alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Most Home Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Michael Schutz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

(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.





|Date:  June 15, 2006 | /s/ Michael Schutz
Michael Schutz
Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Most Home Corp. and will be retained by Most Home Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### Bertha Levine Elterman, Plaintiff, *v.*Henry S. Friedman, Defendant.

Supreme Court, New York County,

November 29, 1925.

Depositions — examination before trial — action on promissory note — defendant, indorser on note, alleged plaintiff, immediate payee, exacted usury from payee — defendant entitled to examine plaintiff on issue of usury, but not as to failure of presentment and notice — plaintiff not entitled to avail itself of warranties under Negotiable Instruments Law, § 116.

In an action upon a promissory note, in which the defendant is sued as an irregular indorser, and in which the defense interposed is that the plaintiff, an immediate payee, exacted usury from the payee, said defendant is entitled to an examination of the plaintiff before trial as to the issue of usury but not as to failure of presentment and notice.

The plaintiff, being charged with participation in the usurious transaction, cannot avail herself of the warranties set forth in section 116 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

Motion by plaintiff to vacate notice to examine him before trial.

*Goldman, White & Lowenbraun,*for the plaintiff.

*Henry B. Lamm,*for the defendant.

Proskauer, J.

The payee of a promissory note here sues an irregular indorser. The defendant has given notice to examine the plaintiff before trial, which plaintiff moves to vacate. As to the defense of payment, the motion will be denied. As to failure of presentment and notice, the motion will be granted.

The real controversy turns on the right of the defendant to examine as to the defense of usury. Since the decision of *Sabine*v. *Paine*(223 N. Y. 401) it is at least open to argument that any *35indorser may defend on the ground of usury against any holder. But the determination of the present controversy does not require so broad a holding. The allegation of the answer here is that this plaintiff herself exacted usury from the payee. While it has been held that the indorser cannot plead usury against a holder in due course, the warranty of the indorser under section 116 of the Negotiable Instruments Law runs only to subsequent holders in due course. Where, as here, the plaintiff is the immediate payee and is charged with participation in the illegal transaction, she cannot avail herself of the warranties set forth in section 116. This has been specifically held by the Appellate Term in *Kass*v. *Blumberg*(142 N. Y. Supp. 544) and in a well-reasoned opinion of the City Court in *Bruck*v. *Lambeck*(63 Misc. 117). The defendant is certainly entitled to examine on the issue of usury, where the charge is that the plaintiff herself was the usurer.

Settle order on notice in accordance with this opinion.
H. Res. 267

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 5, 1998.

Whereas recently released statistics demonstrate that America is not winning the battle to keep young Americans

drug-free;

Whereas the results of these studies show that 29 percent of

high school students state that a student in their school

died from a drug-related or an alcohol-related incident in

the last year;

Whereas 76 percent of high school students and 46 percent

of middle school students claim drugs are kept, used, or

sold on their school grounds;

Whereas studies show that 61 percent of high school students

claim they can buy drugs within 1 day and 35 percent

claim they can buy drugs within 1 hour or less;

Whereas it is reported that the use of heroin is increasing

and that 90 percent of new heroin users are under 26

years old;

Whereas the use of drugs at a young age dramatically increases the risk of failure to complete high school, increases the likelihood of committing crimes, and reduces

future prospects in education, athletics, and careers;

Whereas it is known that safe, drug-free, and orderly classrooms are key to an effective learning environment;
2

•HRES 267 EH

Whereas parental involvement is critical to helping young

Americans resist the temptations of drugs and to establishing a healthy learning environment;

Whereas violent crime rates across the United States have

declined due to strong parental involvement and cooperation among local, State, and Federal law enforcement

agencies;

Whereas the same unified effort and commitment are needed

to fight drugs in our schools, playgrounds, and communities; and

Whereas Congress has the unique ability to provide leadership on this issue by raising awareness of the dangers of

drugs in schools in every community across this great

Nation: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Congress that—

(1) all schools should be drug-free;

(2) the distribution, sale, and use of illegal drugs in

the Nation’s schools is unacceptable;

(3) all Federal, State, and local drug fighting agencies should work together with schools and parents to

ensure that a renewed effort is made to fight the distribution, sale, and use of illegal drugs in our schools

and to America’s youth;

(4) all governmental leaders, educators, and parents

share a role in raising the awareness of this issue and

offering constructive alternatives to illegal drug use; and

(5) Congress and the President should work to end

the distribution, sale, and use of illegal drugs in the Na-
3

•HRES 267 EH

tion’s schools and, work with local communities, schools,

and parents to implement meaningful policies.

Attest:

Clerk.
Case: 1:20-cv-02374 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-02374 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:2
Case: 1:20-cv-02374 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3
Case: 1:20-cv-02374 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:4
#### PHOTO DEVELOPING, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. AL BITTNER, TRADING AS THE GRAPHIC PRESS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued May 1, 1945

Decided June 11, 1945.

