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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Fanelli III, Senior Vice President 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:



|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 result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                                   
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|By:                  |  | /S/    JOHN FANELLI
III                                           
|                     |  | John Fanelli III Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                    
|Date: March 12, 2010
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF MILLER EXPLORATION COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Miller Exploration Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kelly E. Miller, Chief Executive 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,



|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/     KELLY E. MILLER               
|                                      
|Kelly E. MillerChief Executive Officer



November 13, 2003



34
Exhibit 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Michael P. ODonnell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;

4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.

August 23, 2007



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael P. ODonnell                            
|Michael P. ODonnell                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 972 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 972

  To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to eliminate the market 
                            access program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 1997

   Mr. Chabot (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Portman, Mr. Royce, Mr. 
 Meehan, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett 
    of Wisconsin, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Owens, Mr. Shays, Mr. Doyle, Mr. 
 Shadegg, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Sanford, Mr. 
    Olver, Mr. Foglietta, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. 
Ramstad, Ms. Rivers, and Mr. Wynn) introduced the following bill; which 
              was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to eliminate the market 
                            access program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Market Access Program Elimination 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.

    Section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) 
is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Case: 1:20-cv-02184 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-02184 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
Case: 1:20-cv-02184 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
Case: 1:20-cv-02184 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
Case: 1:20-cv-02184 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
Case: 1:20-cv-02184 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
Case: 1:20-cv-02184 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
Case: 1:20-cv-02184 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
Case: 1:20-cv-02184 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
Case: 1:20-cv-02184 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10
9722.

#### Lowe *v.*Burden.

Decided October 15, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of Houston county—Judge Riley. March *14,*1918.

*L. D. Moore,*for plaintiff in error. *G. L. Shepard,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial complains solely of the exclusion of certain evidence, but it is not shown therein that this evidence was offered by the plaintiff in error. Accordingly, that ground of the- motion raises no question for adjudication by this ' court.

2. There was some evidence which authorized the verdict; and, it having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworih tend Harwell, JJ., concur.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE FICO ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

Judge Edmond E. Chang

Magistrate Judge David E. Weisman

No. 1: 20-CV-02114

[UNOPPOSED] MOTION TO DROP HOLMES COUNTY BANK

AS A NAMED PLAINTIFF

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, Plaintiff Holmes County Bank, by and 

through its undersigned counsel, respectfully requests to be dropped as a named plaintiff in this 

action. Plaintiffs have consulted with Defendants Fair Isaac Corporation, Equifax, Inc., Experian 

Information Solutions, Inc., and TransUnion, LLC, and all Defendants have indicated that they

do not oppose this motion. Plaintiff Holmes County Bank reserves its right to recover as an 

absent class member should the remaining named plaintiffs prevail in this action but would have 

no active role in the ongoing litigation if the instant motion is granted. None of the other named 

plaintiffs, whether direct or indirect purchaser, object to this motion. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may 

at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Dropping a party under Rule 21 as a named 

plaintiff in a class action “is the appropriate and just approach if [the party] does not wish to 

represent the class.” In re Neopharm, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2004 WL 742084, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 

2004); see also Org. of Minority Vendors, Inc. v. Ill. Cent.-Gulf R.R., 1987 WL 8997, at *1 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 262 Filed: 03/07/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:5948
2

(N.D. Ill.1987) (“Absent a good reason . . . a plaintiff should not be compelled to litigate if it 

doesn’t wish to.”).

Dated: March 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Brian M. Hogan 

Brian M. Hogan 

DICELLO LEVITT LLP

Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 214-7900

bhogan@dicellolevitt.com

Gregory S. Asciolla (admitted pro hac vice)

Karin E. Garvey (admitted pro hac vice)

John M. Shaw (admitted pro hac vice)

DICELLO LEVITT LLP

485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001

New York, NY 10017

(646) 933-1000

gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com 

kgarvey@dicellolevitt.com

jshaw@dicellolevitt.com

Counsel for Holmes County Bank

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 262 Filed: 03/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:5949
**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 Inland Fiber Group, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,          2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas C. Ludlow,          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: 

 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of			the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,			the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Thomas C. LudlowThomas C. Ludlow 	Chief Financial Officer           November 14, 2005

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging,	or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required	by Section 906, has been provided to Inland Fiber Group, LLC and will be retained by Inland Fiber Group, LLC and furnished to the	Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 936

To authorize further appropriations for the stabilization and repair of damages to the Mountain Quarries Railroad Bridge, commonly known as

No Hands Bridge, caused by the heavy rains and flooding in California

in December 1996 and January 1997.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 1997

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize further appropriations for the stabilization and

repair of damages to the Mountain Quarries Railroad

Bridge, commonly known as No Hands Bridge, caused

by the heavy rains and flooding in California in December 1996 and January 1997.

