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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mueller Water Products, Inc. (the "Report") for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.

I,
Thomas E. Fish, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of Mueller Water Products, Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/THOMAS E. FISHThomas E. Fish
Interim Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
```

                        WATTS, GRIFFIS AND MCOUAT LIMITED
                       CONSULTING GEOLOGISTS AND ENGINEERS

                                     CONSENT

TO:      NORTHWESTERN MINERAL VENTURES INC.

AND TO:  BERNS & BERNS, COUNSELORS AT LAW

AND TO:  U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
         (THE "SECURITIES REGULATOR")

FROM:    WATTS, GRIFFIS AND MCOUAT LIMITED

RE:      A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE PICACHOS SILVER-GOLD AND BASE METALS
         PROSPECTS, WESTERN DURANGO STATE, MEXICO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference is made to the technical report (the "TECHNICAL REPORT") dated 24
November, 2004 entitled "A Technical Review of the Picachos Silver-Gold and Base
Metals Prospects, Western Durango State, Mexico", which we prepared for
Northwestern Mineral Ventures Inc. (the "CORPORATION").

We hereby consent to the filing of the Technical Report with the Securities
Regulator, and to the written disclosure of the Technical Report and the
inclusion of extracts therefrom or a summary thereof in the Corporation's Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 ("Form 20-F"). We
reserve the right to review such disclosures to ensure that our comments are
contextually accurate.

We further agree to being named as an expert in the Form 20-F.

Dated this 30th day of June, 2005.

                                       WATTS, GRIFFIS AND MCOUAT LIMITED

                                                /s/ Albert Workman

                                       Per: _______________________
                                             Albert Workman, P.Geo.
                                             Senior Geologist and Vice-President
```
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 63

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Ways and Means

in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 1997

Mr. ARCHER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Oversight

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on

Ways and Means in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Ways and

4 Means (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries,

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $11,163,529 for the One Hundred

9 Fifth Congress.
2

•HRES 63 IH

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $$5,472,622 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 1997, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 1998; and

7 (2) not more than $5,690,907 shall be available

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at

9 noon on January 3, 1998, and ending immediately

10 before noon on January 3, 1999.

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner

15 directed by the Committee on House Oversight.

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by

19 the Committee on House Oversight.

Æ
**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**          Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofDoubleClick Inc. (the “Company”) for the period endedMarch 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Bruce Dalziel, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:          (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934; and           (2) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ BRUCE DALZIEL       Bruce Dalziel *Chief Financial Officer*Dated: May 10, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN GARNER AND DEBORAH 

SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all 

similarly situated individuals, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an 

Illinois Insurance Company,

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-04693

Hon. John Z. Lee 

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: Steven L. Woodrow 

Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80210

Tel: 720-213-0675

Fax: 303-927-0809

Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 10, 2020, at 9:15 a.m., or as soon thereafter 

as counsel may be heard, I shall appear telephonically before the Honorable John Z. Lee, or any judge 

sitting in his stead in Courtroom 2125, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, and shall present: DEFENDANT 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY’S AGREED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, a copy of which has been served on you. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 10 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:38
Dated: August 31, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

Allstate Insurance Company 

/s/ Lewis S. Wiener 

Lewis S. Wiener 

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 

700 Sixth Street, NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20001-3980 

Telephone: 202-383-0140 

Facsimile: 202-637-3593 

lewiswiener@eversheds-sutherland.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 10 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:39
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 31, 2020, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Motion was 

served via ECF to the following attorneys of record:

Steven L. Woodrow 

Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80210

Tel: 720-213-0675

Fax: 303-927-0809

swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

/s/Lewis S. Wiener___________

Lewis S. Wiener

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 10 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:40
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00257-CR

Michael Joseph Taplin, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 05-1000-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Michael Joseph Taplin seeks to appeal his conviction for two counts of aggravated

sexual assault of a child. The pro se notice of appeal was filed two months after sentence

was imposed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). The trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain

case and Taplin has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The court has

also certified that Taplin waived the right of appeal. See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220

(Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see also Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

The appeal is dismissed.
2

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 22, 2007

Do Not Publish
#### George Young *v.*Peter Young.

Witnesses — Competency of Divorced Wife — Bill of Exceptions Must Show What She would Have Proven.

Where the court reject the divorced wife as a witness against her husband, what she would have proven must appear in the bill of exceptions.

