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 906of the****Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, A. P. Kimble, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 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 ofSections 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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

|        |                                                                                                                                   |        | /s/ A. P. Kimble                                                         |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  |          August 14, 2003           |   |                                                                          |
|   |                                                                                                                              |   | **A. P. Kimble**                                                         |
|   |                                                                                                                              |   | **Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer** |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and will be retained by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's unaudited financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                  5,674
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             205
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        5,726
<PP&E>                                 20,892
<DEPRECIATION>                          3,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         24,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     160
<BONDS>                                10,182
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             11,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           24,176
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,392
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        568
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            40
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        40
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                               40
<EPS-BASIC>                            0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.02


</TABLE>
#### The State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Mary Davidson *et al.,*Respondents.

Kansas City Court of Appeals,

May 25, 1891.

Information: knowledge op appiant : cueing op appidavit. An affidavit, furnishing the basis for an information by the state’s attorney, must be on the actual knowledge of affiant; and the perfect allegation of an information will not cure the vice in the affidavit on which it is based.

*10
      *Appeal from the Hickory Circuit Court.—*Hon. W. I. Wallace, Judge.

Affirmed.

*W. B. Harryman,*for appellant.

The affidavit and information were both good; both charge an offense in the language of the statutes. *State v. Parker,*39 Mo. App. 116; *State v. McDaniel,*40 Mo. App. 356; *State v. Hatfield,*40 Mo. App. 358; *State v. Ferguson,*29 Mo. 416; *City of St. Charles v. Meyer,*58 Mo. 86 ; *State v. Batson,*31 Mo. 343.

*J. H. Davidson*and *Karnes, Holmes & Krauthoff,*for respondents.

(I1) This information is not verified as required by law. R. S. 1889, sec. 4329; *State v. Shaw,*26 Mo. App. 385; *State v. Harris,*30 Mo. App. 85. (2) As the information was not sufficiently verified, the justice had no jurisdiction. *State v. Bistig,*30 Mo. App. 361. And the circuit court would have none on appeal. All it could do would be to dismiss the case.

Gill, J.

Defendants were charged before a justice of the peace for unlawfully disturbing the peace of the prosecuting witness and others. The information of the prosecuting attorney was based on the affidavit of R. P. Moore, filed with the justice, wherein the, offense is charged “to the best knowledge, belief and information” of the affiant. The defendants were convicted in a trial in the justice’s court. Defendants thereupon appealed to the circuit court, where, on a motion filed by said defendants, the information was quashed, and the state appealed.

Whatever may be said as to the legality of the information proper (as filed by the prosecuting attorney ), it is clear that the affidavit, on which the same *11was based, did not comply with the law. Tbe statute as now amended, section 4329, Revised Statutes, 1889, expressly provides that such affidavit — furnishing the basis for the information by the state’s attorney — must be on the *actual*knowledge of the affiant. Here the affidavit was “to the best knowledge, belief and information” of the affiant, and, therefore, 'insufficient. *State v. Shaw, 26*Mo. App. 383. And, as held by us in *State v. Cornell*( decided at this term ), the vice in the affidavit will not be cured by the perfect allegations of the information based on such affidavit.

We are of the opinion, then, that the motion to quash the information was properly sustained, and affirm the judgment.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### REVISED January 7, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10556 Summary Calendar

LOUISE RHODES Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL; THOMAS STANTON, Senior Attorney Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

USDC No. 3:05-cv-2402
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant Louise Rhodes appeals the dismissal of her claim against the United StatesOfficeofSpecial Counsel. The district court adopted the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation ofthe United States MagistrateJudge dated May 22, 2008, and dismissed the case as to the defendant the United States United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 17, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-10556

