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

| A.   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| B.   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Bank. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                March 29, 2007 | By:    |                                                                   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   |                                                                   |
|                                |   | /s/                R. Scott Horner                                     |
|                                |   | R.                Scott Horner, Chief Financial                Officer |

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029387
<NAME> JENNIFER LOOMIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,186
<INVENTORY>                                     68,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,105
<PP&E>                                          87,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 351,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,519
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   351,654
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,842
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,496)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,781)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,781)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
     (THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOW AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>          0000077231
<NAME>         PENNSYLVANIA ENTERPRISES INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                       PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          269,606,000
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>        22,511,000
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>             51,241,000
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>           38,641,000
<OTHER-ASSETS>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     381,999,000
<COMMON>                           50,355,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>          26,888,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                49,543,000
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     126,786,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              560,000
<PREFERRED>                        15,864,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>               109,000,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                 1,050,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>          0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>     0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>      27,500,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>          80,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>        0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                   0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     101,159,000
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      381,999,000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          112,760,000
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>               3,463,000
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         99,192,000
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         102,655,000
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>            10,105,000
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                 935,000
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>     11,040,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>           5,250,000
<NET-INCOME>                       5,790,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>        642,000
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>      5,148,000
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>           5,901,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>          4,837,000
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>             33,318,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .52
        



</TABLE>
#### Eddie CABELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of TEXAS; Douglas Lowe, Criminal District Attorney, Anderson County, Texas; Janie Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Jus*316tice, Institutional Division; Heather Schitoskey, Correctional Officer, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division; Peterson, Warden, Correctional Officer; Maxine Barnette, District Clerk, Anderson County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-40279.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 31, 2003.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Eddie Cabello, Texas prisoner # 441345, appeals the district court’s order remanding his Texas state criminal prosecution to Texas state court. The district court remanded the action after determining that the allegations in Cabello’s removal petition did not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

Cabello argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1443 does not require allegations of racial discrimination. Cabello’s argument is contrary to *Johnson v. Mississippi*421 U.S. 213, 219, 95 S.Ct. 1591, 44 L.Ed.2d 121 (1975), in which the Supreme Court emphasized that “[cjlaims that prosecution and conviction will violate rights under constitutional or statutory provisions of general applicability or under statutes not protecting against racial discrimination will not suffice.” To accomplish removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443, Cabello must demonstrate that his claims involve the denial of rights that arise under a federal law providing specific rights stated in terms of racial equality and that he has been denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the state courts due to some formal expression of state law. *State of Texas v. Gulf Water Benefaction Co.,*679 F.2d 85, 86 (5th Cir.1982) citing *Johnson,*421 U.S. at 219. Cabello concedes that his claims do not involve racial discrimination and he has therefore not made the required showing.

Cabello also seeks appointment of counsel and requests that his attorney be granted leave to file a supplemental brief. Cabello does not assert that exceptional *317circumstances exist to warrant the appointment of counsel. *See Ulmer v. Chancellor,*691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir.1982).

The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED; Motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 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 circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR5 Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement ofa  material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann                                                                        |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  ThomasG. Lehmann                                                                 |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001027574
<NAME> OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                       996
<INVENTORY>                                     48,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,168
<PP&E>                                          89,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 348,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   348,816
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,126
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,829)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,279)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0)
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
EX-10.18.8


EXHIBIT 10.18.8


OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION STRUCTURE
EFFECTIVE DATE – JANUARY 1, 2014


	
			
	 
	Annual Retainer
	Annual Phantom

	Director Role
	Amount
	Stock Grant Amount

	Member (all non-executive directors)
	$75,000
	$80,000

	Lead Independent Director (1)
	20,000
	—

	Audit Committee Chairman (1)
	20,000
	—

	Compensation Committee Chairman (1)
	10,000
	—

	Governance and Nomination Committee Chairman (1)
	10,000
	—






		
	(1) 
	Each non-executive Chairman of a Board Committee and the Lead Independent Director receives this annual retainer in addition to the $75,000 annual retainer paid to all non-executive directors.
Exhibit 32.1




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 annual report of Gold Bag, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Richard O. Weed, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Richard O. WeedRichard O. WeedChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerJune 29, 2010




A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Fuller Heating & Maintenance Corp., Plaintiff, *v.*Bertha Lempert, Defendant.

Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of The Bronx,

December 10, 1956.

*Klein, Wilder & Gottlieb*for defendant.

*Howard Penser*for plaintiff.

Charles A. Loreto, J.

Plaintiff in its complaint sought a recovery of $225 and was awarded a verdict in that sum; the defendant interposed a counterclaim in the sum of $3,000 and received a verdict also for $225.

A judgment was entered by the plaintiff for the sum of $130 costs, the clerk having taxed as costs allowed by statute to the plaintiff $150 and as costs allowed by statute to the defendant $20, leaving the aforesaid net sum of $130 costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant moves for a review of the taxation of costs, contending that the clerk erroneously taxed costs in favor of the plaintiff on the counterclaim.