*267Divorce — Alimony—Support of Infant Children — Husband not Relieved.

The allowance of alimony to the wife is only an adjudication of her right and does not relieve the husband of the obligation to provide necessaries for his infant children, and when such necessaries are furnished by another he is bound therefor.

APPEAL PROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 2, 1872.

OPINION by

Judge HaRDIn :

We can perceive no error in the refusal of the Court to allow the petition in the divorce case to be read as evidence; nor do we think there was any available error in the action of the Court in rejecting Mrs. Young as a witness, from the fact occurring at the time as shown by the bill of exceptions, as it does not appear that she would have proved any particular thing, if permitted to testify, which it was competent for her to prove. We are nevertheless clearly of opinion that after the divorce she was competent to testify for or against her late husband, except as to matters known to her through or by reason of the marriage relation, or communications made by him to her during the marriage, and except also, of course, any matters as to which she might, by interest, or other like disqualifying cause have been an incompetent witness.

But on another ground the judgment will have to be reversed. If the order allowing temporary alimony to Mrs. Young, at the rate of $7.00 per week, operated, although not paid, to restrict the right of the appellant to furnish necessaries to her afterwards, and while that order was in force, to a greater amount than thereby contemplated as sufficient for her .support, as that order was at most but an adjudication of the wife’s right to a provision, or to obtain necessaries from others — it did not relieve the husband of his obligation to provide necessaries for his then infant children; and if, notwithstanding the allowance to their mother, more was needed for their maintenance, and furnished by the appellant, the jury should not have been restricted from allowing it in their verdict, and the instructions having that *268effect were therefore erroneous. Therefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Clemmons*& *Willis, for appellant.*

*Muir*& *Bijou, for appellee.*
December 4, 2006 

This is the single greatest step that could be taken to ensure fair and open elections whose results 

could be depended on. 

The NIST recommendation was clear, cogent, and technically well-grounded, and I am 

astonished that it was not understood. 

James Jay Horning, Ph.D. 

 Sunnyvale, CA
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68884-68885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27405]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Performance Review Board Members

    Title 5, U.S.C. Section 4314(c)(4) of the Civil Service Reform Act 
of 1978, Public Law 95-454, requires that the

[[Page 68885]]

appointment of Performance Review Board Members be published in the 
Federal Register.
    The following persons may be named to serve on the Performance 
Review Boards or Panels, which oversee the evaluation of performance 
appraisals of Senior Executive Service members of the Department of 
Health and Human Services.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Employee last name                   Employee first name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downing                                     Gregory
Foster                                      Robert
Gabriel                                     Edward
Gentile                                     John
Gibson                                      Ventris
Gill                                        John
Gracia                                      Nadine
Gunderson                                   Nancy
Haseltine                                   Amy
McCabe                                      William
McDaniel                                    Eileen
Novy                                        Steve
Potts                                       Oliver
Seshamani                                   Meena
Teti                                        Catherine
Weber                                       Mark
Ziegler-Ragland                             Cheryl
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Date: November 14, 2014.
John W. Gill,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources.
[FR Doc. 2014-27405 Filed 11-17-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4151-17-P
**EXHIBIT 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Edmar Prado Lopes Neto, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of GOL LINHAS AÉREAS INTELIGENTES S.A.; 

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the company’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 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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

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 company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 28, 2016

By:               /s/ *Edmar Prado Lopes Neto*
#### Darrell G. Saylor *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 3-375A50.

Filed October 29, 1975.]

*Harriette Bailey Conn,*Public Defender of Indiana, *William B. Bryan,*Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Robert M. Lingenfelter,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam

Darrell Saylor, defendant, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief contending *350his guilty plea should be set aside due to the trial court’s failure to comply with Indiana Rules of Procedure, Criminal Rule 10 and to fully advise defendant of his constitutional rights before accepting his plea.

We affirm.

Saylor argues his arraignment record does not comply with CR. 10 and is therefore fatally defective. The record is a pre-printed questionnaire with defendant’s responses hand-written in beneath each interrogatory. Using a pre-printed questionnaire to record an arraignment proceeding, while not the preferred practice, nevertheless does not constitute reversible error. *Holmes*v. *State*(1975), 165 Ind. App. 311, 332 N.E.2d 245; *Janigon*v. *State*(1975), 164 Ind. App. 696, 330 N.E.2d 389; *Barron*v. *State*(1975), 164 Ind. App. 638, 330 N.E.2d 141.