Before Justices Case, Bodine and Pekskie.

For the plaintiff-respondent, *Frank, M. Tmvaline, Jr.*

For the defendant-appellant, *Barney B. Brown.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Case, J.

The appeal is from a judgment for $480 damages, $14 interest and $29.20 costs rendered by the judge of the District Court of the City of Camden, sitting without a jury, for the plaintiff and against the defendant in a replevin suit wherein the plaintiff declared alternately in the following language: “Plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession of said goods and, in the event that they cannot he returned, the sum of $480 (plus costs) their value, is hereby demanded.” Defendant did not effect a counter-replevin. The goods were not found; consequently, the money judgment. Six and one-half tons of cardboard had been bought by defendant for plaintiff’s account and had been paid for by plaintiff; a part thereof had been cut into cards and printed by the defendant. Plaintiff sued for the remaining five and one-third tons of uncut cardboard. The cost had been $75 per ton. At the time of the trial cardboard of that grade was not to be had. The ceiling price fixed by the Office of Price Administration on the available goods of the nearest quality was $90 per ton. *103The court’s findings leave much to be desired in the way of precise technicality, but we interpret them as resolving that the title to and right of possession of the goods were in the plaintiff, that the actual possession was in the defendant who had wrongfully refused plaintiff’s demand for delivery and that the quantity of the goods was five and one-third tons and the value $90 per ton. There was ample evidence to sustain those findings.

The record shows "judgment for plaintiff for $480 damage, $14 interest and $29.20 costs of suit.” That was a judgment for damages and not a judgment in debt. The record does not explain how or upon what the item of interest is calculated. If it was based upon a conversion or damages for detention, *Imbesi*v. *Eastern Motor Co.,*104 *N. J. L.*251; *affirmed,*105 *Id.*490; *Field*v. *Post,*38 *Id.*346; *Independent Aetna Sprinkler Corp.*v. *Morris,*111 *Id.*457, 461, we note that the state of demand does not seek such a recovery and is, therefore, distinguished from that in *Zemel*v. *Commercial Warehouses, Inc.,*132 *Id.*341, which specifically grounded in interest as an element in the recovery. The pleading asks only the possession of the goods or in lieu thereof the value of the same ($480) and costs of suit. The allowance of interest was, we think, error, but we find no other fault.

If plaintiff will waive the interest, the judgment will be affirmed without costs on this appeal, *Philbrick*v. *Mundy,*93 *N. J. L.*43; *Frank J. Bloom, Co.*v. *Kuemmerle Corp.,*104 *Id.*549; *Rabinowitz*v. *Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Co.,*119 *Id.*552; otherwise the judgment below will be reversed, and a new trial awarded as to damages only.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jermaine Walker","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jwalke32\/","title":"Australian Tracking Facility","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"xa4L1ocw3q\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/sony-dsc-10\/\">Australian Tracking Facility<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/sony-dsc-10\/embed\/#?secret=xa4L1ocw3q\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Australian Tracking Facility” — NASA\" data-secret=\"xa4L1ocw3q\" 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\/08\/canberra-atf-03.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":402}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

GALE CLAPPER, 

 Case No. 20-cv-02635 

 Plaintiff, 

 Hon. Manish S. Shah 

 v. Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez 

 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.; ABC 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 

 Defendants. 

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION 

OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES 

Defendant United Airlines, Inc., by and through its attorneys Sean C. Herring, Howard 

Shapiro, and Dana S. Elfvin of Jackson Lewis P.C., moves for an unopposed 7-day extension of 

the dispositive motion deadlines set in the Court’s February 16, 2022 Order (Docket No. 73). In 

Support of this motion, Defendant states as follows: 

1. On February 15, 2022, the parties submitted a joint status report that included a 

proposed schedule for dispositive motion briefing. (Docket No. 72). 

2. On February 16, 2022, the Court entered an order accepting the parties’ proposed 

schedule of March 25, 2022 for dispositive motions, April 29, 2022 for responses, and May 20, 

2022 for replies. (Docket No. 73). 

3. Defendant is in the process of finalizing its dispositive motion but needs additional 

time due to its counsel’s trial preparation in another matter. 

4. Defendant therefore requests a brief extension of time, up to and including, April 

1, 2022 for the parties to file dispositive motions. Defendant further requests that the extension 

Case: 1:20-cv-02635 Document #: 74 Filed: 03/22/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:689
2 

apply to responses and replies, with responses to be filed by May 6, 2022, and replies by May 27, 

2022. 

5. On March 21, 2022, counsel for Defendant, Sean C. Herring, contacted counsel for 

Plaintiff, Nathaniel Cade, via e-mail. Mr. Cade indicated that Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. 