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 ‘‘No Hands Bridge Res5 toration Act of 1997’’.
2

•HR 936 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE

2 STABILIZATION AND REPAIR OF NO HANDS

3 BRIDGE.

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—In addition to any other

5 amounts authorized or available, there are authorized to

6 be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior $700,000

7 for the stabilization and repair of damages to the Moun8 tain Quarries Railroad Bridge, commonly known as No

9 Hands Bridge, caused by heavy rains and flooding in Cali10 fornia in December 1996 and January 1997.

11 (b) USE.—Amounts may be appropriated under this

12 section for, among other activities, the following:

13 (1) The immediate stabilization and expeditious

14 opening of the bridge for such annual events as the

15 Western States 100 Mile Endurance Run and the

16 Tevis Cup.

17 (2) The permanent repair of the bridge’s east

18 pier as necessary to allow for unrestricted use of the

19 bridge.

20 (c) FUTURE USE.—Nothing in this section or any fu21 ture use or designation of the Mountain Quarries Bridge

22 shall preclude the future development of the Auburn Dam

23 Project.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 31

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Andrew J. Cederoth, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
     Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
     of periods included in the year covered by this annual report of
     Navistar Financial 2002-B Owner Trust;

2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
     whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
     light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
     misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
     required to be provided to the trustee by the Servicer under the
     pooling and servicing agreement, for inclusion in these reports, is
     included in these reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
     in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance
     with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, and except as
     disclosed in the reports, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations
     under that agreement; and

5.   The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
     Servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
     the report provided by an independent public accountant,  after
     conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
     Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
     Pooling and Servicing Agreement, that is included in these reports.

6.   In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Owner
     Trustee.


By: /s/ ANDREW J. CEDEROTH
Andrew J. Cederoth
Vice President and Treasurer
Navistar Financial Corporation
January 31, 2005
#### Mary Ann Haslam *v.*Gideon Walker's Exr., &c.

*Legacy*— Sale—Unfair Advantage.

"When a legatee sought out and induced, through her agent, the sale of her legacy, though for a grossly inadequate amount, such sale will not he disturbed in the absence of fraud.

appeal PROM louisville chancery court.

October 5, 1870.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters :

In this case there is no evidence tending to the conclusion that any improper means whatever were used by any one to influence appellant to make the sale and transfer of her legacy. It does not appear that the purchasers either saw or made any statements to her directly or indirectly on the subject, but it does appear that her wish to sell was communicated to appellees by her confidential friend and adviser Field before they had expressed any desire or intention to purchase; that Field and herself fixed a price that she was willing to take, and Field told appellees what that price was; they declined to pay that sum, and offered $400, which after consultation with Field, appellant consented to take, *369her willingness to take it was communicated to the purchaser, the contract was thereupon concluded, and the money paid.

*E. 8. Worthington, for appellant.*

*Mix, Oaldwell, for appellees.*

There is not only no evidence of any unfair or improper means used by appellees to procure the contract, but the evidence shows it was sought of them, that it was made by appellant in the exercise of the utmost freedom, and with parties whose conduct as far as developed by this record is without reproach.

Wherefore, the judgment must be affirmed.
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 

John Anselmo, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DWW AZ, Inc., d/b/a Right Honda; 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 2:16-CV-00222 PHX-SRB 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE 

Pursuant to stipulation by the parties, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing this cause with prejudice, the parties to 

bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 27th day of May, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00222-SRB Document 22 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 1
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 91

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to

reduce funding if States do not enact legislation that requires the death

penalty in certain cases.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968 to reduce funding if States do not enact

legislation that requires the death penalty in certain

cases.

