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



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DoubleClick Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Bruce
Dalziel, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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/ BRUCE DALZIEL
Bruce Dalziel
Chief Financial Officer
|                          |  |                                                        
|Dated: November  14, 2003 |  |
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES D. ROBINSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

BRENDAN KELLY, et al.

Defendants

MATTHEW B. SMITH, JULIA BRYARSMITH, KAREN GORDON, and 

THOMAS A. SMITH.

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

v. 

BRENDAN KELLY, et al.

Defendants in Intervention.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20-cv-4270

Hon. Mary M. Rowland

STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to Docket Entry 58, Defendants submit the following status regarding to the 

motion to intervene filed by Lieutenant Matthew B. Smith (Lt. Smith), Julia Bryar-Smith, Karen 

Gordon, and Thomas A. Smith (Mr. Smith).

Defendants do not object to intervention by Lt. Smith, Ms. Bryar-Smith, or Ms. Gordon. 

Defendants do object to intervention by Mr. Smith. It is Defendants’ position that Mr. Smith’s 

claims are outside of the scope of the case because Mr. Smith’s claims relate to the issuance of a 

corrected FOID card and the approval of a concealed carry license, not the processing of an 

initial FOID card application.

Defendants have conferred with Mr. Smith and agree that Defendants shall have until 

February 5, 2021, to file their response to the motion to intervene as it relates to Mr. Smith, and 

Mr. Smith shall have until February 19, 2021, to file his reply.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 59 Filed: 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:257
2

Respectfully Submitted,

KWAME RAOUL /s/ Mary A. Johnston

Attorney General of Illinois Mary A. Johnston

Assistant Attorney General

General Law Bureau

100 W. Randolph Street, 13th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-3739

mjohnston@atg.state.il.us

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 8, 2021, I caused a copy of the foregoing Status Report to be filed 

electronically on CM/ECF, which will cause a notice of filing to be sent to all counsel of record 

who have entered appearances.

/s/ Mary A. Johnston

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 59 Filed: 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:258
#### Allen Ray JOHNSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph M. BROOKS, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-7622.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 28, 2004.

*285Allen Ray Johnson, Appellant pro se.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Allen Ray Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Johnson v. Brooks,*No. CA-04-91-2 (E.D.Va. Sept. 10, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Although a dismissal without prejudice generally is not appealable, we have jurisdiction in this case because "the grounds of the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case." *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6507
DENNIS STRAPEC, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-96-337) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Joseph William Kaestner, KAESTNER & PITNEY, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Edward D. Ross, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. LinwoodTheodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Strapec v. Virginia Parole Bd. , No. CA-96-337 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 1996; Mar. 26, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 
 I, Ed C. Loughry, Jr., certify that:
 
 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cavalry Bancorp, Inc.;
 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:
 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.
 
 Date: May 6, 2004
by:Ed C. Loughry, Jr.Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING )

COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 20-cv-03758

)

v. ) Judge: Hon. Thomas M. Durkin

)

LONG LEAF TRADING GROUP, INC., )

JAMES A. DONELSON, TIMOTHY )

M. EVANS, JEREMY S. RUTH, and )

ANDREW D. NELSON, )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, September 30, 2020, James A. 

Donelson filed his Corrected Answer to the Complaint, a copy of which was previously 

served upon you, with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

Nicholas P. Iavarone 

The Iavarone Law Firm, P.C. 

2516 Waukegan Road, #399

Glenview, Illinois

(312) 637-9466

(800) 417-0580 (fax) 

niavarome@iavaronefirm.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 31 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:261
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Nicholas P. Iavarone, an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois, declares that on

September 30, 2020 he caused a copy of the attached Notice of Filing to be served via email to:

(aburden@cftc.gov)

Ashley J. Burden

Senior Trial Attorney/Chicago Regional Office

Division of Enforcement

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

312-596-0693

Nicholas P. Iavarone 

The Iavarone Law Firm, P.C. 

