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 Northfield Laboratories Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack J. Kogut, Chief
Financial Officer of Northfield Laboratories Inc., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:

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

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

Date: January 9, 2006


/s/ Jack J. Kogut
-------------------------------------
Jack J. Kogut
Chief Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131250 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131250 COA: 267975 Monroe CC: 05-034463-FH JOHN HOWARD MINNEY II, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 17, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0821 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 29, 2006

Clerk
Order entered January 15, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00821-CR

TIMOTHY JAMES TAYLOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-80945-2012

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the clerk’s and reporter’s records because of ineffective counsel, indigence, 

or for any other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the clerk’s and reporter’s records. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment 

of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is 

indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to 

assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the 

trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has 

abandoned the appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

 The trial court shall next determine the date by which the clerk’s record will be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from MovieFone,
Inc.'s condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the nine months
ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,831,010
<SECURITIES>                                 2,587,922
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,018,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                    71,000
<INVENTORY>                                    202,060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,060,343
<PP&E>                                       6,916,920
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,227,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,242,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,386,878
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          128,210
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,727,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,242,667
<SALES>                                        192,295
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,785,167
<CGS>                                          180,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,039,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (890,708)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (890,708)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (890,708)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT RESTAURANT CORP.AS OF MARCH 25, 2005 F & H Restaurant Corp.
    
    Bryant Beverage CorporationTENT Finance, Inc.
    
    Campbell Beverage Corp.TENT Management, Inc.
    
    Downtown Beverage Corp.TENT Restaurant Operations, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound ClubBaileys Sports Grill
    
    Fuqua Beverage Corp.Fox & Hound, Inc.
    
    Guadalupe Beverage Corp.Fox & Hound II, Inc.
    
    Jackson Beverage CorporationF & H Restaurants of Texas, Inc.
    
    Lewisville Beverage Corp.Alabama Fox & Hound, Inc.
    
    Raider Beverage CorporationFox & Hound of Arizona, Inc.
    
    Rocket Beverage CorporationFox & Hound of Colorado, Inc.
    
    Shenandoah Beverage Corp.F & H Restaurant of Georgia, Inc.
    
    Skillman Beverage Corp.Fox & Hound of Illinois, Inc.
    
    Midway Entertainment, Ltd.Fox & Hound of Indiana, Inc.
    
    N. Collins Entertainment, Ltd.F & H of Iowa, Inc.
    
    505 Entertainment, Ltd.Fox & Hound of Kansas, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of San Antonio, Ltd.F & H of Kennesaw, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of Austin, Ltd.Fox & Hound of Kentucky, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of Dallas, Ltd.Fox & Hound of Littleton, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of Dallas #3, Ltd.Fox & Hound of Louisiana, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of Lubbock, Ltd.Fox & Hound of Maryland, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of Houston, Ltd.Fox & Hound of Michigan, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of Houston #2, Ltd.Fox & Hound of Mississippi, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of Houston #3, Ltd.Fox & Hound of Nebraska, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of Fort Worth, Ltd.Fox & Hound of New Jersey, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of Lewisville, Ltd.Fox & Hound of New Mexico, Inc.
    
    Fox & Hound of Richardson, Ltd.North Carolina Fox & Hound, Inc.Fox & Hound of Ohio, Inc.Fox & Hound of Oklahoma, Inc.Fox & Hound of Tennessee, Inc.Fox & Hound of Texas, Inc.Fox & Hound of Virginia, Inc.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 65 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1675 

[Report No. 110–106] 

To suspend the requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development regarding electronic filing of previous participation certificates and regarding filing of such certificates with respect to certain 

low-income housing investors. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Ms. BEAN (for herself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, and Mr. GILLMOR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

APRIL 23, 2007 

Additional sponsors: Mr. JONES of North Carolina and Mr. HASTINGS of 

Florida 

APRIL 23, 2007 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

To suspend the requirements of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development regarding electronic filing of 

previous participation certificates and regarding filing 

of such certificates with respect to certain low-income 

housing investors. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1675 RH

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 ‘‘Preservation Approval 

5 Process Improvement Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIRE7 MENT. 

8 The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

9 shall— 

10 (1) suspend mandatory processing of Previous 

11 Participation Certificates (form HUD–2530) under 

12 the Department of Housing and Urban Develop13 ment’s Automated Partners Performance System 

