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



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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great
Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Company) for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael L. Tuinstra, Treasurer (Principal Accounting and Financial
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 1034, 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.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                                                       
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: March 22, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael L. Tuinstra
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                         | 
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Michael L. Tuinstra                                   
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Treasurer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Samsonite Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on 
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-05467, 333-19281, 333-20775, 333-28663, 333-52185 and 
333-53935) of Samsonite Corporation of our report dated March 22, 1999, except 
as to notes 15 and 19, which are as of April 9, 1999, relating to the 
consolidated balance sheets of Samsonite Corporation and subsidiaries as of 
January 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of 
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended January 31, 1999, and the related financial
statement schedule, which report appears in the January 31, 1999 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Samsonite Corporation.



                                              KPMG LLP  

Denver, Colorado
April 16, 1999
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4108

To authorize the sale of excess Department of Defense aircraft to facilitate

the suppression of wildfire.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 18, 1996

Mr. RICHARDSON (for himself, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. CRAPO, and Ms. FURSE), introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committees on

Agriculture, and National Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To authorize the sale of excess Department of Defense

aircraft to facilitate the suppression of wildfire.

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 ‘‘Wildfire Suppression

5 Aircraft Transfer Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 4108 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO SELL AIRCRAFT AND PARTS FOR

2 WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION PURPOSES.

3 (a) AUTHORITY.—(1) Notwithstanding section 202 of

4 the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of

5 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483) and subject to subsections (b) and

6 (c), the Secretary of Defense may sell the aircraft and air7 craft parts referred to in paragraph (2) to persons or enti8 ties that contract with the Federal Government for the

9 delivery of fire retardant by air in order to suppress wild10 fire.

11 (2) Paragraph (1) applies to aircraft and aircraft

12 parts of the Department of Defense that are—

13 (A) excess to the Department; and

14 (B) acceptable for commercial sale.

15 (b) CONDITION OF SALE.—Aircraft and aircraft

16 parts sold under subsection (a) may be used only for the

17 provision of airtanker services for wildfire suppression

18 purposes.

19 (c) CERTIFICATION OF PERSONS AND ENTITIES.—

20 The Secretary of Defense may sell aircraft and aircraft

21 parts to a person or entity under subsection (a) only if

22 the Secretary of Agriculture certifies to the Secretary of

23 Defense, in writing, before the sale that the person or en24 tity is capable of meeting the terms and conditions of a

25 contract to deliver fire retardant by air.
3

•HR 4108 IH

1 (d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The

2 Secretary of Defense may require such terms and condi3 tions in connection with each sale of aircraft and aircraft

4 parts under this section as the Secretary considers appro5 priate for such sale. Such terms and conditions shall meet

6 the requirements of regulations prescribed by the Sec7 retary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture,

8 the Administrator of General Services, and the heads of

9 such other agencies as the Secretary of Defense considers

10 appropriate. The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such

11 regulations as soon as practicable after the date of the

12 enactment of this Act.

13 (e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section may be

14 construed as affecting the authority of the Administrator

15 of the Federal Aviation Administration under any other

16 provision of law.

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00595

- CV

Lester Timothy BEATTY

, Appel lant

v.

THE PALMS APARTMENTS

,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CV04587 Honorable Tommy Stolhandske, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief in this appeal was due November 28, 2018. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed. We ORDER appellant to file, by December 17, 2018

, the appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining appellant’s failure to timely file the brief. If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we may dismiss this appe al.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 150 (Monday, August 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45266-45267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17771]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11338 and <greek-i>11339]


Ohio Disaster <greek-i>OH-00014

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Ohio dated 07/23/2008.
    Incident: Apartment Building Fire.
    Incident Period: 07/05/2008.

[[Page 45267]]


EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/23/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/22/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/23/2009.

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: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Lucas.
Contiguous Counties:

    Ohio: Fulton, Henry, Ottawa, Wood.
    Michigan: Lenawee, Monroe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interest Rates are:
Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere...................      5.375
Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere................      2.687
Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere...................      8.000
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11338 5 
and for economic injury is 11339 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are Ohio, 
Michigan.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    July 23, 2008.
Jovita Carranza,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-17771 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN SEARLE, #645865,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-13369

v. HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

LLOYD RAPELJE,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BUT

GRANTING HIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Michigan prisoner John Searle (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the validity of his state court sentence. This Court denied

relief on his claims and denied a certificate of appealability. This matter is before the Court on

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the certificate of appealability denial, as well as his

application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

The Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision denying a certificate of appealability.

A motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly

or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D.

Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

Petitioner has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled

or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as

required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for

2:09-cv-13369-LPZ-CEB Doc # 24 Filed 10/26/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 410
-2-

reconsideration.

A party to a district court action who seeks to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must file

a motion in the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). An appeal may not be taken in forma

pauperis if the court determines that it cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);

see also Foster v. Ludwick, 208 F. Supp. 2d 750, 764-65 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (recognizing that the

standard for granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is lower than that for granting

a certificate of appealability). Although the Court has declined to issue a certificate of appealability

in this case, it nonetheless finds that an appeal can be taken in good faith. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 26, 2011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on October 26, 2011.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-13369-LPZ-CEB Doc # 24 Filed 10/26/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 411
exhibit_4-6.htm










Exhibit 4.6


 


July 15, 2013







Mr. Gil Picovsky, Managing Partner


Cukierman & Co. Investment House Ltd.