2516 Waukegan Road, #399

Glenview, Illinois 60025

(312) 637-9466

(800) 417-0580 (fax) 

niavarome@iavaronefirm.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 31 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:262
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04518 Document #: 41 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2046
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 768

To restrict the Food and Drug Administration from penalizing retailers for

face-to-face tobacco sales that are in accordance with State law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 1997

Mr. LAHOOD (for himself, Mr. EHRLICH, and Mr. MARTINEZ) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To restrict the Food and Drug Administration from penalizing retailers for face-to-face tobacco sales that are in

accordance with State law.

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

3 SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION AND TOBACCO SALES.

4 If a State has in effect a law which prohibits the sale

5 of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to individuals

6 under age 18 or 19, the Secretary of Health and Human

7 Services may not, through the Food and Drug Administra8 tion, take enforcement action against a retailer of ciga9 rettes and smokeless tobacco products for the sale in such

10 State of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products if such
2

•HR 768 IH

1 a sale is a face-to-face transaction and is conducted in ac2 cordance with such State law to an individual who is of

3 legal age.

Æ
[No. 1773.]

#### Frank Moore *v.*The State.

Theft — Evidence—Fact Case.— See this case for evidence *held*insufficient to sustain a conviction for theft of property of the value of $20 or over, inasmuch as it fails to establish such value, and therefore fails to prove a felonious theft, as charged.

Appeal from the District Court of Bosque. Tried below before the Hon. Jo Abbott.

The opinion discloses the entire case.

¡No brief for the appellant.

*J. II.*Burts, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of property over the value of $20, and his punishment was assessed at five years in the penitentiary. He was charged by the indictment with the theft of one coat, one pair of pants, one vest, two shirts and one pair of drawers, of the aggregate value of $21, the property of Charles Alexander. On the stand as a witness, the prosecutor Alexander testified that the clothing was worth $21, but he says he gave when he bought them $10 for the coat and vest; $5 for the ■pants; seventy-five cents for the drawers, and from $1.50 to $2 each *177for the shirts, making at the outside but an aggregate of $19.75. Subsequently he says that he bought the clothing, which was second hand, for less than it was worth, and that the coat and vest were worth $13. Lon Williams, for the prosecution, first stated that the clothing was worth from $23 to $24. On cross-examination this witness states that the coat was worth about $3; the vest $2.50; the pants $2; the shirts seventy-five cents each, and the drawers fifty cents, making an aggregate value of $8.75.

Ho objection was made to the charge of the court, and the jury were properly instructed by it as to the difference ia punishment where the value of the property was over $20 and where it was under $20. The law was correctly charged, but, in our opinion, the verdict and judgment are against the law and against the evidence as shown by the statement of facts. Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Rever-sed and*remanded.

[Opinion delivered November 19, 1884.]
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LEGACY SPORTS BARBERSHOP LLC 

n/k/a LEGACY BRAND ENTERPRISES 

LLC d/b/a LEGACY SPORTS 

BARBERSHOP, LEGACY BARBER 

ACADEMY, and PANACH CORP., 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff(s), 

v. 

Continental Casualty Company, 

Defendant(s).

Case No. 20 C 4149 

Judge Charles P. Kocoras 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of plaintiff(s) 

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $ , 

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

 does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s) 

and against plaintiff(s) 

.

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

other: Judgment entered in favor of Defendant Continental Casualty Company and against 

Plaintiffs Legacy Sports Barbershop LLC, Legacy Barber Academy and Panach Corp. 

This action was (check one): 

 tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

 tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

 decided by Judge Charles P. Kocoras on a motion to reconsider. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04149 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1943
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

Date: 8/13/2021 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

Vettina Franklin, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:20-cv-04149 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1944
#### RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. v. MARCUM.

No. 788.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, S. D.

Jan. 25, 1951.

Charles M. Lee, Sidney B. McClanahan, St. Louis, for plaintiff.

Gene Frost, Joplin, Mo., for defendant.

RIDGE, District Judge.

