alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of TeraForce Technology Corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.


/s/ Robert P. Capps
----------------------------------------
Robert P. Capps
Chief Financial Officer

Dated August 14, 2003

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-Q.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERESA F. MYLES, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. :

 : CIVIL ACTION 14-0293-M

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Social Security Commissioner, :

 :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor 

of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin and against Plaintiff Teresa F. 

Myles.

DONE this 2nd day of February, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00293-M Document 21 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 1
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1636 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to maintain certain service standards 

for first-class mail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2023 

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

Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to maintain certain 

service standards for first-class mail, 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 ‘‘Delivering Envelopes 

5 Judiciously On-time Year-round Act’’ or the ‘‘DEJOY 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. SERVICE STANDARDS FOR FIRST-CLASS MAIL. 

8 Section 3691 of title 39, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1636 IH

1 ‘‘(e) SERVICE STANDARDS FOR FIRST-CLASS

2 MAIL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 

3 the service standards for first-class mail shall be such 

4 standards as in effect on January 1, 2021.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[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 Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group
II, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 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.

Dated: June 16, 2004


                   /s/ William Colucci
                   -----------------------------
                   William Colucci, Treasurer
                   BF Acquisition Group II, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                 
                       
<MULTIPLIER>                               1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                NOV-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                        203,207
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 489,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                    6,000
<INVENTORY>                                 1,568,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,480,052
<PP&E>                                        549,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                234,066
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,187,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,860,698
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       30,890
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,304,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,187,570
<SALES>                                     1,998,923
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,998,923
<CGS>                                       1,470,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 504,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             61,770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (36,706)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (36,706)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                      34,513
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,193)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.00
        


</TABLE>
#### Mateo GARCIA-MUNOZ, Ramona Arreola-Miranda, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 99-70916.

INS Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2001.1

Decided March 26, 2001.

Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Mateo Garcia-Munoz and Ramona Arreola-Miranda, husband and wife, petition for review of the final order of deportation entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on June 30, 1999. Petitioners were served with an order to show cause (“OSC”) on January 23, 1995 (Miranda) and March 31, 1995 (Munoz), approximately six years after they entered *456the United States on September 22, 1989. At a hearing on January 8,1997, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioners’ applications for suspension of deportation because they had failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement before being served with the OSC and thus were statutorily ineligible for suspension. On appeal, the BIA affirmed.

Petitioners contend that they were eligible for suspension of deportation and challenge the BIA’s decision that the “stop-time rule”—a new continuous physical presence requirement set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”)— bars such relief in their case. Moreover, Petitioners contend that the IJ erroneously applied the stop-time rule to their case on January 8, 1997, before IIRIRA’s effective date of April 1, 1997. We agree that the IJ erred in applying the stop-time rule to Petitioner’s case before IIRIRA became effective. *See Guadalupe-Cruz v. INS,*240 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir.2001).

We therefore grant the petition and remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ. If Petitioners pursue their suspension applications, the IJ, in determining whether Petitioners are eligible for suspension of deportation, shall: (1) apply the law as it existed on January 8, 1997 and (2) consider the current facts and Petitioner’s current circumstances. *Id.*We do not consider Petitioners’ eligibility, if any, for relief under the class action pending in the district court in accordance with *Barahona-Gomez v. Reno,*167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir.1999), *supplemental opinion,*236 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.2001). Our resolution of this case does not affect any interim or permanent relief awarded to members of the class certified in *Barahoncir-Gomez.*

PETITION GRANTED; REVERSED and REMANDED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN D. GARRISON, 

 #190475

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0069-CG-B

)

CYNTHIA STEWART, )

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus relief is 

dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. The Court further finds that Petitioner is 

not entitled to a Certificate of Appealability, and is thus not entitled to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00069-CG-B Document 13 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 1
11564.

#### Cheek *v.*Tripp.

Decided January 20, 1921.

Trover; from Dooly superior court — Judge Gower. April 19, 1920.

*T, Hoyt Davis, Powell & Lumsden,*for plaintiff in error.

Jenkins, P. J.