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 ‘‘Correctional Officer

5 Protection Act’’.
2

•HR 91 IH

1 SEC. 2. GRANT REDUCTION FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

2 Section 506 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control

3 and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended by adding at

4 the end the following:

5 ‘‘(g)(1) In order not to reduce the funds available

6 under this subpart by 25 percent (for redistribution to

7 other participating States), a State shall, on the first day

8 of each fiscal year succeeding the first fiscal year begin9 ning 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act,

10 have in effect throughout the State a law which requires

11 whoever, being incarcerated pursuant to a conviction for

12 crime, kills an individual who is a State or local correc13 tional officer—

14 ‘‘(A) while such individual is engaged in carry15 ing out official duties as such officer;

16 ‘‘(B) because of the nature of the official duties

17 of such officer; or

18 ‘‘(C) because of such individual’s being such an

19 officer;

20 shall be subject to the penalty of death, if the killing is

21 a first degree murder, and subject to the penalties pro22 vided in sections 1111 and 1112 of title 18, United States

23 Code, in any other case.

24 ‘‘(2) As used in this subsection—

25 ‘‘(A) the term ‘State or local correctional offi26 cer’ means any person who is a State or local officer
3

•HR 91 IH

1 or employee, as such term is defined in section 1501

2 of title 5, United States Code, and who in the course

3 of official duty performs corrections-related or law

4 enforcement functions; and

5 ‘‘(B) the term ‘State or local government’ in6 cludes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and

7 any other territory and possession of the United

8 States.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 139-1 Filed: 01/18/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:3132
A-1 

Claim-Specific Grounds for Dismissal Of State Antitrust And Unfair Trade Practices Claims 

State 

Antitrust 

or Unfair 

Trade 

Practices 

DPP or 

IPP 

No 

Nexus 

No Class 

Actions 

Illinois 

Brick 

NonActionable 

Allegations 

Improper 

Market 

No 

Standing Other 

Arizona AT Both ✓

California AT Both ✓

Connecticut AT Both ✓

DC AT Both ✓ ✓

Illinois AT Both ✓ ✓

Iowa AT Both ✓

Kansas AT Both ✓

Maine AT Both 

Maryland AT Both ✓

Michigan AT Both 

Minnesota AT Both 

Mississippi AT Both ✓

Missouri AT IPP ✓ ✓ No direct purchaser 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 139-1 Filed: 01/18/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:3133
A-2 

State Antitrust 

or UFP 

DPP or 

IPP 

No 

Nexus 

No Class 

Actions 

Illinois 

Brick 

NonActionable 

Allegations 

Improper 

Market 

No 

Standing Other 

Nebraska AT Both ✓

Nevada AT Both ✓ ✓

New Hampshire AT Both ✓ ✓

New Mexico AT Both ✓

New York AT Both ✓

North Carolina AT Both ✓ ✓

North Dakota AT Both ✓

Oregon AT Both ✓

Rhode Island AT Both ✓ ✓

South Dakota AT Both ✓ ✓

Tennessee AT Both ✓ ✓

Does not apply to 

intangible services 

Utah AT Both ✓

Vermont AT Both ✓

West Virginia AT Both ✓ ✓

Wisconsin AT Both ✓ ✓

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 139-1 Filed: 01/18/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:3134
A-3 

State Antitrust 

or UFP 

DPP or 

IPP 

No 

Nexus 

No Class 

Actions 

Illinois 

Brick 

NonActionable 

Allegations 

Improper 

Market 

No 

Standing Other 

Arkansas UFP Both ✓ ✓

No unconscionable 

conduct 

California UFP Both ✓ ✓

DC UFP Both ✓

No unconscionable 

conduct 

Florida UFP Both ✓ No particularity 

Hawaii UFP IPP ✓ ✓

Massachusetts UFP Both ✓ ✓ No direct purchaser 

Missouri UFP IPP ✓ ✓

Montana UFP Both ✓ ✓

Nebraska UFP IPP ✓

New Hampshire UFP IPP ✓ ✓

New Mexico UFP Both ✓ ✓

No unequal bargaining 

power 

New York UFP Both 

North Carolina UFP Both ✓ ✓ No egregious conduct 

Oregon UFP IPP ✓ Statute of limitations 

Rhode Island UFP Both ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 139-1 Filed: 01/18/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:3135
A-4 

State Antitrust 

or UFP 

DPP or 

IPP 

No 

Nexus 

No Class 

Actions 

Illinois 

Brick 

NonActionable 

Allegations 

Improper 

Market 

No 

Standing Other 

South Carolina UFP Both ✓ ✓

South Dakota UFP Both ✓ ✓ No particularity 

Utah UFP IPP ✓

Vermont UFP Both ✓

West Virginia UFP Both ✓ ✓

N/A Unjust 

Enrichment IPP 

Derivative, received 

benefit of bargain, and 

not tailored to specific 

jurisdiction 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 139-1 Filed: 01/18/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:3136