From the allegations contained in defendant’s answer, it appears that each and every fact essential to plaintiff’s right to recover, on each count of the complaint herein, is admitted, *or*deemed to be admitted for failure of defendant to make response thereto, and that plaintiff is entitled to have judgment entered in its favor, unless the claims asserted in the several counts of the complaint are subject to the bar created by Section 1013, R.S.Mo.1939, R.S. Mo.1949, § 516.110. The averments contained *in*the first four paragraphs of the complaint are specifically admitted in the answer. Defendant makes no response to the averments contained in paragraph five of the complaint. Failing'to make any response or denial thereof in his answer, the same are also deemed admitted under Rule 8(d) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

The Plaintiff, Reconstruction Finance Corporation, is a governmental agency created by Act of Congress, 15 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq., and, as such, acts in a sovereign capacity. Inland Waterways Corp. v. Young, 309 U.S. 517, 60 S.Ct. 646, 84 L.Ed. 901; U. S. Shipping Board Emergency-Fleet Corp. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 275 U.S. 415, 48 S.Ct. 198, 72 L.Ed. 345. Therefore, state statutes of limitation putting a time limit upon enforcement of obligations due private persons are not binding on. the Reconstruction Finance Corporation any more than they are binding upon the Government unless Congress has manifested an intention that they should he applicable. U. S. v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 84 L.Ed. 1283; E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U.S. 456, 44 S.Ct. 364, 68 L.Ed. 788. No Act of Congress exists making the Reconstruction Finance Corporation subject to local statutes of limitation. Consequently, the only affirmative defense here attempted to be asserted against plaintiff’s right of recovery on each count of the complaint is shown to be an invalid one as a matter of law. Therefore, it appears that no genuine issue of fact remains in issue between the parties herein, and that plaintiff is entitled to have judgment entered in its favor, against defendant, on each count of the complaint.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is accordingly sustained. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant on Count I of the complaint herein, in the sum of $125, principal, and ,$185.83, interest, or -a total of $310.83; on Count II, for $135, principal, *954and $204.30, interest, or a total of $339.30; on Count III, for $200, principal, and $301.-30, interest, or a total of $501.30; making a total judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant herein in the sum of $1,151.43, together with the costs of this cause.
OVERVIEW

ADJUNCT FACULTY

CYBERSECURITY HIRES

FROM INDUSTRY - WITH A DEIA FOCUS

Help solve the cybersecurity educator shortfall by

partnering with industry professionals who want to give

back as adjunct faculty but need an entry point.

Certainly, some adjuncts fit into this demographic.

According to The National Center for Education

Statistics, non-white adjunct faculty were less than 10%,

regardless of gender.

There is room to expand the opportunity here to include

more adjuncts representing diverse ages, races,

ethnicities, and credentials. There’s no clear path for

those interested professionals to move into adjunct

teaching positions in cybersecurity. This one-pager is

designed to raise awareness and spark change by

tapping talent from cybersecurity industry professionals.

Certainly, there are institutions at the forefront here, and

we look forward to hearing their best practices.
Studies show diverse teams are more effective.

Bringing more diverse faculty into the classroom is

a strategic goal of the U.S. Department of

Education.

Actively seek new voices.

Offer asynchronous, self-paced remote curriculum

to meet the working schedule of industry

professionals on a mission to give back as adjunct

educators.

LinkedIn #CyberAdjunct

"Educating the next generation of cybersecurity

professionals as an adjunct professor has been a

rewarding experience. My vision is to see people

from diverse backgrounds become adjuncts."

- Jasmine M. Jackson

Founder and Executive Director, T-ATP

Steps to Get Hired as an Adjunct

Public speaking experience

Start small and present at local meetups like OWASP

or B-Sides

Build a portfolio of subjects you can present with

confidence.

Network during these events.

Demonstrate experience creating educational content.

This can be through creating blog posts, workshops,

or videos.

Creating educational content will allow future

adjuncts to create their own or modify the curriculum

as appropriate.

Yes, a Master’s helps, but so does experience.

Steps to Hire

Diverse Cybersecurity Professionals as Adjunct
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

In connection with the Annual Report of American Patriot Financial Group, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry A. Simmerly, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
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 and 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 Registrant.

| | /s/JERRY A. SIMMERLYJerry A. Simmerly President and Chief Executive
OfficerAmerican Patriot Financial Group, Inc.
March 31, 2008
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks