alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.6

                  Certification of Chief Financial Officer

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of 3Si Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: February 13, 2003                    By:/s/Frank W. Backes
                                            Frank W. Backes, Chief
                                            Technical Officer, Chief
                                            Financial Officer and
                                            Director
Exhibit 12.2  CERTIFICATIONS  I,
Michel Demaré, certify that:  1.I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ABB Ltd;  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 principals;  (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 functions):  (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:  March 10, 2009  /s/ Michel DemaréMichel DemaréChief Financial Officer  2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 THAT
     WERE WERE FILED WITH THE  COMPANY'S  REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED
     IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>         0000316621
<NAME>        Power Exploration, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         9,688
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    398,661
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               431,754
<PP&E>                                       8,364,265
<DEPRECIATION>                                (144,756)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,962,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          774,797
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       231,282
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,956,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,962,291
<SALES>                                         47,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,160
<CGS>                                           81,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,267,386
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (12,293,282)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (12,293,282)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (12,293,282)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.06)


</TABLE>
#### Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. James P. Cawley.

Error to Superior Court of Detroit.

Submitted June 23, 1881.

Decided January 25, 1882.

Case. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*■G. VI JV. lothrop*for plaintiff in error.

*Griffin dk JDiohmson*for defendant in error.

Per Curiam.

The Court being equally divided, judgment is affirmed.

*650CORRECTIONS. Page 254, note: Read “ executor’s sale ” for “ execution sale.” Page 449, note 5, line 1: Read “ license ” for “ licence.”
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ZACHERY WILSON,

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-337-CB-M

:

EMILY WHITTLE, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues 

raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of 

the Recommendation to which objection is made, the 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that Defendants Whittle, Franklin and 

Ezell are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on 

all claims asserted against them by Plaintiff, and that 

this action against these Defendants be dismissed with 

prejudice.

DONE this 18th day of May, 2015.

s/Charles R. Butler, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:14-cv-00337-CB-M Document 35 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhbit105_AmendtoStelmarEmploymentAgreement






AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), is entered into as of May 29, 2015, by and between The New Home Company Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Wayne Stelmar (“Executive”).  Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement (as defined below).


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of January 30, 2014 (the “Employment Agreement”) which sets forth the terms and conditions of Executive’s employment by the Company; and


WHEREAS, in connection with Executive’s change in position with the Company, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive hereby amend the Employment Agreement as follows, effective as June 26, 2015:


1.    Each of the first two sentences of Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting each reference to the phrase “Chief Financial Officer” and replacing such reference with the phrase “Chief Investment Officer”.


2.    Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following language to the end of such Section:


“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Executive acknowledges and agrees that none of (i) Executive’s appointment and/or service as Chief Investment Officer, (ii) any action by the Company causing Executive to cease to serve as Chief Financial  Officer, or (iii) any action taken by the Company in connection with any of the foregoing (including the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer of the Company) shall constitute a breach of this Agreement, or constitute Good Reason or a termination of Executive’s employment without Cause for purposes of this Agreement or any other agreement between Executive and the Company or its subsidiaries or affiliates, and Executive hereby consents to such actions.”


3.    This Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Employment Agreement.


4.     Except as amended and set forth herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

















[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
    













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed and delivered by the parties hereto.


	
					
	 
	 
	THE NEW HOME COMPANY INC.,

	 
	 
	a Delaware corporation

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ H. Lawrence Webb

	 
	 
	 
	Name:  H. Lawrence Webb

	 
	 
	 
	Title:  Chief Executive Officer










	
					
	 
	 
	"EXECUTIVE"

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	/s/ Wayne Stelmar

	 
	 
	Wayne Stelmar
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2098 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2098

