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

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.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; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/  Robert H. Barghaus                       |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert  H. Barghaus                           |
|   | Vice  President and Chief Financial   Officer |
|   | September 4,  2008                       |

 

 

Thiscertification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject tothe knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
# Research Briefs

In addition to formal reports that are issued to the President and Congress, MSPB communicates perspectives on civil service issues through shorter, online research briefs. The research briefs below update and build on prior MSPB research or address trending topics that are of immediate interest to our stakeholders. 

## Other Publications

- Remedying Unacceptable Employee Performance in the Federal Civil Service  ( 6/18/2019) 
- The Perceived Incidence of Prohibited Personnel Practices  ( 6/6/2019  )
- Improving Federal Leadership Through Better Probationary Practices  ( 5/15/2019  )
-  The Roles of Feedback Autonomy and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors  ( 8/1/2018 )
-  Performance Management is More than an Appraisal  ( 12/10/2015  )
-  Addressing Misconduct in the Federal Civil Service Management Perspectives  ( 12/9/2016  )
-  Improving Federal Hiring Through Better Assessment  ( 7/1/2018  )
-  Update on Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace  ( 3/1/2018  )
-  Building Blocks for Effective Performance Management  ( 10/16/2017  )
-  Indefinite Suspensions and Potentially Criminal Behavior Using Reasonable Cause to Act  ( 5/20/2016  )
-  Fair and Open Competition Competent Staff Required  ( 10/6/2015  )
-  What is the Answer to Ethical Conduct Problems  ( 5/6/2015  )
-  Adverse Actions Rules and Reality  ( 8/4/2015  )
-  Mentoring Benefits and Considerations     ( 9/21/2014 )
-  Identifying a Probationer - It is not Always Easy but is Always Important  ( 6/10/2014  )
-  DOJ Strengthens Reference Checking    ( 2/6/2014 )
-  Pay Equality for Men and Women in the Federal Government       ( 12/13/2013  )
-  Tools of the Trade Considerations When Developing Performance Standards         ( 5/6/2011 )
- Individual Learning Accounts Making the Most of What You Have          ( 11/7/2011 )
-  Bookmark These Sites for HR-Related Research                  ( 9/14/2011 )
- Engaging Federal Employees in Troubled Times                ( 7/6/2011 )
- Supervisory Probationary Period A Missed Opportunity    	    ( 5/6/2011 )
<PAGE>

                                      EXHIBIT 11
                                 EAGLE FINANCE CORP.
                                           
                         COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
              For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 1997 and 1996
                                     (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   THREE MONTHS             SIX MONTHS
                                                                   ENDED JUNE 30,          ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                                 -----------------     -------------------
                                                                   1997       1996       1997        1996
                                                                 --------     ----     --------     ------
                                                                  (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
<S>                                                              <C>          <C>       <C>          <C>
Income data:
1.  Income (loss) before income taxes........................    $  (450)     $151     $(1,958)     $  290
2.  Applicable income taxes..................................         --        27          --          79
                                                                 --------     ----     --------     ------
3.  Net income...............................................    $  (450)     $124      (1,958)     $  211
                                                                 --------     ----     --------     ------
                                                                 --------     ----     --------     ------
Number of outstanding shares:
4.  Weighted average common shares
    outstanding, adjusted for stock splits...................      4,189     4,189       4,189       4,189

5.  Weighted average shares of treasury
    stock outstanding, adjusted for stock splits.............         --        --          --          --
6.  Weighted average shares reserved for stock
    options (utilizing the treasury stock method)............         --        --          --           3

7.  Common shares outstanding (Line 4-5+6)...................      4,189     4,189       4,189       4,192

Net income per share:
8.  Net income (loss) per common shares (Line 3/4)...........     $(0.11)    $0.03      $(0.47)       $0.05
9.  Fully diluted net income (loss) per common (Line 3/7)....     $(0.11)    $0.03      $(0.47)       $0.05

</TABLE>
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 7TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 30th

day of April, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

MARQUEL JERMON SCOTT, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00011-CR; Trial Court No. 007-0154-13

Opinion by Brian Hoyle, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 14th day of December, 2015.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
<PAGE>

                                      EXHIBIT 11
                                 EAGLE FINANCE CORP.

                         COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
           For the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 1997 and 1996
                                     (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                            SEPTEMBER 30,         SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                         ------------------     -----------------
                                                           1997        1996        1997      1996
                                                         -------       ----      -------     ----
                                                          (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
<S>                                                      <C>           <C>       <C>         <C>
Income data:
1.  Income (loss) before income taxes. . . . . . . . .   $(2,453)      $347      $(4,411)    $637
2.  Applicable income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . .        --        133           --      212
                                                         -------       ----      -------     ----
3.  Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   $(2,453)      $214       (4,411)    $425
                                                         -------       ----      -------     ----
                                                         -------       ----      -------     ----

Number of outstanding shares:
4.  Weighted average common shares
       outstanding, adjusted for stock splits. . . . .     4,206      4,189        4,195    4,189
5.  Weighted average shares of treasury
       stock outstanding, adjusted for stock splits. .        --         --           --       --
6.  Weighted average shares reserved for stock
       options (utilizing the treasury stock method) .        --         --           --        7

7.  Common shares outstanding (Line 4-5+6) . . . . . .     4,206      4,189        4,195    4,196

Net income per share:
8.  Net income (loss) per common shares (Line 3/4) . .    $(0.58)     $0.05       $(1.05)   $0.10
9.  Fully diluted net income (loss) per common (Line 3/7) $(0.58)     $0.05       $(1.05)   $0.09

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SCOTT CAIN.

