Wallace appeals from the district court’s 

order denying her motion to reopen the lawsuit between her and 

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., which was administratively 

closed after Tamariz-Wallace filed her petition for relief in 

bankruptcy. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record 

on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s order. See Providence Hall Assoc. Ltd. 

P’ship v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 816 F.3d 273 (4th Cir. 2016). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5161 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 with respect 

to prohibited uses of funds under such Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 4, 2023 

Ms. TENNEY (for herself, Mr. BANKS, Mr. FULCHER, and Mr. BABIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 with respect to prohibited uses of funds under 

such Act, 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 ‘‘Protecting Hunting 

5 and Archery in Schools Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. 

7 Section 8526 of the Elementary and Secondary Edu8 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7906) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5161 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (5), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘; or’’ at the 

4 end and inserting a period; and 

5 (3) by striking paragraph (7). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
CONFORMED COPY Exhibit 13.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)     Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of SBS Broadcasting S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such
officers knowledge, that:  The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Form
20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.   Date:
May 14, 2004  /s/ Juergen von SchwerinJuergen von SchwerinChief Financial Officer    The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
20-F or as a separate disclosure document.  A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to SBS Broadcasting S.A. and will be retained by
SBS Broadcasting S.A. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8406]



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



FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Gerauld Blaylock, et al.; Change in Bank Control Notices; 
Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than April 19, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Robert M. Brady, Vice President) 
600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02106:
    1. Gerauld, Donna, William, and Margaret Hopkins, and Amy (Hopkins) 
Blaylock, Downers Grove, Illinois; to acquire an additional 22.39 
percent (for a total of 24.96 percent) of the voting shares of Finest 
Financial Corporation, Pelham, New Hampshire, and thereby indirectly 
acquire Pelham Bank and Trust, Pelham, New Hampshire.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Hope Harris Johnson, Slocomb, Alabama; to acquire 62.9 percent 
of the voting shares of Wiregrass Bancorporation, Inc., Ashford, 
Alabama, and thereby indirectly acquire Barbour County Bank, Eufaula, 
Alabama.
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice 
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198:
    1. Douglas L. and Rebecca McClure, Colorado Springs, Colorado; to 
acquire an additional 4.66 percent (for a total of 25.23 percent) of 
the voting shares of First Flo Corporation, Florence, Colorado, and 
thereby indirectly acquire Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust, Florence, 
Colorado.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 31, 
1995.
Barbara R. Lowrey,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-8406 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 23.1




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of American Bio Medica Corporation (the "Company") on Form S-3 [File No.
333-70220], Form S-3 (File No. 333-16535), Form S-8 (File No. 333-91025)
and Form S-8 (File No. 333-19203) of our report dated June 20, 2001 (with
respect to Note B and Note L[5], July 23, 2001 and the last paragraph of
Note J[3], July 18, 2001) on our audits of the financial statements of the
Company as of April 30, 2001 and for each of the years in the two year
period then ended which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB/A-1.

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company
has experienced recurring net losses and negative cash flows from
operations that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a
going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that
might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.





Richard E. Eisner & Company, LLP




New York, New York





December 18, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8715]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CDC Advisory Committee on the Prevention of HIV Infection: 
Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announced the following committee meeting.

    Name: CDC Advisory Committee on the Prevention of HIV Infection.
    Times and Dates: 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m., May 8, 1995; 9 a.m.-12 noon, 
May 9, 1995.
    Place: Sheraton Colony Square Hotel, 188 14th Street, NE, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30061.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    Purpose: This committee charged with advising the Director, CDC, 
regarding objectives, strategies, and priorities for HIV prevention 
efforts including maintaining surveillance of HIV infection and 
AIDS, the epidemiologic and laboratory study of HIV and AIDS, 
information/education and risk reduction activities designed to 
prevent the spread of HIV infection, and other preventive measures 
that become available.
    Matters to Be Discussed: The Committee will be updated on the 
ongoing reorganization of CDC's HIV/AIDS prevention programs. Other 
discussions will center around current HIV prevention activities. 
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Connie Granoff, Committee 
Assistant, Office of the Associate Director for HIV/AIDS, CDC, 1600 
Clifton Road, NE, Mailstop E-40, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 
(404) 639-2918.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 95-8715 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-M
#### In the Matter of M.R.

No. D-3583.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 16, 1993.

Rehearing Overruled Aug. 26, 1993.

Tim Curry, Lynn Allison, Charles M. Mal-lín, Betty Marshall, Fort Worth, for appellant.

*366Timothy A. Menikos, Arlington, Richard Lee Griffin, Fort Worth, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The issue here is the applicability of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to juvenile delinquency proceedings. The court of appeals concluded that juvenile proceedings are governed only *as far as practicable*by the rules of civil procedure. 846 S.W.2d 97 at 100. The court of appeals wrote that, because of the quasi-criminal nature of juvenile delinquency proceedings, the better practice would be to address factual sufficiency and juror misconduct complaints of juveniles despite their failure to file a motion for new trial. 846 S.W.2d at 101. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment adjudicating the juvenile a delinquent because the evidence was factually sufficient under the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. Since the discussion of whether the Rules of Civil Procedure applied was unnecessary to its judgment, we deny both applications for writ of error in this case.