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of 
 Columbia, Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Public Defender 
                     Service 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 Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of 
 Columbia, Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Public Defender 
                     Service for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA, FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
              PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for District of Columbia, 
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Public Defender Service for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $45,858,000.
                                 <all>
```
11679.

#### Martin *v.*Hutchinson.

Broyles, C. J.

1. While a party seeking to prove a fact should, on demand , of the other party, be required to produce the highest and best evidence of the fact, yet parol evidence of a *collateral*fact which is also evidenced by writing is sometime admissible. 2. Jones on Evidence (1st ed.), 193, § 203; *Pollock*v. *Skelton,*15 *Ga. App.*1, 13 (82 S. E. 381). See also *Mason*v. *State,*1 *Ga. App.*534(4) (58 S. E. 139). Moreover, substantially the same evidence the admission of which is complained of in the 4th ground of the motion for a new trial in the instant case was admitted elsewhere upon the trial without being objected to; and therefore the admission of the testimony complained of, even if error, does not.require a new trial.

2. Construing the evidence (as this court must) most strongly in favor of the verdict, it can not be said that the finding of the jury for the full amount sued for is without any evidence to support it; and, that finding having been approved by the trial court, this court is without jurisdiction to set it aside.

3. The remaining grounds of the motion for a new trial, not having been *25argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned. The following .statement in the brief of counsel, to wit, “the remaining grounds of the motion for a new trial relate either to evidence bearing upon the general custom of the trade, or the charge' of the court thereon, and, upon all of these phases of the case, we insist that the court committed error for all of the reasons assigned, *”*does not amount to an argument. See, in this connection, *James*v. *Boyett,*19 *Ga. App.*157 (91 S. E. 219), and citations.

Decided December 15, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Yaldosta — Judge Cranford. June 11, 1920.

*Whitaker &*Dukes, for plaintiff in error.

*Dan. B.*Bruce, contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2097 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of Columbia, 

Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 

for the District of Columbia 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 Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of Columbia, Federal Payment to the Court Services 

and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia 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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2097 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FEDERAL PAYMENT 

3 TO THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER 

4 SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

5 COLUMBIA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for District of Columbia, Federal Payment to the 

9 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the 

10 District of Columbia for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

11 $256,724,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### In the Matter of Josephine Aliperti, Respondent, v Frank C. Trotta et al., Appellants.

[827 NYS2d 274]

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven dated August 8, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered August 8, 2005, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter to the Zoning Board Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven to issue the area various.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In determining whether to grant an area variance, a zoning board is required by Village Law § 7-712-b (3) to engage in a balancing test “weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted” *(Matter of Ifrah v Utschig,*98 NY2d 304, 307 [2002]; *see Matter of Sasso v*Osgood, 86 NY2d 374 [1995]; *Matter of CFS Realty Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead,*7 AD3d 705 [2004]). A decision by a zoning board of appeals which neither adheres to its prior precedent nor sets forth its reasons for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious *(see Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts],*66 NY2d 516, 520 [1985]; *Matter of Civic Assn. of Setaukets v Trotta,*8 AD3d 482, 483 [2004]; *Matter of Frisenda v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Islip,*215 AD2d 479, 480 [1995]; *Matter of Spandorf v Board of Appeals of Vil. of E. Hills,*167 AD2d 546, 547 [1990]).

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Zoning Board) granted an application made by the petitioner in 2001 for an area variance, which allowed, inter alia, the subject property to be divided into two 60 x 100-foot parcels (parcel A and parcel B), and the construction of a one-*855family dwelling with a 910 square-foot second story on parcel B. After construction of an identical residence on parcel A was 85% complete, the petitioner applied for a building permit. At that time, she was informed that an area variance was required inasmuch as the enlarged second story was violative of Town Code § 85-372 (C), which provides that a 600 square-foot second story is the maximum size permitted on a residential structure constructed on a parcel less than 70 feet wide. The petitioner thereafter applied for an area variance, which was denied by the Zoning Board.

Contrary to the Zoning Board’s contention, it articulated no rational basis for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the Zoning Board to issue the area variance. Schmidt, J.E, Krausman, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2019 

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

and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General 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, and in addition to 

the Committees on Natural Resources, Education and the Workforce, and 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

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

Inspector General 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 2019 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

4 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

6 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail7 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Of8 fice of the Inspector General for fiscal year 2024 may not 

9 exceed $80,000,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.2


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-73616) and on Form S-8 (File No's.
333-39802, 333-57536 and 333-102887) of Handspring, Inc. of our report dated
July 16, 2002, except as to Note 11, as to which the date is September 18, 2002
and except as to Notes 3, 5c, 6 and 10, as to which the date is February 11,
2003, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule,
which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
February 11, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1849 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1849

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
   Offices of the Majority and Minority Leader 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 House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
   Offices of the Majority and Minority Leader for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR SENATE, OFFICES OF 
              THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADER FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Senate, Offices of the 
Majority and Minority Leader for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$5,399,576.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

May 25, 2011

d0525

Order 

May 25, 2011

141977(84)

ENGENIUS, INC. and ENGENIUS-EU,

LIMITED,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 141977

COA: 290682

Wayne CC: 03-331133-CK

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to partially confirm judgment is considered, and 

it is DENIED, because this Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief 

at this time.