Although offhand it may seem unfair to permit the award of $150 in costs to the plaintiff on the verdict in its favor in the sum of $225 and to award but $20 in costs to the defendant on the verdict in her favor in an equal sum, it must :be remembered that the granting of costs is purely a statutory matter and not one for the application of abstract balance of justice. In any event, behind the equal verdicts, one finds a full recovery by the plaintiff on its claim and but a partial recovery by the defend*190ant on her counterclaim. And by reason of the fact that the counterclaim asserted was for $3,000 exposing the plaintiff to a greater risk of loss than the defendant could suffer by reason of plaintiff’s claim, for all-practical purposes the plaintiff should be considered the prevailing party.

The court believes that subdivision 2 of section 164 of the New York City Municipal Court Code applies here. It reads:

> “ § 164. Sums allowed. In all actions there shall be allowed to the *prevailing party,*if he shall have shown that he has appeared by attorney, the following sums as costs: * * * 2. To the plaintiff. If the defendant interposes a counterclaim in excess of plaiútiff’s claim and the plaintiff recovers judgment, costs shall be allowed on the amount of the counterclaim at the same rate as if it were the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery. If the counterclaim is less than the plaintiff’s claim,'costs shall be governed by plaintiff’s recovery.”

Under the Municipal Court Code there can be but one judgment *(Dunne*v. *New York Tel. Co., 107*Misc. 439). And there may be only one prevailing party under this section. *(Nunnery*v. *Bobrose Developments,*163 Misc. 829.)

The learned opinion in the case of *Kohlberg*v. *Halloran*(133 Misc. 304, by Sulzberger, J., of this court), wherein a comparable situation to that at bar was presented, is approved and followed. As it reviews the citations offered by the defendant, nothing more about those cases will be added.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 654 

To provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program the authority to waive the Federal fund limitation for the DrugFree Communities Support Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2021 

Mr. JOYCE of Ohio (for himself and Mr. KILMER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities 

Support Program the authority to waive the Federal 

fund limitation for the Drug-Free Communities Support 

Program. 

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 ‘‘Drug-Free Commu5 nities Pandemic Relief Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 654 IH

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF FEDERAL FUND LIMITATION FOR THE 

2 DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PRO3 GRAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), if the 

5 Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support 

6 Program determines that, as a result of the public health 

7 emergency declared pursuant to section 319 of the Public 

8 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) as a result of 

9 COVID–19, an eligible coalition is unable to raise the 

10 amount of non-Federal funds, including in-kind contribu11 tions, agreed to be raised by the coalition for a fiscal year 

12 under an agreement entered into with the Administrator 

13 pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) or (3) of section 1032(b) 

14 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532(b)), 

15 the Administrator may, notwithstanding such paragraphs, 

16 provide to the eligible coalition the grant or renewal grant, 

17 as applicable, for that fiscal year in an amount— 

18 (1) with respect to an initial grant or renewal 

19 grant described under paragraph (1)(A) or (3)(A) of 

20 such section, that exceeds the amount of non-Fed21 eral funds raised by the eligible coalition, including 

22 in-kind contributions, for that fiscal year; 

23 (2) with respect to a renewal grant described 

24 under paragraph (3)(D)(i) of such section, that ex25 ceeds 125 percent of the amount of non-Federal 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 654 IH

1 funds raised by the eligible coalition, including in2 kind contributions, for that fiscal year; and 

3 (3) with respect to a renewal grant described 

4 under paragraph (3)(D)(ii) of such section, that ex5 ceeds 150 percent of the amount of non-Federal 

6 funds raised by the eligible coalition, including in7 kind contributions, for that fiscal year. 

8 (b) LIMITATION.—The Administrator may not pro9 vide a grant or renewal grant to an eligible coalition in 

10 an amount exceeding the amount of funds initially agreed 

11 to be provided by the Administrator under the applicable 

12 agreement. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Veronica Moody JOHNSON; Christopher Lee Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA, A Municipal Corporation, Itself; City Council of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, in its official capacity; William E. Ward; Dalton S. Edge; John A. Cosgrove; John M. De Triquet; Alan P. Krasnoff; Dwight M. Parker; William H. Pierce; Gene A. Waters; Debbie Ritter, In their individual and *609official capacities as members of the City Council of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia; Planning Commission of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, In its official capacity; Rodney L. Foster, In his individual and official capacity as a member of the Planning Commission of the City of Chesapeake; Clifton D. Cabarras, In his official capacity as a member of the Planning Commission of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia; Edward L. Hall, In his official capacity as a member of the Planning Commission of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia; Frankie W. Carroll; Bryan L. Collins; Sanny S. Davenport; Larry W. Rad-ford; Gladys A. Wilfore; Thomas T. Winborne, In their individual and official capacities as members of the Planning Commission of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1371.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 2002.

Decided Nov. 7, 2002.

Veronica Moody Johnson, Christopher Lee Johnson, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas Jeffrey Salb, Darlene Paige Bradberry, Breeden, Salb, Beasley & Duvall, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Veronica Moody Johnson and Christopher Lee Johnson appeal the district court’s orders: (1) granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part; and (2) granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing their civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Johnson v. City of Chesapeake,*No. CA-99-736-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 10, 2001 & March 11, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
 

 
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORTI, Jimmy S.H. Lee, Chief Executive Officer of Mercer International Inc. (the “Company”), certifypursuant to Section 906 of the *Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the*Securities Exchange Act of 1934*(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: August 9, 2005              /s/ Jimmy S.H. Lee   Jimmy S.H. Lee   Chief Executive Officer    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MercerInternational Inc. and will be retained by Mercer International Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.