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 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of ITT Educational Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel M. Fitzpatrick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Company.












/s/ Daniel M. Fitzpatrick


Chief Financial Officer


February 19, 2010
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable
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 the Company.
 
 Date:  December 14, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Michael J. CalielMichael J. CalielPresident and Chief Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2955

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Dwight Armel, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 24, 2012

Filed: March 1, 2012

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dwight Armel appeals the district court’s order committing himto the custody

1

of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246, and we affirm.

Section 4246 provides for the indefinite hospitalization of a person who has

been committed to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Missouri.
(concerning mental incompetence to stand trial) and who is found--by clear and

convincing evidence after a hearing--to be suffering from a mental disease or defect

such that his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person

or serious damage to the property of another. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a)-(d). In this

case, the district court found the commitment was appropriate because state

placement was unavailable and the mental health professionals who examined Armel

unanimously believed that his mental illness and history of volatile and threatening

behavior would create a risk of dangerousness within the meaning of section 4246 if

Armel were unconditionally released. We hold that this finding is not clearly

erroneous. See United States v. Williams, 299 F.3d 673, 676-77 (8th Cir. 2002)

(standard of review). We note that Armel’s custodians are under an ongoing

obligation to prepare annual reports concerning his mental condition and the need for

his continued hospitalization, see 18 U.S.C. § 4247(e)(1)(B), and to exert reasonable

efforts to place hm in a suitable state facility, see 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

granted, and Armel’s pro se appellate motions are denied.

______________________________

-2-
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Edward Burns","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3MRES8vstI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/edward-burns\/\">Edward Burns<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/edward-burns\/embed\/#?secret=3MRES8vstI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Edward Burns” — NASA\" data-secret=\"3MRES8vstI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ed_burns_official_photo_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
#### JOHN KNUTZEN v. FIRST AND SECURITY NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS.1

January 23, 1920.

No. 21,504.

Case followed.

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $249.07. The case was tried before Steele, J., who, when plaintiff rested on the pleadings, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action and at the close of the testimony its motion for a directed verdict, and granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict for $252.81. From, an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed.

Reversed.

*Lancaster & Simpson*and *James E. Dorsey,*for appellant.

*Douglas, Kennedy & Kennedy,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 176 N. W. 187.

Per Curiam.

This case and the case of Talbot against the same defendant were tried together, supra, page 12, 176 N. W. 184. The issues and facts are alike, save as to the amount of the checks. The decision in that case is applicable here. The order appealed from is accordingly reversed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 44","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zvrpJyishM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-44\/\">Expedition 44<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-44\/embed\/#?secret=zvrpJyishM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 44” — NASA\" data-secret=\"zvrpJyishM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/exp44-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.10

                                   RENEWAL OF
                          EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN


                  Drew K. Hostetter, EVP, CFO and Treasurer AND


                          SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES, INC.

     As of Wednesday, January 15, 2003, the employment of Drew K. Hostetter is
hereby deemed to be renewed for three (3) years under the terms and conditions
per the Employment Agreement dated March 12, 2001 (but effective as of February
28, 2001), as amended.

     The base salary as per Section 4.1 will be $281,965 per year.

                                              SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES, INC.
Attest:



/s/ Lisa M. Cavage                            By: /s/ Edward Balderston, Jr.
------------------                                --------------------------
Secretary                                     Edward Balderston, Jr.
Lisa M. Cavage                                SVP & Group Executive


[SEAL]

<PAGE>

                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     The Employment Agreement effective as of February 28, 2001, and amended by
the First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated January 18, 2002, by and
between SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation organized as a
financial holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended
(the "Company"), and DREW K. HOSTETTER, an adult individual whose principal
residence is at 812 Westminster Drive, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601 (the
"Employee"), is hereby amended as follows:

     1. Subparagraph 10.5(b) is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

     "(b) all other employee benefits to which the Employee would have been
entitled under paragraph 7 hereof if he had remained in the employ of the
Company for the remainder of the Period of Employment. However, to the extent
that such employee benefits are provided by insurance companies and other
vendors not affiliated with the Company, the obligation of the Company to
provide such employee benefits shall not exceed that to which the Employee would
be entitled under the contracts in force between the Company and such vendors at
the time of the event of termination under this subparagraph 10.5."