Saylor further contends he was improperly advised of his constitutional rights to confront witnesses and resist self-incrimination. Defendant admits these rights were . read to him but claims they were imprecisely phrased. Instructions identical to those questioned here were found adequate by this Court in *Barron*v. *State, supra,*and *Holmes*v. *State, supra.*A defendant need not be advised of his rights in the exact language of the constitution. *Melendez*v. *State*(1974), 160 Ind. App. 469, 312 N.E.2d 508; *Tibbs*v. *State*(1973), 158 Ind. App. 485, 303 N.E.2d 294. The record demonstrates defendant voluntarily pled guilty after being properly informed of his rights.

We affirm.

Note. — Reported at 336 N.E.2d 826.
Exhibit 10.3



















_________, __ , 200_




[Name]

[Address]







Dear M_. [_________]:




In connection with your [_____] grant of Restricted Stock Units, enclosed please find a Prospectus for the Legg Mason Inc. Non-Employee Director Equity Plan, which includes a copy of the Plan as an exhibit, your Legg Mason Restricted Stock Unit Statement, and the related fractional share distribution.




The number of Restricted Stock Units was determined by dividing $125,000 by the average price as specified below:




	 	_/__/0_ High

	 	$______


	 	_/__/0_ Low

	 	$______


	 	Average

	 	$______


	 	# of Restricted Stock Units Calculated

	 	             


	 	Cash payment in lieu of fractional shares

	$______







A current statement of your outstanding Legg Mason Stock Options is also included in this package.




If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (410) 539-0000.




Regards,










Kendra P. Heyde

Vice President & Director, Compensation
10137.

#### Zachry *v.*The State.

Decided January 9, 1919.

Indictment for larceny of cow; from Troup superior court— Judge Terrell. September 25, 1918.

*Arthur Greer,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. E. Roop, solicitor-general,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. The motion for new trial in this case contained 'the general grounds only. The evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find tlie defendant guilty; and the jury having so found, and .their verdict having been approved by the trial judge, this court will not disturb their finding.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00245

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 325th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No s . 323

- 107644

- 18, 325

- 719948

- 22
Before Birdwell, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### Y.J., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT Appellan t timely filed a notice of appeal from the June 9, 2022 judgment

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b)

. The n ewly assigned trial jud ge then granted appellant ’ s timely
filed motion for new trial on August 19, 2022 , within the trial court ’ s plenary jurisdiction. S ee Tex. R. Civ. P. 3 2 9 b (a), ( e).
Because the trial court ’ s order moots the appeal , we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f) ; Wilkins v. Methodist Healt h Care Sys. , 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005)

. The parties wil l pay their own costs

. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.
Per Curiam
Delivered : August 25, 2022

1 Likewise, a ppellant ’ s motion to a bate the appeal is denied as moot.
9536.

#### Earnest *v.*The State.

Decided January 9, 1919.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from Ben Hill superior court—•. Judge Crum. January 22, 1918.

*James H. Dodgen, Otis H. Elkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. B. Wall,*solicitor-general, *Jesse Grantham,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

“Where one lias been convicted and sentenced in a erim-

inal case and has made a motion for a new trial, he can not, while the motion is still pending and undisposed of in the lower court, maintain a bill of exceptions assigning error upon the refusal of the court to set aside the sentence and judgment, the motion to set aside being based on an- alleged error committed at the. trial that entered into and . affected the judgment, viz., that the sentence and judgment were passed and signed while the defendant was absent from the court-room. If the motion to set asid’e should be sustained, it would not affect the .verdict or terminate the cause. Civil Code, § 6138; *Duke*v. *Story,*113 *Ga.*112 (38 S. E. 337) ; *Duncan*v. *Duncan,*145 *Ga.*424 (89 S. E. 486);. *Durrence*v. *Waters,*140 *Ga.*762 (79 S. E. 841). The ruling here made does not in any way conflict with the decision in *May*v. *Collins,*118 *Ga.*243 (44 S. E. 1002), which dealt with á motion’ in arrest of judgment, which is a separate cause from the main case and must be predicated on a defect, not amendable, which appears on the face 5f the record or pleadings. Civil Code, § 5957.” This ruling was . made on December 12, 1918, by the Supreme Court (148 *Ga.*632, 97 S. E. 672), in response to a question certified by this court; and under it the writ of error is

*Dismissed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*