14 (APPS) and permit paper filings of such certificates 

15 until such time that the Secretary— 

16 (A) revises the December 2006 draft pro17 posed regulations under subpart H of part 200 

18 of title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, to 

19 eliminate the unnecessary burdens and dis20 incentives for program participants; and 

21 (B) submits such revised draft proposed 

22 regulations to the Committee on Financial 

23 Services of the House of Representatives and 

24 the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1675 RH

1 Urban Affairs of the Senate for review by such 

2 Committees; and 

3 (2) suspend immediately all filing requirements 

4 under the Previous Participation Certificate process 

5 with respect to limited liability corporate investors 

6 who own or expect to own an interest in entities 

7 which are allowed or are expected to be allowed low8 income housing tax credits under section 42 of the 

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 65 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1675 

[Report No. 110

–106] 

A BILL 

To suspend the requirements of the Department of 

spect to certain low-income housing investors. and regarding filing of such certificates with retronic filing of previous participation certificates Housing and Urban Development regarding elecAPRIL 23, 2007 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### Nakia EDMOND v. PATHFINDER ENERGY SERVICES, INC., et al.

No. 2011-C-2234.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Pathfinder Energy Services, Inc., et ah; — Defendant, Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2009-3925; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-151.

Denied.

VICTORY and KNOLL, JJ., would grant.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent  public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the  incorporation by
reference  of our report dated April 12,  2001,  with respect to USOL  Holdings,
Inc.,  and on our report dated  February 11, 2000,  with respect to U.S.  OnLine
Communications,  Inc.,  both included in this Form 10-KSB,  into USOL  Holdings,
Inc.'s previously filed  Registration Statements, File No.  333-92975,  File No.
333-37836 and File No. 333-86033.

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Austin, Texas
April 16, 2001
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1737 

AN ACT 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and 

construction of permanent facilities for the GREAT 

project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters in 

the area of Oxnard, California. 
2 

•HR 1737 EH

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 ‘‘City of Oxnard Water 

5 Recycling and Desalination Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION, 

7 REUSE, AND TREATMENT PROJECT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

9 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (title XVI of Public 

10 Law 102–575; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by add11 ing at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘SEC. ll. OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION, 

13 REUSE, AND TREATMENT PROJECT. 

14 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera15 tion with the City of Oxnard, California, may participate 

16 in the design, planning, and construction of Phase I per17 manent facilities for the GREAT project to reclaim, reuse, 

18 and treat impaired water in the area of Oxnard, Cali19 fornia. 

20 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

21 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

22 25 percent of the total cost. 

23 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

24 funds for the following: 
3 

•HR 1737 EH

1 ‘‘(1) The operations and maintenance of the 

2 project described in subsection (a). 

3 ‘‘(2) The construction, operations, and mainte4 nance of the visitor’s center related to the project 

5 described in subsection (a). 

6 ‘‘(d) SUNSET OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the 

7 Secretary to carry out any provisions of this section shall 

8 terminate 10 years after the date of the enactment of this 

9 section.’’. 

10 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

11 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

12 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after the 

13 last item the following: 

‘‘Sec. ll. Oxnard, California, water reclamation, reuse, and treatment 

project.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1737 

AN ACT 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and 

Oxnard, California. reuse, and treat impaired waters in the area of nent facilities for the GREAT project to reclaim, the design, planning, and construction of permaize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to author-
#### John F. Talbot et al. v. The Mayor and Common Council of Bay City.

*Municipal corporations*— Paving *orders*— Interest.

*Mandamus*requiring the respondent to pay interest on paving orders payable out of a particular fund, the principal of which had been paid and accepted, and which contain no promise to pay interest, is denied, there being no statute or authority for such payment.

*Mandamus.*

Submitted June 26, 1888.

Denied July 10, 1888.

Relators apply for *mandamus*to compel the payment of' interest on paving orders. The facts are stated in the. opinion.

*Holmes <& GoTlins,*for relators.

Per Curiam.