     As so amended, said Employment Agreement is hereby confirmed, with the
intent to be legally bound, this 22nd day of January, 2003.


                                                  SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES, INC.



Attest: /s/ Lisa M. Cavage                        By: /s/ William J. Reuter
        ------------------                            ---------------------
Secretary                                         Name:   William J. Reuter
                                                  Title:  President and CEO

                                                  EMPLOYEE

Witness:

/s/ Edward Balderston, Jr.                        /s/ Drew K. Hostetter
--------------------------                        ---------------------
Name: Edward Balderston, Jr.                      Drew K. Hostetter
Order entered August 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01261-CV

EX PARTE MICHEAL GEROD MCGREGOR

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. X-13-1459-W

ORDER

We GRANT the “Omnibus Motions” filed by appellant, an inmate appearing pro se, to 

the extent that we (1) DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to (a) correct the spelling of appellant’s 

first name to MICHEAL, (b) send him a copy of his June 19, 2015 brief, and (c) send him a copy 

of the pamphlet explaining the pro bono program created by the Dallas Volunteer Attorney 

Program and Dallas Bar Association’s Appellate Law Section Pro Bono Committee; (2) 

SUSPEND rule of appellate procedure 9.3, requiring parties to file an original and unbound copy 

of paper documents, and 38.1(k), requiring appellants to file, along with their briefs, an appendix 

containing the trial court’s judgment, the jury charge and verdict or the trial court’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law, and the text of any law upon which argument is based; and (3) 

ORDER the amended brief be filed no later than October 5, 2015. We DENY the “Omnibus 

Motions” in all other respects.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Amendment No.1 to Omnibus Credit Agreement


  Exhibit 10.4.1
  AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO OMNIBUS CREDIT AGREEMENT
            This Amendment No. 1 to Omnibus Credit Agreement is dated as of October 1, 2002 by and between Citibank (New York State), a banking corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York, and its successors and assigns (collectively, “CNYS”), and The Student Loan Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (“STU”). 
  BACKGROUND:
            WHEREAS, each of CNYS and STU entered into an Omnibus Credit Agreement
dated as of November 30, 2000 (the “Agreement”) pursuant to which CNYS made available to STU various credit facilities; and
            WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to increase the maximum aggregate amount of credit available to STU under the credit facilities provided by CNYS to STU under the
Agreement to $25.0 billion; and
            WHEREAS, all terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning set forth in the
Agreement.
            NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and in the Agreement, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
  AGREEMENTS:

	  1.
 	  Paragraph 1 of Part I of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof:
 
	  
 	  
 
	  
 	 This Omnibus Credit Agreement is intended to represent the rights, obligations and duties of the respective parties and to provide various credit facilities including Tranche A
(A Line of Credit Facility), Tranche B (A Term Note Credit Facility), Tranche C (A Multiple Long Term Facility), and Tranche D (A Fixed Rate Term Note Credit Facility).  CNYS shall make available to STU credit as hereinafter described in an
aggregate amount of $25.0 billion.
 
	  
 	  
 
	  
 	  This Omnibus Credit Agreement does not supersede that certain agreement dated as of November 4, 1999, as amended (the “November 4, 1999 Agreement”), between CNYS and
STU which also provides certain credit facilities.  Advances under the November 4, 1999 Agreement may continue to remain outstanding subject to the terms and maturities of that agreement and the respective promissory notes or may be refinanced
without prepayment penalty by an advance under this Omnibus Credit Agreement, provided however, that the aggregate credit facilities provided by the November 4, 1999 Agreement and this Omnibus Credit Agreement shall not exceed the maximum amount of
$25.0 billion.
 
	  
 	  
 
	  2.
 	  Except as otherwise modified herein, all terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 1 shall remain in full force and effect.
 

