alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),
the undersigned officer of LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: April 11, 2007



/S/ RON H. WIRAHADIRAKSA Ron H. Wirahadiraksa Joint Representative
Director/ President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and will be retained by LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
9984.

#### Davis *v.*Davis & Joiner Realty Company.

Wade, C. J.

1. A “broker’s commissions are earned when, during the agency, he finds a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner” (Park’s Ann. *578Code, § 3587, and note) ; and in view of the testimony of the defendant in this case, that the plaintiff (a broker suing for commission) “told me that Mr. Monerief [the would-be purchaser] was ready to take the property on the terms stated; . . I knew that Mr. Monerief was able to pay for the-property,” which evidence was corroborated by the testimony of the broker and of the would-be purchaser, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff can not be set aside by this court on the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Decided April 17, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Thomasville—Judge W. H. Hammond. July 8, 1918.

Titus, *Dekle & Hopkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. E. Hay,*contra.

2. None of the special grounds show reversible error, and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

*Affirmed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            37,598
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         296
<MORTGAGE>                                       3,350
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  43,469
<CASH>                                             136
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               1,544
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           1,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,413
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 39,018
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                861
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   1,832
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                              599
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    703
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,413
<PREMIUMS>                                       2,577
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              2,310
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  78
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     443
<BENEFITS>                                       3,521
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        205
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             1,048
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    634
<INCOME-TAX>                                       181
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                453
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                           25
<NET-INCOME>                                       474
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0



</TABLE>
AV SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS• AV Safety Assessment includes safety critical

• Unintended Behaviors (referred to as Functional Safety)

• Intended Behaviors (Safety of the Intended Function (SOTIF)

• Unknown vs Known Risk Mitigation• Minimal Risk Condition

Padma Sundaram

- AV Safety Considerations
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF JUNE 30, 2000, AND THE RELATED
CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
THE NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         131,923
<SECURITIES>                                    69,256
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         55
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               211,629
<PP&E>                                          12,823
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,207
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,795
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   225,365
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,780
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,324)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,324)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)


</TABLE>
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 Cavalry Bancorp, Inc., (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hillard C.
Gardner, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 
 Date:
      May 5, 2005
    by:Hillard
      C. GardnerSenior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3822

To amend the Animal Health Protection Act to direct the Secretary of 

Agriculture to establish an electronic nationwide livestock identification 

system, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2004

Ms. MCCOLLUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL

To amend the Animal Health Protection Act to direct the 

Secretary of Agriculture to establish an electronic nationwide livestock identification system, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘National Livestock 

5 Identification Act’’. 
2

•HR 3822 IH 

1 SEC. 2. NATIONWIDE LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM; 

2 REVIEW OF USDA RESPONSES TO OUT3 BREAKS OF DISEASE IN LIVESTOCK. 

4 Section 10411 of the Animal Health Protection Act 

5 (7 U.S.C. 8310) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new subsections: 

7 ‘‘(f) NATIONWIDE LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION SYS8 TEM.—

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days 

10 after the date of enactment of this subsection, the 

11 Secretary shall establish an electronic nationwide 

12 livestock identification system for the identification 

13 of individual animals to enhance the speed and accu14 racy of the response of the Department of Agri15 culture to outbreaks of disease in livestock. 

16 ‘‘(2) CAPABILITIES.—The livestock identifica17 tion system shall be capable of tracing, within 48 

18 hours, an individual animal from birth to slaughter. 

19 ‘‘(3) USE OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGY.—The 

20 Secretary may use technology developed by private 

21 entities before the date of enactment of this sub22 section to operate the livestock identification system. 

23 ‘‘(4) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary 

24 may provide financial assistance to producers to as25 sist the producers in complying with the livestock 

26 identification system. 
3

•HR 3822 IH 

1 ‘‘(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

2 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec3 retary for fiscal year 2005 to carry out this sub4 section $50,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be 

5 available to carry out paragraph (4). 

6 ‘‘(g) REVIEW OF RESPONSES TO OUTBREAKS OF

7 DISEASE.—The Secretary may appoint an international 

8 panel of scientific experts to provide an objective review 

9 of a response by the Department of Agriculture to an out10 break of disease in livestock and identify areas for im11 provements in such responses.’’.

Æ
#### HUFF v. AUTOS UNLIMITED, INC.

