alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence A. Schiffer, Chief 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of
     operations of the Company.

/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer

    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
    November 14, 2003

<FN>
*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
 been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and will
 be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
 request.
#### TOWNLEY v. POMES et al.

No. 17595.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 19, 1941.

Richard L. Voelker, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellant.

Appellee absent, not represented.

McCALEB, Judge.

Mrs. Eva Bernice Pomes, wife of Lewis E. Lowe, and administratrix of the estate of Firmin E. Pomes, has prosecuted a de-volutive appeal from the judgment of the District Court in this matter which condemned her, in her capacity as administra-trix of the Succession of Pomes, in solido with the New Orleans Public Service, Inc., to pay damages in the sum of $1,630 to the plaintiff for the personal injuries sustained by him in an accident occurring on June 29, 1937, on the public highway of Jefferson Parish wherein a truck owned by Pomes collided with an omnibus of the Public Service in which the plaintiff was a passenger.

The facts of the case have already been determined by us on two separate occasions. See Williams et al. v. Pomes, La.App., 187 So. 145, and Townley v. Pomes et al., La.App., 198 So. 788. In the last decision, which was an appeal by the New Orleans Public Service from the same judgment from which the present appellant has appealed, we held that, from the evidence adduced, which was identical with that submitted in the case of Williams et al. v. Pomes, supra, the accident occurred solely as the result of the negligence of the operator of the omnibus of the Public Service and that the driver of the Pomes truck was free from fault. In view of this, it is obvious that the trial judge was in error in rendering judgment in plaintiff’s favor as against the administratrix of the Succession of Pomes, the appellant here, and it would serve no useful purpose to discuss again the issues involved with *478respect to the liability of either the Public Service or the driver of the Pomes truck.

The plaintiff Townley has not made an appearance in this court, and we are informed by counsel for appellant that the judgment in plaintiff’s favor has been settled by the co-defendant, New Orleans Public Service.

For the reasons given by us in the cases of Williams et al. v. Pomes, La.App., 187 So. 145, and Townley v. Pomes et al., La.App., 198 So. 788, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiff’s suit as to the defendant, Mrs. Eva Bernice Pomes, wife of Lewis E. Lowe, administra-trix of the Succession of Firmin E. Pomes, be and it is dismissed at his cost.

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21036]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Cellular 
Signaling and Regulatory Systems Study Section, October 2, 2008, 8 a.m. 
to October 3, 2008, 5 p.m., Holiday Inn Georgetown, 2101 Wisconsin 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20007 which was published in the Federal 
Register on August 18, 2008, 73 FR 48219-48220.
    The meeting will be held one day only October 2, 2008. The meeting 
time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: September 3, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-21036 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 80

JOINT RESOLUTION

Appointing the day for the convening of the second session

of the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HJ 80 EH

1 SECTION 1. DAY FOR CONVENING OF SECOND REGULAR

2 SESSION OF ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CON3 GRESS.

4 The second regular session of the One Hundred Sev5 enth Congress shall begin at noon on Wednesday, January

6 23, 2002.

7 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR CALLING SPECIAL SESSION BE8 FORE CONVENING OF SECOND REGULAR SES9 SION.

10 If the Speaker of the House of Representatives and

11 the Majority Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after con12 sultation with the Minority Leader of the House of Rep13 resentatives and the Minority Leader of the Senate, deter14 mine that it is in the public interest for Congress to as15 semble before the convening of the second regular session

16 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress as provided in sec17 tion 1—

18 (1) the Speaker and Majority Leader shall no19 tify the Members of the House and Senate, respec20 tively, of such determination and of the place and

21 time for Congress to so assemble; and
3

•HJ 80 EH

1 (2) Congress shall assemble in accordance with

2 such notification.

Passed the House of Representatives December 20,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 80

JOINT RESOLUTION

Appointing the day for the convening of the second

session of the One Hundred Seventh Congress.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                 EXHIBIT 10(c)


                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                            QUAKER STATE CORPORATION
                                  PENSION PLAN
                    HOURLY-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES PLAN DOCUMENT

     This Amendment made effective as of April 14, 1998 by Quaker State
Corporation (the "Corporation").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS, the Corporation has established the Quaker State Corporation
Pension Plan, Hourly Classified Employees Plan document (as heretofore amended,
the "Plan");

     WHEREAS, the Plan may be amended in accordance with Article X thereof; and

     WHEREAS, the Corporation wishes to amend the Plan as herein provided;

     NOW, THEREFORE, under the powers retained by the Corporation's Board of
Directors under Article X of the Plan and pursuant to the authorization of the
Board of Directors granted on April 14, 1998, the Corporation hereby amends the
Plan as follows:

1.      Section 10.1 shall be amended by deleting the last sentence thereof.

2.      Paragraph (f) of Section 11.2 shall be amended by deleting the text
        "Except as otherwise provided by Section 11.3, in" and replacing it with
        the word "In".