Relators ask that an order issue requiring the city of Bay City to show cause why *manclamus*should not issue compelling it to pay interest on certain *119orders given for work done in paving in 1883 upon contracts made in 1882.

The amount for which the orders were given has been paid, and accepted by relators. The orders' contain no promise to pay interest, and were payable out of a particular fund. We find no statute or authority for the payment of such interest. The order must be denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                    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 Quarterly Report of LifeSmart Nutrition
Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Darald A. Donnell, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the
           operation of the Company.

/s/ Darald A. Donnell
______________________________________
Darald A. Donnell
Chief Executive Officer
April 18, 2003



                    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 LifeSmart Nutrition
Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Raymond J. Woolston, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the
         operation of the Company.



/s/ Raymond J. Woolston
-----------------------------------------
Raymond J. Woolston
Chief Financial Officer
April 18, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Appendix A to item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
(in thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              80,303
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      100,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   180,303
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     180,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              349,845
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            13,325
<OTHER-SE>                                        (182,867)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       180,303
<SALES>                                             23,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    23,086
<CGS>                                               38,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      577,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (511,093)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (511,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (511,093)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (1.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.32)



</TABLE>
#### Paul SEEMILLER, Appellant, v. CIRCUIT COURT CLERK OF ST. CHARLES COUNTY, Prosecuting Attorney of St. Charles County, and Honorable Judge Dalton, Circuit Court, Appellees.

No. 80-1947.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 1981.

Decided Feb. 12, 1981.

Paul Seemiller, pro se.

E. Darrell Davis, Jr., St. Charles County Counselor, St. Charles, Mo., for appellees.

*176Before HEANEY, ROSS and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Paul Seemiller, an inmate of the Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City, Missouri brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the St. Charles County Circuit Court Clerk and Prosecuting Attorney conspired to delay and impede his state court motion, brought under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26 Missouri Revised Statutes, to vacate his state sentence. The amended complaint was filed November 8, 1979,1 a hearing was scheduled for March 6, 1980, but delayed, and the instant suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on January 30, 1980. After referral to another judge the instant federal § 1983 case was referred to Judge Clyde S. Cahill who by memorandum and order of September 5, 1980, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.2

We agree the instant suit, which was filed less than three months after the amended complaint was filed in the state 27.26 action, was premature and affirm the district court, 88 F.R.D. 46. We also hold the affirmance, like the dismissal below, is without prejudice so that plaintiff may refile his complaint in the future if the state court proceedings are not resolved in due course.

It is so ordered.

1

. The district court original record shows the complaint was originally filed July 26, 1979, counsel was appointed, appointed counsel unsuccessfully sought to withdraw and the court ordered an amended complaint be filed by November 5, 1979.

2

. The district court held,

> [I]n view of the overcrowded dockets in state and federal courts, here and elsewhere, this Court is not prepared to hold that a delay of 10 months to a year in reviewing a collateral attack on a conviction is unreasonable or amounts to a deprivation of constitutional rights. *See generally Thompson v. White,*591 F.2d 441 (8th Cir. 1979); *Jones v. Shell,*572 F.2d 1278, 1280 (8th Cir. 1978); *Mucie*v. *Missouri State Department of Corredions,*543 F.2d 633, 635-36 (8th Cir. 1976); *and Barry*v. *Sigler,*373 F.2d 835, 838-39 n.4 (8th Cir. 1967). This does not mean that a more substantial delay would not amount to a denial of civil rights under Section 1983, and, thus, this complaint will be dismissed without prejudice so that plaintiff may refile his complaint in the event that his 27.26 motion is not resolved in due course.
No. 11,676.

#### The State *v.*Schreiber.

Filed Nov. 14, 1884.

From the Bartholomew Circuit Court.

*F. T. Hord,*Attorney General, *W. Dixon,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *W. B. Hord,*for the State.

Niblack, J.

The indictment in this case was quashed on motion of the appellee. It was, both in its form and in its substantial allegations, the same as the indictment in the case of *State*v. *Schreiber, ante,*p. 184, except that it charged that the sale of intoxicating liquor was made to one James W. Blakely. Upon the authority of that case the judgment in this case will have to be reversed.

The judgment is reversed accordingly, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.