No. 246P97

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 410

Petition by defendants for writ of supersedeas and motion for temporary stay denied 5 June 1997. Petition by defendants for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 June 1997.
9802.

#### Weeks *v.*Reliance Fertilizer Company.

Decided December 3, 1918.

Levy and claim; from Colquitt superior court—Judge Thomas. May 4, 1918.

*R. A. Hendriclcs, John A. Wilkes,*for plaintiff in error.

*James Humphreys, Eagan & Maire, Franklin & Langdale,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. “Where personal property 3s claimed by a third person, and the claim-affidavit and bond recite that it has been levied on, the claimant is estopped from saying the levy was not complete.” *Cohen*v. *Broughton,*54 *Ga.*296. See *Scolly*v. *Butler,*59 *Ga.*849 (2) ; *Pearce*v. *Renfroe,*68 *Ga.*194 (5a) ; *Smith*v. *Camp,*84 *Ga.*117 (7) (10 S. E. 539) ; *Stroud*v. *Hancock,*116 *Ga.*336 (42 g. E. 496) ; *Oliver*v. *Warren,*124 *Ga.*551 (53 S. E. 100, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1020, 110 Am. St. R. 188), and cit. The pr-inciple announced in these decisions disposes of grounds 1%, 2, 3, 6, and 7 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. “A ruling of the court in sustaining or overruling a. demurrer, and in allowing or disallowing an amendment to pleading, can not be made the ground of a motion for a new trial; ’but direct exceptions should be filed to such ruling, if a review of it is to be had'.” *Hawkins v. Studdard,*132 *Ga.*265 (63 S. E. 852, 131 Am. St. R. 190). See *Leathers*v. *Leathers,*132 *Ga.*211 (2) (63 S. E. 1118); *Brown v. Wilkes,*20 *Ga. App.*92 (92 S. E. 553), and eases cited. This ruling disposes of grounds 4 and 5 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

3. “Where property has been levied on and a claim interposed, the claimant can not, for the purpose of protecting the property, show paramount title in a third person.” *Rowland*v. *Gregg,*122 *Ga.*819 (1), 821 (50 S. E. 949), and cases cited. This proposition disposes of ground 10 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

4. “This court can not consider exceptions to the refusal of the trial judge to comply with written requests to charge, unless it is made to appear that they were tendered to the court before the jury retired to consider the ease. *Shirley*v. *Slate,*5 *Ga. App.*611 (63 S. E. 583). In this ease it is not disclosed that the written requests to charge were so tendered.” *Seaboard Air-Line Railway*v. *Barrow,*18 *Ga. App.*261 (4) (89 S. E. 383); Civil Code (1910), § 6084; *Dickey*v. *Grice,*110 *Ga.*315 (2) (35 S. E. 291).

5. While there may be slight errors of statement, and some inaccuracies of 'expression, in the excerpts from the charge of the court of which complaint is made, they are not of such a character as would likely influence the jury in making a verdict. A new trial should not be granted on account of slight errors and inaccuracies of expression not calculated to mislead the jury.

7. None of the other alleged errors require the grant of a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J.,*concurs. *Stephens, J., not presiding.*
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3939 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14–24 Abbott Road in Fair Lawn, New 

Jersey, as the ‘‘Mary Ann Collura Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 3939 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 14–24 Abbott Road in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 

4 and known as the Fair Lawn Main Post Office, shall be 

5 known and designated as the ‘‘Mary Ann Collura Post Of6 fice Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

10 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

11 to the ‘‘Mary Ann Collura Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
#### STATE v. LATTIMORE

No. 254P97

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 460

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of appeals denied 23 July 1997.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

Plaintiff, )

 ) No. 20 CR 443

 v. )

 ) Judge Robert W. Gettleman

JOHN SEIWERT, )

Defendant. )

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRETRIAL RELEASE

NOW COMES Defendant JOHN SEIWERT, by and through his attorney, 

QUINN A. MICHAELIS, and moves this honorable court to reconsider the order of

detention entered on (Doc. No. 8) and in support thereof, states as follows:

1. At his August 4, 2020 detention hearing, Mr. SEIWERT waived without 

prejudice his right to a detention hearing, and the Court entered an order 

detaining him (Doc. No. 8.). 