Before 1973 we held that juvenile proceedings were governed “as far as practicable” by the rules of civil procedure. *Brenan v. Court of Civil Appeals, Fourteenth Dist.,*444 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Tex.1968). In 1973, with the enactment of Title 3 of the Texas Family Code, however, the legislature replaced the “as far as practicable” limitation with the provision that “Except when in conflict with a provision of this title, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure govern proceedings under [Title 3].” Tex.Fam.Code § 51.17. Nothing in Title 3 conflicts with the Rules of Civil Procedure requirement of motions for new trial as a prerequisite to assert evidentiary and procedural errors, including factual sufficiency and juror misconduct challenges. Tex. R.Civ.P. 324(b). We disapprove the court of appeals’ holding that juveniles appealing delinquency judgments are exempt from this procedural requirement.

The court of appeals relied upon *Bonham v. State,*680 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), cer*t. denied,*474 U.S. 865, 106 S.Ct. 184, 88 L.Ed.2d 153 (1985) (factual sufficiency standard in adult criminal cases) in addressing the factual sufficiency challenge, and relied upon Tex.R.App.P. 30(a) (no motion for new trial required to preserve error in adult criminal cases) in addressing the juror misconduct challenge in this juvenile delinquency case. Relying on adult criminal cases and criminal procedure rules appears to conflict at least to some extent with the express Family Code provision that the Rules of Civil Procedure apply. We neither approve nor disapprove the court of appeals language regarding the factual sufficiency and juror misconduct challenges. The error, if any, did not affect the disposition of the case, and granting writ to affirm the judgment is not necessary. Tex.R.App.P. 81.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ALAN MICHAEL FELT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-1003

June 14, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Lee E. Haworth, 

Senior Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, C.J., and VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

__________________________
2

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2475

Titan Flow Control: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5580

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit. No. 95-2776 Non-Argument Calendar.TAMPA BAY INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS, INC., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee,

v. TAMPA MARITIME ASSOCIATION—INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'SASSOCIATION PENSION PLAN AND TRUST, Defendant-Counter-claimantAppellant. Jan. 23, 1996. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. (No. 93-1060-CIV-T-23B), Steven D. Merryday, Judge. Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM: Tampa Maritime Association-International Longshoremen's Association Pension Plan and Trust ("Appel lant") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Tampa Bay International Terminals ("Appellee"). Appellant asserted in a letter to Appellee, dated May 28, 1993, that Appellee was an employer subject to withdrawal liability under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1461 (West 1985 & Supp.1995), and demanded payment of such withdrawal liability. Appellee filed an action seeking declaratory judgment that it was not subject to withdrawal liability on grounds that it was not an "employer" within the meaning of ERISA as amended by the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act ("MPPAA"), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381-1453 (West 1985 &Supp.1995). Appellant answered and counterclaimed to collect Appellee's alleged withdrawal liability. Both sides moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee. This appeal presents a straightforward question of law: whether Appellee is an "employer" for purposes of ERISA, as amended by the MPPAA, even though Appellee is not contractually obligated to contribute to Appellant. Appellant argues essentially that because Appellee bears some of the hallmarks of a common law "employer," Appellee should be considered an "employer" under the MPPAA. The definition of "employer," however, is a matter of federal law. See Carriers Containers Council v. Mobile S.S. Ass'n, 896 F.2d 1330, 1343 (11th Cir.1990). In Carriers Containers, this Court adopted the "contributing obligor" test for determining whether an entity is an "employer" under the MPPAA. A "contributing obligor" is one who is "obligated to contribute to a plan for the benefit of a plan's participants." Id. We are persuaded by the Eighth Circuit's application of the "contributing obligor" test under circumstances nearly identical to this case. See Seaway Port Authority of Duluth v. Duluth-Superior ILA Marine Ass'n Restated Pension Plan, 920 F.2d 503 (8th Cir.1990). In Seaway, the Eighth Circuit held that a party must be contractually bound to make pension contributions in order to be an "employer" under MPPAA. Id. at 509. We believe that this is the best reading of Carriers Containers and is consistent with the treatment that other Circuits have given to withdrawal liabilityunder ERISA as amended by MPPAA. Accordingly, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kelly M. HARPER, Appellant.

No. WD 50235.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 26, 1995.

Gerald M. Handley, Kansas City, for appellant.

Philip Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kelly M. Harper appeals convictions of two counts of assault in the second degree and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident. We affirm. Finding no jurisprudential value to publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rule 30.25(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3877

Yaesu USA Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn