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

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CV Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: August 1, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ DANIEL K. SPIEGELMAN                    
|                      |  |  |  | Daniel K. Spiegelman Chief Financial
Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 727 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Federal funding 

for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2019. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Mr. LAMBORN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 

after fiscal year 2019. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COR4 PORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING 

5 AFTER FISCAL YEAR 2019. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 396 of the Communica7 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 396) is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(n) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS AFTER FIS10 CAL YEAR 2019.—No Federal funds may be made availVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Feb 03, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H727.IH H727

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 727 IH

1 able to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fis2 cal year 2019.’’. 

3 (b) CORPORATION PROHIBITED FROM ACCEPTING

4 FEDERAL FUNDS.—Subsection (g) of such section is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘‘subject 

7 to paragraph (3)(C),’’ before ‘‘obtain’’; and 

8 (2) in paragraph (3)— 

9 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘; 

10 and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

11 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the 

12 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

13 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

14 subparagraph: 

15 ‘‘(C) accepting funds from the Federal Govern16 ment after fiscal year 2019.’’. 

17 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Such section is 

18 further amended— 

19 (1) in subsection (k)(3)(A)(iv)(II), by inserting 

20 ‘‘through fiscal year 2019’’ after ‘‘amounts re21 ceived’’; and 

22 (2) in subsection (m)— 

23 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting 

24 ‘‘through fiscal year 2019’’ after ‘‘every three 

25 years thereafter’’; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 727 IH

1 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and 

2 through fiscal year 2019,’’ after ‘‘1989,’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement  dated as of August 1, 2014,by and among RBS COMMERICAL FUNDING INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENTLLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB,as Co-op Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC., as TrustAdvisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator,as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2014-C21 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the General Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 throughDecember 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersignedhas executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of Februray 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LARRY THOMAS LINDSEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-96-313, CA-97-2653-4-22)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Thomas Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker

Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Thomas Lindsey seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Lindsey, Nos.

CR-96-313; CA-97-2653-4-22 (D.S.C. Nov. 25, 1997). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H.
Barghaus, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 result of operations of the Company.






/s/ Robert H. BarghausRobert H. BarghausVice President and Chief Financial OfficerSeptember 2, 2009






This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Robert B. Goergen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Robert B. Goergen                |
|--------------------------------------|
| Robert B. Goergen                    |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
| April 14, 2005                       |

 

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, andnot for any other purpose.

 

----
#### TIME ACCEPTANCE OF ZACHARY, INC. v. Clovis MATTHEWS, Sr. and Janet Matthews.

No. 2011-OC-0295.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re Matthews Sr., Colvis et al.; Matthews, Janet; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 39784; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1594.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, Section 5.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62530-62531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25514]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-6409-000]


Williams, Barry Lawson; Notice of Filing

October 4, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 24, 2010, Barry Lawson Williams 
submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking 
positions, pursuant to

[[Page 62531]]

section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, Part 45 of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, 18 CFR part 45 
(2008), and 18 CFR 385.204 (2008).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fcbab9aebfb39290959299af898c8c938e88bc9a998e9fd29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80c6c5d2c3cfeeece9eee5d3f5f0f0eff2f4c0e6e5f2e3aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 15, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25514 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Consolidated Graphics, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, G. Christopher Colville, Executive Vice President, ChiefFinancial and Accounting Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

#  

# (1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

# (2)           Information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|   | Dated: February 1, 2006                                                         |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                            |
|   | /s/ G. Christopher Colville                                                     |   |
|   | G. Christopher Colville                                                         |
|   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial  and Accounting Officer and Secretary |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                  Exhibit 11.1

                    Photoelectron Corporation and Subsidiary
                         (a Development Stage Company)
                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                Three Months Ended              Six Months Ending
                                          ------------------------------  ------------------------------
                                          June 28, 1997   June 29, 1996   June 28, 1997   June 29, 1996
                                          --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
<S>                                       <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY NET LOSS PER
 SHARE
 
Net Loss                                    $(1,418,160)    $(1,036,850)    $(2,499,640)    $(1,996,866)
 
SHARES:
 
Weighted average shares outstanding:          7,026,778       1,583,554       6,019,585       1,583,554
 
Shares issuable from the assumed 
  conversation of Series C Preferred 
  Stock issued within one year of 
  the Company's initial public 
  offering:                                          --          33,106           5,334          33,106
                                            -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
Weighted average common and
  common equivalent shares 
  outstanding:                                7,026,778       1,616,660       6,024,919       1,616,660
 
