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



CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Kevin T. Michaels, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company),
certify, pursuant 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 April 3, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: May 13, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Kevin T. Michaels                 
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Chief Financial Officer           
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
EXHIBIT 11.1

TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except share and per share data)

|                                       |                                                               | Three Months Ended March 31, |           
|-------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ----------
|
|Net income (loss)                      |                                                               | $                            | 98        
|                                       |                                                               |                              |           
|Net income (loss) per shareBasic:     |                                                               |                              |           
|Weighted average common sharesBasic   |                                                               |                              | 17,577,315
|                                       |                                                               |                              |           
|Net income (loss) per shareBasic      |                                                               | $                            | 0.01      
|                                       |                                                               |                              |           
|Net income (loss) per shareDiluted:   |                                                               |                              |           
|Shares used in this computation:       |                                                               |                              |           
|                                       | Weighted average common sharesBasic                          |                              |           
|                                       | Dilutive effect of shares under employee stock planssee Note |                              |           
|                                       |                                                               |                              |           
|Weighted average common sharesDiluted |                                                               |                              | 17,856,207
|                                       |                                                               |                              |           
|Net income (loss) per shareDiluted    |                                                               | $                            | 0.01      
|                                       |                                                               |                              |           



|Note: | Common stock equivalents were not included for the three months ended March 31, 2001, as their effect would be anti-dilutive.
|----- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
38

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

 Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2002: Q1... 7.4 7.5 7.0

 Q2... 7.2 7.2 6.8

 Q3... 6.8 6.7 6.4

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.3

2003: Q1... 6.5 6.4 6.1

 Q2... 6.3 6.2 5.9

 Q3... 6.2 6.1 5.7

 Q4... 6.1 6.1 5.7

2004: Q1... 6.3 6.3 5.8

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2002: Q1... 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Q2... 7.7 7.6 7.1

 Q3... 7.5 7.4 6.9

 Q4... 7.2 7.0 6.6

2003: Q1... 7.0 6.9 6.4

 Q2... 6.9 6.8 6.3

 Q3... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.2

2004: Q1... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2002: Q1... 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Q2... 7.7 7.6 7.1

 Q3... 7.5 7.4 6.9

 Q4... 7.2 7.0 6.6

2003: Q1... 7.0 6.9 6.4

 Q2... 6.9 6.8 6.3

 Q3... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.2

2004: Q1... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-62-PB

Ray McMillan

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

December 4, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and hold a hearing on the

defendant’s motion to suppress prior to trial. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from December 4, 2007 to February 5, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00062-PB Document 11 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The November 27, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to January 31, 2008 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 27, 2007

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Peter Papps, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00062-PB Document 11 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Terry T. Thomas

 v. Civ. No. 07-cv-385-JL

NH State Prison, Warden

O R D E R

Judge Muirhead identified 136 federal constitutional claims in Thomas’ petition (34

numbered claims, some with numerous lettered sub-parts), including, inter alia, ineffective

assistance claims against four separate defense lawyers who represented him, prosecutorial

misconduct, and judicial misconduct against every superior court judge who presided over any

part of his case. The judge further recommended dismissal of 12 claims (##4, 16, 24(L), 29 (D,

E, J, K, H), 30 (E, G, and I(v)), and 31) and two additional claims to the extent they were based

on the state constitution (14 and 17) (see document no. 7). The remaining claims were ordered

served on the Warden (document no. 8).

The Attorney General moved for summary judgment on all claims, dutifully briefing most

of them (document no. 23 and exhibits). The petitioner’s objection contained briefing on most,

but not all of the issues.

It strains credulity to suggest that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner resulted

in over 120 violations of his constitutional rights. Many of the claims are clearly meritless when

subjected to even the most superficial scrutiny. The court declines to undertake a separate

constitutional analysis of the myriad claims without taking some measure to narrow its review to

Case 1:07-cv-00385-JL Document 38 Filed 12/15/09 Page 1 of 2
claims supported by good faith arguments advanced by a knowledgable, experienced practitioner,

better versed than the petitioner in constitutional criminal procedure. 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), the court may appoint counsel to represent a

"financially eligible person" in a habeas corpus case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when

it "determines that the interests of justice so require." Based on the financial affidavit dated

November 29, 2007, and given the breadth of the issues presented in this case, the court finds

that the petitioner is a “financially eligible person” and that the interests of justice require the

appointment of counsel to represent him under the Criminal Justice Act. Therefore, the clerk is

directed to appoint counsel to represent the petitioner in this matter.

The court will suspend review of the pending summary judgment motion to allow

appointed counsel the opportunity to review the case file, meet with the petitioner, and file a

notice with the court delineating which claims he intends to pursue, and which he waives. The

notice shall be due 45 days from the date of this order. After the notice is filed, counsel may file

a supplemental memorandum in objection to the summary judgment motion addressing those

claims he has elected to pursue. Both the notice and the memorandum shall reflect counsel’s

considered professional judgment, subject to Rule 11.

SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: December 15, 2009

cc: Terry T. Thomas, pro se

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00385-JL Document 38 Filed 12/15/09 Page 2 of 2
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




December 2016


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 21, 2017
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:06-cv-00337-SM   Document 15   Filed 11/08/07   Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Ronald J. Buschur, Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant 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 September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: November 9, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RONALD J. BUSCHUR
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Ronald J. Buschur President and Chief Executive
Officer Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
#### THOMAS v. STEWART.

No. 2886.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 10, 1947.

Benj. W. Miller, of Bogalusa, for appellant.

Richardson & Richardson, of Bogalusa, for appellee:

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Ephraim Thomas and Vernon Thomas v. Stewart, La.App., 29 So.2d 604, it is ordered that the judgment be reversed, annulled and set aside, and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, Ephraim Thomas, and against defendant, Mart Stewart, in the full and just sum of One Hundred and Twenty-five Dollars, with interest thereon at the rate of five per centum per annum from judicial demand until paid, together with all costs.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                           AND 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 Manchester  Technologies,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  January 31, 2005,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Elan Yaish, Vice  President-Finance,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  to the best of my  knowledge,  pursuant  to Rule  13a-14(b)  under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date:   March 14, 2005           /S/ Elan Yaish
                                 ---------------------------------------------
                                 Elan Yaish
                                 Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer
                                  and Principal Accounting Officer


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  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.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-3095 September Term, 2022

1:21-cr-00623-CRC-2

Filed On: August 23, 2023

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Kirstyn Ashley Niemela,

Appellant

BEFORE: Henderson, Pillard, and Childs, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the emergency motion for release pending appeal, styled

as an emergency motion for stay, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the notice

of intention to proceed pro se, it is

ORDERED that the motion be denied. Appellant has not shown that this appeal

presents a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, an order for a

new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a reduced

sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus

the expected duration of the appeal process. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(B).

Because appellant has a constitutional right to assistance of counsel on direct

appeal, Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), and the Supreme Court has

recognized indigent defendants pursuing the first level of appellate review are

“generally ill equipped to represent themselves,” Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 617

(2005), the Clerk is directed to attach to this order a letter explaining the consequences

of self-representation.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-3095 September Term, 2022

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order with the attached letter to

appellant by whatever means necessary to ensure receipt.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Scott H. Atchue

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1992...... 31.18 68.23 26.89 14.73 15.94 108.68 3.70 14.82 45.85 468.20 1993...... 34.28 79.68 23.07 15.25 13.91 111.99 3.71 14.94 46.12 490.33 1994...... 33.91 60.27 27.58 16.29 17.54 123.60 3.72 14.57 46.98 480.70 1995...... 33.77 49.68 26.74 18.46 15.59 93.60 3.73 14.72 44.94 451.25 1996...... 39.25 59.00 24.23 26.00 17.23 95.19 3.73 14.95 45.22 545.93 1997...... 31.40 42.33 25.99 16.82 17.79 97.18 3.76 14.86 45.78 385.35 1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 2003...... 30.74 67.77 36.98 21.44 33.40 64.60 3.75 14.81 47.26 276.39 2000: Q3... 22.88 56.90 23.79 18.06 25.56 36.16 3.50 14.83 43.59 273.03  Q4... 25.90 40.24 27.02 18.56 20.65 54.79 4.16 15.11 44.23 252.17 2001: Q1... 33.29 30.14 25.26 24.29 34.58 78.43 3.91 15.23 46.59 274.01  Q2... 26.91 31.36 29.51 19.30 41.18 47.15 3.89 14.50 44.07 263.70  Q3... 23.23 43.62 27.17 16.20 23.42 46.14 3.70 14.68 43.97 255.59  Q4... 35.30 51.03 37.52 21.12 22.89 83.12 4.01 14.69 47.12 280.16 2002: Q1... 33.13 48.19 33.07 25.93 26.71 60.82 3.65 15.01 47.55 237.43  Q2... 23.72 41.55 32.41 18.55 19.26 48.30 3.69 15.06 45.28 216.61  Q3... 28.88 48.00 28.87 21.00 30.85 75.68 3.69 14.83 44.27 329.62  Q4... 31.46 52.06 38.39 22.16 17.78 67.64 3.85 15.19 46.02 333.67 2003: Q1... 35.98 68.86 32.35 27.73 38.74 62.19 3.72 14.88 46.71 249.54  Q2... 24.61 43.91 32.67 18.01 28.73 55.73 3.72 14.67 48.45 241.93  Q3... 27.75 78.05 40.90 17.84 37.37 65.70 3.53 14.83 46.45 319.67  Q4... 35.13 79.92 42.70 23.13 28.16 75.70 4.11 14.85 47.42 313.07 2004: Q1... 45.07 60.59 43.04 35.57 56.02 98.51 3.86 15.02 47.24 341.06  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 D0 15 2 . AKASH DI XI T v . TANYA SI NGH DI XI T

Up o n co n s i d erat i on o f t h i s Ap p l icat i o n fo r Di s cret i o n ary Ap p eal

, i t is o rd ered

t h at i t b e h ereb y GRANTED. Th e Ap p el l an t m ay fi l e a No t i ce o f Ap p eal wi t h i n 1 0

d ay s of t he d at e o f t h i s ord er. T h e C l e r k o f Su p eri o r Co u rt i s d i rect ed t o i n cl u d e a

co p y o f t h i s o rd er i n t h e reco rd t ran s m i t ted t o t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

.

Th e o n l y i s s u e t h at ap p ears t o h av e m eri t i s ap p li can t’ s co n t en t i o n t h a t t h e
Or d er o n M ot i o n fo r At t o rn ey Fees

, at pag e 5, i t em 3

, erro n eo us l y award s at t o rn ey
fees u n der OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 fo r fees i n c u r red i n co nn ect i o n wi t h ap p el l at e

p ro ceed in g s

. See Ka u tt er v. Ka u t t er , 2 8 6 Ga. 1 6

, 1 9 (4 ) (c) (6 8 5 SE2 d 2 6 6) (2 0 0 9 ).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia
C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. November 08, 2017

11/08/2017
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




ENESCO GROUP, INC.

2004 ROA INCENTIVE PLAN



The ROA (Return on Assets) Incentive plan is based entirely on company
profitability. This incentive rewards eligible employees for their part in
helping Enesco meet three financial goals. The following are the components of
the plan:




Components of the Incentive Plan




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	1)

	 	Sales
	 	 	20	%
	2)

	 	Operating Income as a % of Sales
	 	 	40	%
	3)

	 	Return on Assets
	 	 	40	%






Employees are eligible for a sliding scale of incentive compensation based on
company profit. Employee’s incentive opportunity depends of the employee’s
position in the company and Enesco’s attainment of goals. Employee’s bonuses
are based on W-2 earnings.




Eligibility



To be eligible for the incentive plan you must be employed by September 30 of
the current year and be an active employee through the end of the year.



Enesco may at anytime and from time to time, amend, modify or suspend this plan
with/without prior notice.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-121-PB

Christopher Aldrich

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

October 10, 2007 trial in the above case citing the need for

additional time to engage in further psychiatric evaluation and

prepare for trial. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from October 10, 2007 to December 4, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 43 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 26, 2007 final pretrial conference is

continued to November 26, 2007 at 2:00 p.m., at which time the

court will also conduct a hearing to address defendant’s

evaluation. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 25, 2007

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 43 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2