6. Defendant does not bring this motion for purposes of delay or for any other 

improper purpose. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant United Airlines, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court grant this 

motion and extend the dispositive motion schedule by 7 days, to April 1, 2022 for dispositive 

motions, May 6, 2022 for responses, and May 27, 2022 for replies, and for any further or other 

relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: March 22, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC. 

By: /s/ Sean C. Herring 

 

Sean C. Herring 

Howard Shapiro (pro hac vice) 

Dana S. Elfvin 

 Jackson Lewis P.C. 

 150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500 

 Chicago, Illinois 60601 

 Tel: (312) 787-4949 

 Sean.Herring@jacksonlewis.com 

 Howard.Shapiro@jacksonlewis.com 

 Dana.Elfvin@jacksonlewis.com 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02635 Document #: 74 Filed: 03/22/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:690
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that on March 22, 2022, he caused a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Dispositive Motion 

Deadlines to be filed with the Court by electronic filing protocols, and that same will be therefore 

be electronically served upon all attorneys of record registered with the Court’s ECF/CM system. 

 /s/ Sean C. Herring 

Case: 1:20-cv-02635 Document #: 74 Filed: 03/22/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:691
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection
 AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
 ACTION: Customs broker's license revocation.
 SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the revocation of one (1) customs broker's license.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides that, pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), and section 111.45(a) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 111.45(a)), the following customs broker's license and all associated permits are revoked by operation of law.
                    ( print page 65694) Company name
License No.
Port of issuanceAll Roads Logistics LLC
28729
Great Falls.
 Dated: October 31, 2014. Sandra L. Bell, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.


[FR Doc. 2014-26335 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
#### Louis A. Coquard and Aime Chevillotte v. William Boehmer, Commissioner of Highways of the Township of Hamtramck.

*Highways*— Proceedings *to establish*— Notice.

Ten *full*days’ notice must be given of the bearing of an application to lay out a highway. How. Stat. § 1298; *People v. Commissioner, 3*8 Mich. 247; *Price v. Stagray,*68 Id. 17; *Dixon v. Commissioner,*75 Id. 225.

*Certiorari*to highway commissioner to review proceed, ings to lay out highway.

Argued June 4, 1890.

Proceedings quashed June 13, 1890.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Wisner, Speed & Harvey,*for petitioners.

*John G. Hawley,*for respondent.

Morse, J.

*Certiorari*to review proceedings to lay out a highway.

The proceedings must be quashed. Notice of a meeting to be held January 25, 1890, to view the premises and ascertain the necessity of opening the highway, and to appraise the damages for the taking of land for such highway, was given by the commissioner on January 15, 1890. The statute provides that the notice must be served 10 days before the time of meeting. How. Stat. § 1298. This case is ruled by *People v. Commissioner,*38 Mich. 247, where it was held that the language of the statute excludes the day on which the meeting is to be held, and that, under the well-settled rule in this State, the day of service is also excluded. There must be 10 full days’' notice, excluding day of service and day of meeting.

The proceedings are therefore quashed, with costs.

The other Justices coucurred.
##### 



Exhibit 18.1 March 28, 2005 Board of Directors
Pinnacle Foods Group Inc.
6 Executive Campus
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Dear Directors: We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-K filing pursuant
to Item 601 of Regulation S-K. We have audited the consolidated financial statements included in the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the transition period ended December 26, 2004 and issued our report thereon dated
March 28, 2005. Note 2 to the financial statements describes a change in accounting principle from
performing the annual impairment test for goodwill and indefinite lived intangible assets required
under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142 (SFAS 142), Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets,as of July 31st to the last Sunday in December. It should be
understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for
impairment testing under SFAS 142 has not been addressed in any authoritative accounting
literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on managements determination
that this change in accounting principle is preferable. Based on our reading of managements
stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our
discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors
relating to the change, we concur with management that such change represents, in the Companys
circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity with Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 20. Very truly yours,  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26276]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1954]


Designation of New Grantee; Foreign-Trade Zone 245, Decatur, 
Illinois

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    The Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) has considered the 
application (docketed 7/1/2014) submitted by the Board of Park 
Commissioners, Decatur Park District, grantee of FTZ 245, requesting 
reissuance of the grant of authority for said zone to the Economic 
Development Corporation of Decatur & Macon County, which has accepted 
such reissuance subject to approval by the FTZ Board. Upon review, the 
Board finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public 
interest.
    Therefore, the Board approves the application and recognizes the 
Economic Development Corporation of Decatur & Macon County as the new 
grantee for Foreign-Trade Zone 245, subject to the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations, including Section 400.13.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of October 2014.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-26276 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

Ryan S Herr

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02664

Honorable Andrea R. Wood

Columbia College Chicago, et al.

Defendant.

NOTICE OF MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY

The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key

features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP)

Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all

parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing

Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery

obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1).

Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents

(Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when

the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third−Party Complaint is served.

Case: 1:20-cv-02664 Document #: 5 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:23