2 Office of Special Counsel, finding that Appellant lacked standing and accordingly, that the federal court was without jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The District Court then entered a final judgment as to this defendant. At its core, Appellant’s c laim stems from an asserted breach of an oral settlement agreementwhich sheclaimswas reached in a previousclaim that she had against the Internal Revenue Service. The purported settlement agreement
was recorded in proceedings initiated by her against the IRS before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But it is clear that Appellee has no connection to the alleged settlement agreement or any breach. Nor did the officer purported to have made the agreement for the IRS represent Appellee or have any connection with Appellee. Appellee is an independent federal agency
and obviously is not part of the IRS or the EEOC. It is clear that any injury complained of is not fairly traceable to any action or activity of the defendant United States Office of Special Counsel. Because Appellant failed to show standing, the District Court correctly dismissed the case as to this defendant for lack ofjurisdiction. We affirm thejudgment of the District Court essentially for the reasons set out in the Magistrate’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation dated May 22, 2008. AFFIRMED.
BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC.
                EXHIBIT 11- COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (In thousands except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                           Thirteen weeks ended         Thirty-nine weeks ended
                                                         September 25,   September 26,   September 25,  September 26,
                                                               1999            1998            1999           1998
                                                        ------------     ------------   -------------  -------------
<S>                                                          <C>              <C>           <C>            <C>
Numerator:
      Net income                                             $3,535          $2,892          $7,947         $5,402
                                                        ------------     ------------   -------------  -------------
Denominator:
      Denominator for basic earnings per share-
          weighted-average shares                             7,132           7,181           7,123          7,223

      Dilutive stock options                                    377             265             440            258
                                                        ------------     ------------  -------------  -------------

      Denominator for diluted earnings per share-
          adjusted weighted-average shares and
          assumed conversions                                 7,509           7,446           7,563          7,481
                                                        ============     ============   =============  =============
      Net income per common share
          Basic                                               $0.50           $0.40           $1.12          $0.75
                                                        ============     ============   =============  =============
          Diluted                                             $0.47           $0.39           $1.05          $0.72
                                                        ============     ============   ============  =============
</TABLE>
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

May 17, 2024 SC-2024-0096 Ex parte William Alexander Randall, II PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: William Alexander Randall II v. State of Alabama) (Mobile Circuit Court: CC-00-2892.61; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0526).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on May 17, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Mitchell, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
#### Eastman et al. *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 25491

Decided October 23, 1935.)

*Mr. W. H. N. Stevens*and *Messrs. Knepper, White, Smith é Dempsey,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Arlo L. Ghatfield,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Forest S. Weinrich,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, O. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1357 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1357

 To amend the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 to permit certain 
annuitants of the retirement programs of the United States Park Police 
  and United States Secret Service Uniformed Division to receive the 
    adjustments in pension benefits to which such annuitants would 
 otherwise be entitled as a result of the conversion of members of the 
 United States Park Police and United States Secret Service Uniformed 
  Division to a new salary schedule under the amendments made by such 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2007

  Ms. Mikulski (for herself and Mr. Warner) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 to permit certain 
annuitants of the retirement programs of the United States Park Police 
  and United States Secret Service Uniformed Division to receive the 
    adjustments in pension benefits to which such annuitants would 
 otherwise be entitled as a result of the conversion of members of the 
 United States Park Police and United States Secret Service Uniformed 
  Division to a new salary schedule under the amendments made by such 
                                  Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Law Enforcement Pension 
Adjustment Equity Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADJUSTMENTS IN PENSION BENEFITS FOR UNITED STATES 
              PARK POLICE AND UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE UNIFORMED 
              DIVISION ANNUITANTS FOR PAYMENTS MADE IN 2006 AND 
              SUBSEQUENT YEARS.

    (a) In General.--Section 905(f) of the Law Enforcement Pay Equity 
Act of 2000 (sec. 5-561.02(f), D.C. Official Code) is amended by 
striking the period at the end and inserting the following: ``, for any 
payment made prior to January 1, 2007.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the enactment of the Law Enforcement Pay 
Equity Act of 2000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02554-REB-MEH

RONALD M. COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZAVISLAN, (DRDC) Warden (CDOC), and

REAUX (DRDC) Captain (CDOC),

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 30, 2013.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renew [sic] Motion for Assistance [filed April 29, 2013;

docket #78]. It is unclear exactly what relief the Plaintiff seeks. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks

the assistance of volunteer counsel, the Court has already granted Plaintiff’s request and his case has

been placed on a list seeking volunteer counsel. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks assistance in

paying for copies of his medical file, the Court has already ruled that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(c), the Court is required only to assist prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis with expenses

related to printing a record on appeal or printing a transcript of court proceedings under certain

circumstances. Thus, in either case, the motion is denied. 