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Amendment No. 1 as of the date first set forth above.

	 CITIBANK (NEW YORK STATE)
 	  THE STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION
 
	  
 	  
 
	  By:
 	  /s/  THEODORE HEINRICH
 	  
 	  By:
 	  /s/  YIANNIS ZOGRAPHAKIS
 	  
 
	  
 	 
 	  
 	  
 	 
 	  
 
	  Name:
 	 Theodore Heinrich
 	  
 	  Name:
 	 Yiannis Zographakis
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent,

vs.

Jose Luis Lopez, 

Defendant/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR01-0077-PHX-SRB

 CV04-0876-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Defendant, Jose Luis Lopez, filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on April 27, 2004. Plaintiff filed its response in opposition on

January 14, 2005 and Defendant filed a reply on February 27, 2006.

The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on January 30, 2007,

recommending that Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence be denied.

In her Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they

had 10 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has

long since expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

as the order of this Court. (doc. 177).

Case 2:01-cr-00077-SRB Document 179 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence is denied. (Doc. 133).

DATED this 5th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:01-cr-00077-SRB Document 179 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ambient Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report")
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Lauren Farrell, 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; and

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


NOVEMBER 14, 2005                       /s/ LAUREN FARRELL
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        LAUREN FARRELL
                                        CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO AMBIENT CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY AMBIENT CORPORATION AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### William A. Rause *v.*Thomas Deacon.

Executors and Administrators — Personal Claim — Suit for.

An administrator, cannot sue himself as such, for personal service rendered the estate.

Same — Limitations.

The statute of limitations does not run against the personal claim of an administrator, after his appointment.

Same — Compromise, not Accepted — Evidence.

The proposition of an administrator, for a compromise of a less sum than the amount of his claim, which was not accepted, is not conclusive against him and should not be offered in evidence as such.

APPEAL PROM BULLITT CIRCUIT OOURT.

June 2, 1870

OPINION OP THE OouRT BY

JlJDGE HaRDIN:

The appellant being the curator of the estate of I. A. Deacon, deceased, could not sue himself on his claim for services, and the statute of limitations did not run against his claim after his appointment, according to a well settled rule of law; therefore so much of his claim as accrued within the last five years of Deacon’s life was certainly not barred, but there is express proof of a recognition of the claim and a promise to pay it by Deacon within that time, which seems to have been sufficient to take the whole claim out of the operation of the statute, and there is no satisfactory evidence that it was ever paid or discharged. The circuit court in rejecting the entire claim seems to have adopted the view of the commissioner that it was either paid or barred by limitation, a conclusion which we think was not authorized. But there is much difficulty in determining from the evidence what amount of the claim should have been allowed. It appears from .the testimony of Carpenter, the judge of the county court before whom a partial settlement of the estate was made, that said claim as then exhibited, and claimed as just by the appellant, *220was about $300, but for the sake of a settlement and to avoid litigation be was willing to accept, as a compromise, an allowance of $100, or $175 of tbe claim. ■ The evidence of his entire services for which nothing was allowed, would we think, have sustained a larger claim than $300, but although he was not concluded by his proposition to compromise at a less sum, which was not accepted, we do not think he should have been allowed more in this suit than his claim as exhibited at the settlement before the county judge, say, $300 as against the five distributees of the estate. The judgment in favor of the appellee, Thomas Deacon, for $104.92 should therefore have been credited by $60, being the fifth part of said sum of $300, and to that extent only, the judgment is deemed erroneous.

Thompson, *Johnson, for appellant.*

Field, *for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a judgment in accordance with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 99.2

     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 Energy Visions Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Peter F. Searle,
Vice President,  Finance,  and 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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15
          (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (ii) The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  represents,  in all
          material aspects,  the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

                           /s/ Peter F. Searle
                           ------------------------------------------
                           Peter F. Searle,
                           Vice President, Finance and
                           Chief Financial Officer
                           ------------------------------------------
                           August 19, 2002