This case being the trover case tried with the action for breach of contract referred to in *Cheek*v. *Tripp,*25 *Ga. App.*800 (105 S. E. 247), it is controlled by the decision there rendered, for the reasons stated in the first and second paragraphs of the opinion in that case.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

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

I, Paul J. van der Wansem, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BTU International,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this quarterly 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls 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 18, 2005

                           /s/ Paul J. van der Wansem
                           --------------------------
                           Paul J. van der Wansem
                 President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1972 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Public 

Health Preparendness and Response for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention Public Health 

Preparendness and Response for fiscal year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1972 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 

4 PREVENTION PUBLIC HEALTH 

5 PREPARENDNESS AND RESPONSE FOR FIS6 CAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Cen10 ters for Disease Control and Prevention Public Health 

11 Preparedness and Response for fiscal year 2024 may not 

12 exceed $862,200,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.3


 


 





AMENDMENT TO THE


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


This Amendment (“Amendment”)
is entered into as of the 27th day of May 2015, by and between Home Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) and Jason Paul
Freyou (the “Executive”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, the
Bank and the Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of April 27th, 2015 (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the
parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend its term, as provided in Section 2(b) thereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:


 


1.     The
last sentence in Section 2(a) of the Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows: “The terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall be and remain in effect during the period beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement and ending on June
22, 2017, plus such extensions, if any, as are provided pursuant to Section 2(b) hereof (the “Employment Period”).”


 


2.     Except
to the extent expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first written above.


 


	 	HOME BANK, N.A.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:   /s/ John W. Bordelon
	 	John W. Bordelon
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/ Jason Paul Freyou
	 	Jason Paul Freyou
#### J. L. Clemmons *v.*J. S. Connell, et al.

Mortgages — Junior Incumbrancer — Attorney’s Fees.

Where attorney’s fees are claimed by a mortgagee in a suit to foreclose his mortgage, a junior incumbrancer may, by pleading and proof, object to the attorney’s fees and have the court to pass upon the same.

APPEAL, FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 26, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer :

We cannot concur with counsel that the appellant had no opportunity to interpose objections to the attorney’s fees claimed by the mortgagees, until the court came to render judgment in the case.

He might have done so either by his original petition, by an amended petition, or by a reply; for although the answers and cross-petitions sought no relief against him personally, they affected his interest as a junior incumbrancer; and he might have set up any defense that existed in favor of the mortgagor, and if he meant to resist the claim for attorney’s fees should have done so by plea, and would then have been entitled to be relieved against those claims, unless some sufficient equitable reason for denying such relief could have been shown.

*389*Clemmons & Willis, for appellant.*

*Caldwell & Harwood, for appellees.*

This court has never held that such agreements are void, but simply that they will be relieved against as imposing a penalty on the debtor for default in paying his debt, and, being regarded as a penalty, may be relieved against in the same manner and upon the same principles upon which relief will be given against other penalties of a like character.

Petition *overruled.*
11542.

#### LEE *v.*LACY.

1. In a summary proceeding by a landlord- to dispossess a tenant as one holding over beyond the expiration of his term, it is no defense that the landlord’s title to the premises expired before the institution of the *127dispossessory proceeding, and that the tenant is. now holding under the landlord’s successor in title, where it does not appear that after the creation of the tenancy the landlord parted with his title, or that the alleged successor to his title is in privity with it. See, in this connection, 1 Taylor, Landlord and Tenant (9th ed.), § 180; *Raines*v. *Hindman, 136 Ga.*450, 453 (71 S. E. 738, 28 L. R. A. *(N.*S.) 863, Ann. Cas. 1912 C, 347) ; Civil Code (1910), § 3698.

2 In such a proceeding it was error to inquire into the nature of the landlord’s title; and a verdict for the defendant was contrary to law.

Decided January 20, 1921.

Eviction; from Candler superior court — Judge Hardeman. April 5, 1920.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*G. W. Turner, Hines, Hardwick & Jordan,*for. plaintiff.

*H. B. Strange, J. L. Brown, Kirkland & Kirkland,*for defendant.