2. The pretrial services report prepared for the detention hearing indicated that 

there are a combination of conditions that would assure his appearance before 

the court and that would mitigate any danger he posed to the community. At 

the time of the detention hearing, no one was available to act as a suitable 

third-party custodian. 

3. As of the date of this filing, Mr. SEIWERT’s sister, Laurie Seiwert, has 

agreed to serve as his third-party custodian and agrees to let Mr. SEIWERT 

live with her at her home. 

4. The parties propose to the following conditions of release, in addition to the 

standard conditions of release,

a. Ms. Laurie Seiwert to act as third-party custodian, with Mr. SEIWERT 

living at her home. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:44
2

b. An order requiring Mr. SEIWERT participate in an in-patient 

treatment program as directed by pretrial services. At the time of his 

discharge from that program, whether voluntary or involuntary, Mr. 

SEIWERT is directed to immediately notify pretrial services and his 

third-party custodian, and report directly to the third-party custodian’s 

residence. 

c. At the conclusion of the in-patient treatment, participate in further 

substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment as directed by 

pretrial services. 

d. Follow all State of Illinois coronavirus directives including stay at 

home advisories and orders. 

WHEREFORE, Mr. SEIWERT asks the Court to release him from custody 

pursuant to the above listed conditions, as well as any conditions deemed appropriate by 

the Court. 

Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Quinn A. Michaelis

Quinn A. Michaelis

Attorney for JOHN SEIWERT

73 W. Monroe, Suite 106

Chicago, IL 60603

312-714-6920

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:45
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 4, 2020, I electronically filed the above 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PRETRIAL RELEASE

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system to all listed parties in the case.

Respectfully Submitted on September 4, 2020.

By His Attorney,

s/ Quinn A. Michaelis

Quinn A. Michaelis

Attorney For John Seiwert

73 W. Monroe, Suite 106

Chicago, Illinois 60603

312-714-6920

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:46
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3823

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 

relations treatment) to the products of Belarus. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2004

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 

(normal trade relations treatment) to the products of 

Belarus.

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 ‘‘Belarus Freedom Act 

5 of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that Belarus—

8 (1) allows its citizens the right and opportunity 

9 to emigrate, free of any heavy tax on the visas or 

10 other documents required for emigration and free of 
2

•HR 3823 IH 

1 any other tax, levy, fine, fee, or other charge on any 

2 citizens as a consequence of the desire of such citi3 zens to emigrate to the country of their choice; and 

4 (2) has received normal trade relations treat5 ment since 1992 and has been in full compliance 

6 with the freedom of emigration requirements under 

7 title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 since 1994. 

8 SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF 

9 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO BELARUS. 

10 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN11 SIONS OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—Notwith12 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 

13 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may—

14 (1) determine that such title should no longer 

15 apply to Belarus; and 

16 (2) after making a determination under para17 graph (1) with respect to Belarus, proclaim the ex18 tension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal 

19 trade relations treatment) to the products of that 

20 country. 

21 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.—

22 On and after the effective date of the extension under sub23 section (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod-
3

•HR 3823 IH 

1 ucts of Belarus, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall 

2 cease to apply to that country.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

XYZ CORPORATION,

PLAINTIFF,

V.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-04077

JUDGE ROBERT M. DOW, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SUSAN E. COX

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule A of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

17 ch*toys

15 buymarket_de

40 fortune_888

100 twentyfoursevenzing

Dated: September 7, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alison Carter

Ann Marie Sullivan

Alison Carter

AM Sullivan Law, LLC

1440 W. Taylor St., Suite 515

Chicago, Illinois 60607

Telephone: 224-258-9378

E-mail: ams@amsullivanlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on September 7, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically send an email notification ofsuch filing to all registered 

attorneys of record.

/s/ Alison Carter

Alison Carter
#### Tucson W. JONES; Yvonne C. Jones, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. SOUTHCORR, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-1972.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2004.

Decided Dec. 28, 2004.

Tucson W. Jones, Yvonne C. Jones, Appellants pro se. Hamlin Landis Wade, Jr., Melissa Megan Kidd, Helms, Mulliss & Wicker, PPLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Tucson W. Jones and Yvonne C. Jones appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendant in this Title VII action alleging race discrimination in employment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Jones v. Southcorr, LLC,*No. CA-03-499-1 (M.D.N.C. filed July 8, 2004; entered July 9, 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*
**                                                                    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**