The Court notes that discovery has recently begun in this case and to the extent Plaintiff

seeks copies of documents or information from the Defendants, he may ask for them through his

discovery requests.

Case 1:11-cv-02554-REB-MEH Document 80 Filed 04/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### George D. BACON v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.

No. 6436.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 28, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 31, 1941.

Gladney & Limericlc, of Bastrop, for appellant.

Madison, Madison & Files, of Bastrop, for appellee.

HAMITER, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Fulmer v. Great American Indemnity Co., 5 So.2d 923, this day decided by us, the judgment of the district court is reversed and set aside, and the demands of plaintiff are rejected and the suit dismissed at his costs.
#### TENNER v. GRIFFIN et al.

No. 3419.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Aug. 10, 1951.

Neal M. Bagwell, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Weber & Weber, Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee contends in application for rehearing that this Court should not have remanded this matter to the trial court and bases such contention upon the holding in the following cases: Campbell v. Marshall, La.App., 28 So.2d 296; Chelette v. Roberts, La.App., 185 So. *678;*Williamson v. Enterprise Brick Co., 190 La. 415, 182 So. 556; United States Fidelity *&*Guaranty v. Houlton, 11 La.App. 303, 123 So. 415; *807Scruggs v. Cory, La.App., 149 So. 902; Garig v. Truth Printing and Rubber Company, 123 La. 895; 49 So. 632.

While we recognize the holding in the above cited cases, they are not controlling under the facts in the present case. Under the authority vested in this court under Article 906 of the Code of Practice we feel that in the furtherance of justice the case should be remanded. See Mayer v. Barrow, 182 La. 983; 162 So. 748; In re Succession of Bright, 197 La. 251, 1 So.2d 94; Item Co., Ltd. v. St. Tammany Hotel, La.App., 175 So. 421; Young v. Thompson, La.App., 189 So. 487; Wren v. Brock, La.App., 200 So. 674; Id.,198 La. 1026, 5 So.2d 323; Id., La.App., 7 So.2d 271.

Rehearing denied.
2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-10-2012 

# U S A v . K ee n a n Quinn

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 11-1733

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . Ke e n a n Quinn " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 621. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/621

### 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 11

- 1733
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. KEENAN DANAN QUINN,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Crim. No. 2

- 09

- cr
- 00 720

- 002) District Judge: Hon. Petrese B. Tucker Before: McKEE, Chief Judge , SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH , FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY , JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

. ORDER
Pursuant to Third Circuit IOP 9.2, it is hereby ORDERED that the above

captioned case is listed en banc at the convenience of the Court , to enable the Court to reconsider the “effective defense theory of judicial immunity” doctrine first established by this Court in Government of the V irgin Islands v. Smith , 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1980). The parties are directed to electronically file supplemental briefs addressing this
issue as follows: Appellant’s supplemental brief shall be filed within 30 days from the date of this order and shal l not exceed 15 pages or 7, 000 words;

### 2

Appellee’s brief shall be filed within 30 days from the date of filing of appellant’s supplemental brief and shall not exceed 15 pages or 7, 000 words; Appellant’s reply brief shall be filed within 14 days from the d ate of filing appellee’s brief a nd shall not exceed 7 pages o r 3,500 words.

The parties shall file 30 hard copies of the supplemental briefs.

In addition, the parties are hereby O R D E R E D to provide the Clerk within 14 days
from the date of this o rder additional 30 hard copies of the briefs and 16 copies of the appendi ces previously filed in this appeal.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Theodore A. McKee Chief Judge
Dated: July 10, 2012
T nh / cc: David L. Axelrod, Esq.

Edward C. Meehan, Jr., Esq.
SAMPLE OF COMPANY'S STANDARD STOCK CERTIFICATE CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION:


1.  Number of certificate                        0
2.  Number of shares represented by certificate  0
3.  Title of stock and CUSIP number
4.  Name of stockholder                          NONE
5.  Date of issuance                             NONE
6.  Corporate seal BIO MARINE TECHNOLOGY, INC. CORPORATE SEAL DELAWARE
7.  Signatures of president and secretary of corporation at time of issuance.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 10, 2004*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.131 Security Brokers and Dealers** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|