Stephens, J.

On January 1, 1918, Lee instituted proceedings to dispossess Lacy summarily as his tenant holding over beyond the expiration of the tenant’s term, which, it was alleged, expired on December 31, 1917, the plaintiff alleging that he himself held the premises as a tenant from Mrs. Mary A. Beasley, the owner, for a period of 5 years from December 10, 1915. The defendant filed a counter-affidavit, alleging that he was not a tenant of Lee, but was the tenant of Misses Sallie and Nannie Beasley, owners of the premises, and denied that Lee was a lessee of the-premises for 5 years or for .any other period. From the evidence it -appears that Lee had possession of the premises during the .years 1916 and 1917, claiming to hold under a 5-years lease from Mrs. Mary A. .Beasley, beginning December 10, 1915. Mrs. Beasley denied that there was such a lease, and contended that Lee’s term expired with the year 1917. Lacy rented from Lee as-a subtenant .for the year 1917, and before the expiration of his term negotiated a lease for a new term, beginning January 1, 1918, with Misses Sallie and Nannie Beasley, who in- the meantime had acquired the title to the property from Mrs. Mary A. Beasley. On the 1st of January, 1918, Lee was out of possession, and Lacy was in possession claiming under a landlord other than Lee.

Hpon the trial of the case evidence was admitted upon the issue as to the length of the term of the lease between Mrs. Mary A. Beasley and Lee. The trial Judge held that Leé’s lease from *128Mrs. Beasley had expired, and directed a verdict for the defendant. Lee moved for a new trial, the motion was overruled and he excepted.

It is not necessary to add anything further to what is said in the headnotes.

*Judgment reversed.*

Jenltins, P.J., arad *Hill,*J., *concur.*
Exhibit 3b


    CERTICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

    I, Devorah  Zirkind, President and Secretary of Finders,
Keepers, Inc. certifies that:

       1.  She  is the duly elected  President and Secretary
of Finders Keepers,  Inc., Charter No.  C13314-99,  a Nevada
Corporation.

       2.  The original Articles were filed in the Office of
the Secretary of State on May 28, 1999.

       3.  As  of  the date of this certificate, there  were
11,544,436 shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding.

       4.  That on July 21, 2000, a  written consent  of the
shareholders  of  Finders Keepers, Inc. who hold  10,000,000
shares was executed approved the following amendments to the
Articles of Incorporation:

       ARTICLE 4 is amended to read as follows:

       The  aggregate number of shares which the corporation
shall  have  authority to issue shall consist of 200,000,000
shares  of  Common  Stock  having a  $.001  par  value,  and
25,000,000  shares  of Preferred Stock having  a  $.001  par
value.   The Common Stock of the Company may be issued  from
time  to  time  without prior approval by the  stockholders.
The Common Stock may be issued for such consideration as may
be  fixed from time to time by the Board of Directors.   The
Board  of Directors may issue such share of Common Stock  in
one  or  more series, with such voting powers, designations,
preferences  and  rights or qualifications,  limitations  or
restrictions thereof as shall be stated in the resolution or
resolutions.  The Preferred Stock authorized may  be  issued
from  time  to  time in one or more series.   The  Board  of
Directors  is authorized to determine or alter  any  or  all
rights  or preferences, privileges and restrictions  granted
to  or  imposed upon any wholly unissued series of Preferred
Stock, and to fix, alter or reduce (but not below the number
outstanding) the number of shares comprising any such series
and  the designation thereof, or any of them, and to provide
for  the rights and terms of redemption or conversion of the
shares of any series.


DATED:    July 21, 2000.


/s/ Devorah Zirkind
-------------------
Devorah Zirkind, President and Secretary

This instrument was
acknowledged before me
on this 21st day of July, 2000, by
Devorah Zirkind

/s/ Neal S. Fox
---------------
(Notary Public Signature)
                                     NEAL S. FOX
                            Notary Public, State of New York
                                     No. 6016473
                               Qualified in Kings County
                            Commission Expires Nov. 23, 2000