3.      Section 11.3 shall be deleted in its entirety.

4.      Section 11.4 shall be renumbered Section 11.3 and the text "except as
        may otherwise be provided by Section 11.3," shall be deleted from the
        first sentence thereof.

5.      Section 11.5 shall be renumbered Section 11.4.

6.      Section 11.6 shall be renumbered Section 11.5.

7.      In all other respects, the provisions of the Plan are hereby ratified
        and confirmed, and shall continue in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has evidenced the adoption of this
Amendment to the Plan by the signature of its duly authorized officer.

                                    QUAKER STATE CORPORATION

                                    By: /s/ Paul E. Konney
                                       -------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Paul E. Konney
                                      Title:  Senior Vice President, General
                                             Counsel and Secretary
Attest:

By: /s/ Carrie L. Sherwood
   -------------------------------------
Name:  Carrie L. Sherwood
Title:   Assistant Secretary



                                       16
**EXHIBIT 32.4**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18**

**of the United States Code**

 

I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG Power LLC.

 

 

|   |   |   | /s/ E. James Ferland    |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |   | **E. James Ferland**    |
|   |   |   | PSEG Power LLC          |
|   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   | November 1, 2006        |

 

 

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1105

___________________________

Aparicio Lopez-Matul

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: August 10, 2012

 Filed: October 4, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Aparicio Lopez-Matul petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an immigration judge’s

denial of withholding of removal. 
To obtain withholding of removal, Lopez-Matul was required to establish that

his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala because of his race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See 8

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Lopez-Matul asserted that he faced such persecution in

Guatemala because of his membership in a particular social group,which he describes

as Guatemalan repatriates who have lived and worked in the United States for many

years and are perceived as wealthy. Upon careful review, we agree with the BIA that

the group Lopez-Matul describes does not qualify as a “particular social group” for

purposes of withholding of removal. See Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707,

712-13 (8th Cir. 2012) (“the group ‘Guatemalans returning from the United States

who are perceived as wealthy’ is not a particular social group” within meaning of

immigration laws; reasoning that “there was little evidence that the purported group

would be perceived as a determinable group by society or subject to a higher

incidence of crime than the rest of the population”). Accordingly, we deny the

petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
#### LOUISIANA COTTON COOPERATIVE ASS’N v. FUTRELL.

No. 5568.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 30, 1938.

John G. Gibbs, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

B. B. Breazeale, Jr., of Natchitoches, and Cook, Cook & Egan and A. T. Hughes, Jr., all of Shreveport, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This case was previously before us on an appeal on the merits from a judgment rejecting plaintiff’s'demands. In this court defendant filed an exception of no cause of action and a plea of prescription of one year. Plaintiff demanded that the case be remanded to the lower court for trial on the plea of prescription. Its demand was granted. See former judgment of this court, 184 So. 599, not yet reported [in State Report]. On trial of the plea below, the lower court, after hearing the evidence offered, sustained the plea of prescription and, under the former judgment of this court, the case was returned here bearing the same number it originally had before it was remanded.

Plaintiff purchased from defendant 267 bales of cotton at the price of .0677 per pound, based upon a guaranteed gin weight of 136,673 pounds. The agreed price, totaling $9,252.75, was paid. The transaction took place on February 19, 1932. Before it was closed, a representative of plaintiff sampled and graded said cotton. The price was fixed according to said grades, and the cotton was shipped by plaintiff to Lake Charles, Louisiana, stored in a U. S. bonded warehouse where it was re-weighed and again examined. There was no loss in gin weights; however, plaintiff contends that upon a thorough examination at the warehouse in Lake Charles, it was found that 10,638 pounds of the cotton were defective and practically every bale had to be reconditioned and the faulty cotton removed therefrom. Basing its claim on the price paid for said cotton,' plus the cost of reconditioning it, plaintiff sued for $908.49.-

*601There is no contention made that defendant knew of the defective cotton, in fact, counsel for plaintiff states she was in good faith in making the sale. It is clear to our minds that the suit is a redhibitory action for a reduction of the price, under Article 2541 of the Revised Civil Code and that such actions must be instituted within one year after the sale, where the seller has no knowledge of the defects claimed or found to exist. Revised Civil Code, Article 2534.