Primary Net Loss Per Share:                 $     (0.20)    $     (0.64)    $     (0.42)    $     (1.24)
                                            ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
COMPUTATION OF FULLY DILUTED NET LOSS
 PER SHARE:
Net Loss                                    $(1,418,160)    $(1,036,850)    $(2,499,640)    $(1,996,866)
 
SHARES:
 
Weighted average shares outstanding           7,026,778       1,583,554       6,019,585       1,583,554
 
Shares issuable from the assumed
 conversion of Series C Preferred Stock
 issued within one year of the 
 Company's initial public offering:                  --          33,106           5,334          33,106
                                            -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
Weighted average common and common
 equivalent shares outstanding:               7,026,778       1,616,660       6,024,919       1,616,660

Primary Net Loss Per Share:                 $     (0.20)    $     (0.64)    $     (0.42)    $     (1.24)
                                            ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
 
</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131068 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: 131068 COA: 264280 Tuscola CC: 01-008258-FH JEFFREY LLOYD GREENLEAF, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1023 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.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus, VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except for the matters set forth in PartII – Item 5 of this Quarterly Report; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert H. Barghaus                     |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert H. Barghaus                         |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | December 16, 2004                     |

 

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350,subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any otherpurpose.

 

----
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 AUGUST 6, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-16350

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 99-00034-CR-CDL-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LARRY N. GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(August 6, 2010)

Before BLACK, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Larry N. Green appeals his 14-month prison sentence, which was imposed

for violating the conditions of his supervised release. On appeal, Green argues his

sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider his

mental health status and failed to specify its rationale for the sentence. After

review, we affirm Green’s sentence.

1

A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if, inter alia, the sentencing

court fails to consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors or fails to explain the

chosen sentence adequately. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).

The district court need not discuss or explicitly state each factor on the record, and

an acknowledgment by the court that it has considered the defendant’s arguments

and the § 3553(a) factors will suffice. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319,

1324 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2848 (2009). A sentence is

substantively unreasonable “if it does not achieve the purposes of sentencing stated

in § 3553(a).” United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008)

(quotation omitted). We generally “expect a sentence within the Guidelines range

to be reasonable.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).

We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for 1

reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006). We review

whether the sentence is reasonable under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States,

128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007).

2
At the revocation hearing, the district court specifically considered the

relevant § 3553(a) factors and explained its rationale for the chosen sentence. The

record belies Green’s contention that the district court did not properly consider his

mental health when fashioning his sentence, as the district court explicitly

instructed Green to participate in a mental health treatment program.

Consequently, Green’s sentence was not procedurally unreasonable.

Green’s within-guidelines sentence is also substantively reasonable. Green

used cocaine multiple times in violation of the terms of his supervised release. In

light of these violations, the court imposed the sentence “to maintain respect for the

law and to make it clear . . . that . . . supervised release is a serious component of

any sentence.” The § 3553(a) factors supported Green’s sentence, and the district

court did not make a clear error of judgment when it weighed them.

AFFIRMED.

3
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARY CATHERINE KRENEK,

 Appellant,

v.

SWINERTON BUILDERS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00143-CV

Appeal from the

53rd District Court 

of Travis County, Texas 

(TC#D-1-GN-22-001351) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution.1

Finding that the clerk’s record has not been filed due to the fault of the Appellant, Mary

Catherine Krenek, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Unless otherwise excused, a non-indigent appellant must either pay for or make 

arrangements for the payment of the fees related to preparation of the appellate record to ensure 

that the record is timely filed. TEX.R.APP.P. 35.3(a)(2), (b)(3); see TEX.R.APP.P. 37.3(b), (c). The

clerk’s record was due to be filed on August 12, 2022. 

1 We hear this case on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals. See TEX.R.APP.P. 41.3.
2

The Travis County District Clerk notified the Court that the clerk’s record would not be 

filed because Appellant had not made financial arrangements to pay for the record. In accordance 

with Rule 37.3(b), on August 16, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified Appellant by letter regarding 

the failure to make financial arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and advised Appellant that 

the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless a response was received within ten 

days and showed grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 37.3(b). Appellant has not 

filed any written response or otherwise showed that grounds exist for the appeal to be continued. 

Pursuant to Rules 37.3(b) and 42.3(b) and (c), we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See

TEX.R.APP.P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

August 30, 2022

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
584 A.2d 217

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN PELLEGRINO, JR.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.