3 Daniel Frish St., Tel Aviv 64731, Israel







Re: B.O.S Better Online Solutions Ltd. Services Agreement


 


Dear Sir:







Reference is made to that Services Agreement dated as of April 15, 2003, as supplemented in August 22, 2004 and May 24, 2010, and as amended January 13, 2013 (the "January Amendment"), by and among B.O.S. Better Online Solutions Ltd., BOS-Dimex Ltd. (previously BOScom Ltd.) (together, the “Company”) and Cukierman & Co. Investment House Ltd. (“CIH”) (the “Agreement”). Any term not specifically defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Agreement.







The Agreement provides for a monthly retainer fee (the “Retainer”) of $6,350plus VAT as payment for the Services (in addition to per-transaction success fees). In accordance with the January Amendment, payment of the Retainer is currently made by way of equity (i.e., issuance to CIH of Company’s ordinary shares) instead of in cash, once a year, at the end of each calendar year.


 


Following a request by CIH, the Company and CIH have agreed to change the timing of the payment of the Retainer to CIH, so that payment will be made once a quarter at the end of each quarter, instead of at the end of each calendar year. There is no change to the amount of the Retainer. The price per share used for the share consideration calculation will be equal to the weighted average closing price of the Ordinary Shares on the applicable stock market on the 20 trading days ending on the last day of the applicable quarter.







This arrangement shall come into effect for Retainer payments due in respect of January 2013 onwards.


 


We wish to thank you for your continued services and support of the Company.


 



	 	

Sincerely,







Eyal Cohen, CFO







 


Accepted and Agreed:


Cukierman & Co Investment House Ltd.







By: ________________


Name:  Gil Picovsky


Title:    Managing Partner
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-CV-12776

v.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

MICAH S. BRADFORD,

Defendant,

and

ALLEGIS GROUP SERVICES, INC.,

Garnishee.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

On July 14, 2009, plaintiff filed this action seeking to recover student loan debt

allegedly owed by defendant. On January 22, 2010, a clerk’s entry of judgment by

default was entered in the amount of $6,742.03. On December 14, 2011, plaintiff

served a writ of garnishment upon Allegis Group Services, Inc. On December 23, 2011,

defendant filed a request for a hearing about the garnishment. In his request, defendant

states he is a single parent and is unable to meet his monthly financial obligations. He

requests a payment plan for the debt. On December 30, 2011, plaintiff filed a response

to defendant’s request for hearing. In its response, plaintiff “welcomes the opportunity

to discuss this matter with Defendant, and invites Defendant to contact its attorneys to

discuss reasonable payment arrangements on this debt.” Plaintiff also states a hearing

on this matter would be a waste of judicial time and resources since defendant has

2:09-cv-12776-GCS-PJK Doc # 34 Filed 01/09/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 113
offered no valid exemption or defense to the garnishment. On January 5, 2012,

defendant filed a letter with the court indicating that he does not reside at 2209 Norfolk

in Rochester Hills, but that his sister resides at that address. The court orders

defendant to provide the court and plaintiff with his new address. The court also orders

the parties to discuss a payment plan within 45 days of the date of this order and to

report the results of that conference to this court by March 15, 2012. At that time, the

court will determine whether a hearing is necessary on the garnishment issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 9, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys/parties of record on January 9, 2012 by electronic

and/or ordinary mail, and upon Micah Bradford at 2209 Norfolk #201, Rochester Hills, MI, 48309.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-12776-GCS-PJK Doc # 34 Filed 01/09/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 114
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin ROBERTS, Appellant.

No. 68218.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

July 9, 1996.

Gary E. Brotherton, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1994, one count of stealing from a person, § 570.030, RSMo 1994, and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of twenty-five years. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00587-CR

Donald Chimaobi Okoro

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

369th District Court of Leon County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-0203CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 23, 2020
*Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________

No. 98-10158

______________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

(3:97-CV-986-R)

_________________________________________

April 20, 1999

Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having reviewed the briefs and the record, and concluding that there was a sufficient

basis for requesting the subpoena at issue, the challenged orders of the district court are

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, I, the undersigned Elliott J. Broderick, the
Chief Financial Officer of Malan Realty Investors, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Elliott J. Broderick
--------------------------
Elliott J. Broderick
March 27, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          45,630
<SECURITIES>                                    56,721
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                       270
<INVENTORY>                                      8,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,284
<PP&E>                                          23,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,817
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                     193,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,328
<SALES>                                         48,008
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,008
<CGS>                                           20,663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,704
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,469
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,601
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,868
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,868
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of GROSSE POINTE YACHT CLUB, a Michigan Corporation, Debtor; Union Guardian Trust Company, a Michigan Corporation, Appellant, John D. Lynch, Permanent Trustee, Appellee.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 15, 1938.

Shaeffer & Dahling, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Lucking, Van Auken & Sprague, of Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon reading and filing the stipulation by and between Union Guardian Trust Company, mortgage trustee, by its attorneys, Shaeffer & Dahling, and John D. Lynch, permanent trustee, by his attorneys, Lucking, Van Auken & Sprague, and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is ordered that the appeal heretofore allowed in these proceedings be and the same hereby is dismissed, without costs.

It is further ordered that the stay of proceedings heretofore issued out of and under the seal of this court be and the same hereby is dissolved.

It is further ordered that the bond of the appellant heretofore filed herein be and the same hereby is cancelled and discharged.

Appeal dismissed.