This suit was instituted on August 25, 1933. The sale was consummated February 19, 1932. More than one year had elapsed from- the. date of the sale to the filing of the suit, and the plea of one year prescription was properly sustained by the lower court and its judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Precision Castparts Corp. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended June 29, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William D. Larsson, 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2008                                                
|                                                                    
|/s/ William D. Larsson                                              
|William D. Larsson Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Matthew MONKS, Appellant.

No. 03-1625.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 5, 2003.

Decided Aug. 8, 2003.

*608Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Monks pleaded guilty to knowingly possessing a firearm transported in interstate commerce after he had been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court1 sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to a state parole-revocation sentence he was serving, and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has filed a brief raising the issue whether the district court erred in refusing to order Monks’s sentence to run concurrently with the state parole-revocation sentence.

Monks’s argument is foreclosed by this court’s prior precedent. *See United States v. Smith,*282 F.3d 1045, 1046-18 (8th Cir. 2002) (when defendant is subject to undischarged prison term that is part of parole-revocation sentence, consecutive sentences are mandated); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 comment. (n.6) (if defendant was on state parole at time of instant offense and has had such parole revoked, sentence should run consecutively to parole violation term in order to provide incremental penalty).

Following our independent review, *see Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENDRICK OMAR COBB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:18-cr-00683-HMH-1)

Submitted: March 31, 2023 Decided: May 11, 2023

Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: David A. Brown, Sr., DABROWNLAW, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina, 

for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Leesa Washington, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4538 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/11/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kendrick Omar Cobb appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession of 

a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 

924(a)(2). On appeal, Cobb argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to 

suppress statements he made during a custodial interrogation in which he had counsel but 

was not informed of his right to counsel pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 

(1966). 

When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the 

court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. 

Pulley, 987 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2021). We consider the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Government and “must also give due weight to inferences drawn from 

those facts by resident judges and law enforcement officers.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We “particularly defer to a district court’s credibility determinations” and will 

only “reverse a lower court’s finding of fact” if we are “left with the definite and firm 

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err by 

denying Cobb’s motion to suppress because Cobb’s retained counsel was present for the 

duration of the interrogation. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 466 (“The presence of 

counsel[] . . . would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of 

police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self-incrimination].”); 

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485-86 (1981) (“The Fifth Amendment right identified 

in Miranda is the right to have counsel present at any custodial interrogation.”). 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4538 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4538 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/11/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

RASHID EL MALIK,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1684

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for

Veterans Claims in No. 22

- 5317

, Judge Coral Wong

Pietsch.

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time permitted by the r ules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in Case: 23-1684 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 05/01/2023E L M ALIK V

. M C D ONOUGH 2

accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

May 1, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 1, 2023 Case: 23-1684 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 05/01/2023
#### Martha Lee CROSBY, a minor, by her mother, and next friend, Mattie Lee Crosby, Appellant, v. Henry CALHOUN, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Dec. 10, 1954.

*298Coe & Coe, Pensacola, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

DREW, Justice.

The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the lower court abused its discretion in reducing the amount of the weekly payments required of a defendant by the final decree in a bastardy proceeding.

The original decree was entered pursuant to a stipulation and provided for payments for expenses of birth, costs, attorneys’ fees and $10 per week for the maintenance of the bastard child if born alive. Several months after this decree was entered, application was made for a reduction of the amount of the weekly maintenance under Section 742.06, F.S.1951, F.S.A. A hearing was had on the petition and as a consequence thereof an order was entered reducing the amount to $5 per week.

We have carefully considered the evidence on the basis of which the lower court reduced the amount of the award. The evidence does not show any changed conditions which would afford a basis for altering the provisions of the original decree. The record establishes that if there has been any change of condition in the ap-pellee’s circumstances, it is for the better. Under such circumstances it was a clear abuse of discretion to tamper with the provisions of the original decree which were conclusive as to the conditions then existing. See Schiff v. Schiff, Fla., 1951, 54 So.2d 36; Gaffny v. Gaffny, 129 Fla. 172, 176 So. 68; Belford v. Belford, 1947, 159 Fla. 547, 32 So.2d 312, Chastain v. Chastain, Fla., 1954, 73 So.2d 66.

The decree of the lower court is hereby reversed with directions to reinstate the original decree.

ROBERTS, C. J., and HOBSON and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

Nos. 04-13-00242-CR & 04-13-00243-CR

James Michael CHIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2012CR5328 & 2011CR7140

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 31, 2013.

_____________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000094

18-APR-2019

08:16 AM