October 13, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26170]



[[Page 63856]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLMTL06000-L14300000.ET0000; MTM 89170]


Public Land Order No. 7753; Extension of Public Land Order No. 
7464; Montana

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

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

SUMMARY: This order further extends the duration of the withdrawal 
created by Public Land Order No. 7464 for an additional 5-year period. 
This extension is necessary to continue protection of the Bureau of 
Land Management's Zortman-Landusky mining area which would otherwise 
expire on October 4, 2010.

DATES: Effective Date: October 5, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Micah Lee, Bureau of Land Management, 
Lewistown Field Office, P.O. Box 1160, Lewistown, Montana 59457, (406) 
538-1910, or Sandra Ward, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State 
Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, (406) 896-
5052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose for which the withdrawal was 
first made requires this extension to continue protection of the 
Zortman-Landusky mining area until reclamation is completed. The 
withdrawal has been extended once by Public Land Order No. 7643 (70 FR 
49944 (2005)).

Order

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
    1. Public Land Order No. 7464 (65 FR 59463 (2000)), as extended by 
Public Land Order No. 7643 (70 FR 49944 (2005)), which withdrew 
3,530.62 acres of public land from settlement, sale, location, or entry 
under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws 
(30 U.S.C. ch. 2), to protect the Zortman-Landusky Mining Area, is 
hereby further extended for an additional 5-year period.
    2. Public Land Order No. 7464 will expire October 4, 2015, unless, 
as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant 
to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal 
shall be further extended.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Wilma A. Lewis,
Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-26170 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
585 A.2d 388

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT KOCH.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip S. Chan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



January 7, 2005



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Philip S. Chan     
|Philip S. Chan         
|Chief Financial Officer



This certification is made solely
pursuant to the requirement of Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C., and is not for any other purpose.



27
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE FOTOBALL USA, INC. FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,614,154
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,979,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                   175,410
<INVENTORY>                                  4,609,201
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,364,927
<PP&E>                                       4,063,579
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,737,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,943,749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,328,047
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,790
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,671,097
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,943,749
<SALES>                                     20,108,026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,108,026
<CGS>                                       12,743,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,752,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                685,710
<INCOME-TAX>                                   274,284
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            411,425
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   411,425
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11




</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAMUEL PENNELLA.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63501-63502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25763]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5375-N-40]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll 
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988

[[Page 63502]]

court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: October 7, 2010.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. 2010-25763 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
#### WILLIAM SALISKY ET AL., PROSECUTORS-APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF GARFIELD, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued May 16, 1944

Decided September 14, 1944.

For the appellants, *Breslin & Breslin (Carmen M.*Belli, of counsel). ■

For the respondent, *Carey*tG *Lane (Robert Carey*and. *Harry*Lane, of counsel).

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Porter for the Supreme Court.

As respects the questions of fact, there was tangible evidence to support the findings, below; and it is elementary-in our jurisprudence that findings of fact on conflicting evidence, or on uncontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of divergent inferences, are not reviewable on error.

It is also urged that the demotion of the superior officers two ranks instead of to the next rank below contravenes *R. 8.*40:11-10.

It was conceded on the oral argument that this point was not raised on the brief submitted by appellant to the Supreme Court (there was no oral argument); and it is therefore not one for the consideration of this court, and we express no opinion respecting it.

Judgment affirmed.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chibe Justice, Parker, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Oolie, Dear, Wells, Raeeertx, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— None.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-83,405-01
EX P ARTE JOSE P H MARTIN HERNAND EZ, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 14-1167-CR-C-AIN THE 25 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM G UADALUP E COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Ap p l i cant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenc ed to thirty year s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance
. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief
. Strickla n d v. W

a s hington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960),2

the trial court is the appropriate forum for finding s of fac t. T he trial c ourt shall order trial counsel to respond to the ineffe ctive assistance of counsel claims set out in this application. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)
. I f t he trial court elects t o hold a h ea ring , it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Appl i ca n t is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent him at the hea ring . T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. A f ter r e v iewing counsel’s response , the trial court shall make finding s of fac t a n d c o n c lu s io n s of law as to whether counsel’s conduct was defic ient and Applicant was prejudice d. The trial court
s hall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant an d appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s cla im for habe as cor pus relief
. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order
. A supplemental transcr i p t co n t ai n ing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of t his order
. Any extensions of t ime shall be obtained f

rom this Court.
Filed: June 24, 2015 Do not publish
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 19, 2019

t0612

Order 

Clerk

June 19, 2019

159166

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159166

COA: 346371 

Cass CC: 17-010189-FH

JAVIER ESCOBEDO,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2018 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the January 17, 2018 amended judgment of 

sentence, and we REMAND this case to the Cass Circuit Court to reinstate the December 

15, 2017 judgment of sentence. People v Comer, 500 Mich 278 (2017). We further 

VACATE that part of the December 15, 2017 judgment of sentence imposing a $500 

fine. MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(i). MCL 750.520b does not authorize a fine. In all other 

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.