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

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:

      (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
   fiscal year ended January 29, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
   requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
   material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
   Company.

   Dated: April 28, 2005                   /s/ Richard S. Wallington
                                           -------------------------------
                                           Richard S. Wallington
                                           Chief Financial Officer
NUMBER 13-16-00349-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ROBERT MICHELENA, Appellant,

v.

MONICA MICHELENA, Appellee.

On appeal from the 357th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

Robert Michelena appeals from a final judgment that was signed on June 1, 2016. 

Despite the length of time that has passed since it was filed, this appeal is not yet ripe for 

consideration. Multiple extensions of time to file the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, 

and the briefs have been sought and granted by this Court. Appellant’s reply brief, if any, 
2

has yet to be filed. Under these circumstances and to effectuate the proper and complete 

presentation of this appeal to the Court, we ABATE this appeal and remove it from the 

Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated after appellant’s reply brief, if any, 

has been properly and duly filed, or after sufficient time has passed for filing of the reply 

brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

19th day of March, 2018.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2537 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2537

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Orange 62.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

   Mr. Burr introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Orange 62.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT ORANGE 62.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Butanamide, N-(2,3- Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        dihydro-2-oxo-1H-                                                  31/2011.......
                        benzimidazol-5-
                        yl)-2-[2-(4-
                        nitrophenyl)diaze
                        nyl]-3-oxo- (CAS
                        No. 52846-56-7)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3204.17.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2705 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 191. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 191. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT YELLOW 191. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Benzenesulfonic acid, 4- 

chloro-2-[[4,5-dihydro-3- 

methyl-5-oxo-1-(3- 

sulfophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-4- 

yl]azo]-5-methyl-, calcium 

salt (1:1) (CAS No. 129423– 

54–7) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.60) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2705 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### State v. McAlwain

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 348

No. 193P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA06-672)

Denied 06/27/07
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 periodic report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip S. Chan, Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer
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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

|                         |  |  |  |                                                                                            
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  |  |  |                                                                                            
|                         |  | 
|Dated: November 26, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Philip S. Chan                                                                         
|                         |  |  |  | Philip S. Chan Vice President  Finance and
Chief Financial Officer Dynacq Healthcare, Inc.
#### Thorpe *against*White and others.

Where there is a contract of hiring for a definite period of time, at a certain rate per day, and a part only of the time having *elapsed the*parties settle the amount of the wages which had been earned, and the hirer gives his no amount; in an action on the note, it is no defence that the payee had left the maker's service before the expiration of the time which he had been originally hired; although, had there been no subsequent modification of agreement he could have recovered wages until he had served the whole period agreement upon.

THIS was an action of *assumpsit,*which was tried at the *Alba-*circuit, in October; 1815, before Mr. J. Yates.

The plaintiff produced, at the trial, a promissory note,, executed by the defendants, which being admitted, the counsel for the defendants offered to prove, under the notice subjoined to the plea, that-the defendants being the owners of a eotton manufactory, the plaintiff, who was a joiner, about three months before the exeCutjon of the note, entered into their service, and it was agreed that the defendants shoúld instruct the plaintiff in the making of the machinery necessary and proper for the said , manufactory, and should pay the plaintiff at the rate of one dob iar per day for one year, for his wages in making the same ; in consideration whereof, the plaintiff agreed to work fot the defendants for one year at that rate, and it was further agreed, that the- defendants should settle with the plaintiff at the end pf every three or four months; that at the expiration of about three months from the time the agreement was entered into, the parties computed the amount then due for the plaintiff ’s services, at the stipulated rate, and the note on which the action Was brought was given for the amount; and, shortly afterwards, the plairitiff left the service of the defendants without their consent. The evidence being objected to on the part of the plaintiff, was rejected by the judge, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff.

The defendants moved for a new trial, arid the pase was submitted to the court without argument, '

*Per Curiam.*

According to the principles adopted by this court, iii the case of *M'Millan*v, *Vanderlip,*(12 *Johns. Rep.*165.,) the original contract between the parties was an entire contract; and if there had been no subsequent modification, the,, plaintiff could not have recovered upon it until the expiration, bf the year. But the giving of the nóte in question, by the defendants, was, *pro*tanto, a change or modification of the original agreement, and precludes them. frQm setting up thq original *54' agreement against their own note. ' The evidence .offered wás, therefore, properly overruled, and the motion for a new trial must'be denied.

Motion denied.
[934 NE2d 876, 908 NYS2d 143]

#### Thomas P. Cashel, Plaintiff, v Francine Cashel, Defendant. Thomas P. Cashel, Appellant, v Francine Cashel et al., Defendants, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., Respondents. (And Another Action.)

Decided August 31, 2010

*796APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Saltzman Chetkof & Rosenberg, LLP,*Garden City *(Michael Chetkof of*counsel), for appellant.

*Solomon & Siris, P.C.,*Uniondale *(Michael J. Siris*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the motion by defendants Fremont Investment & Loan and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action against them denied.

Issues of fact exist with respect to whether plaintiff Thomas E Cashel possessed the requisite “knowledge of material facts” concerning the allegedly binding deed *(Matter of New York State Med. Transporters Assn. v Perales,*77 NY2d 126, 131 [1990]). Although plaintiff admitted to receiving certain monies from Francine Cashel, he alleged that she “advis[ed] him that she had received these funds from the proceeds of the mortgage loan,” which he had authorized her to obtain as his agent. Moreover, as argued by plaintiff, his receipt of these monies does not prove that he had any prior knowledge of Francine’s alleged forgery of the deed, especially considering that he authorized her to obtain a mortgage on the property. In addition, plaintiff claimed that he had not learned of the alleged forgery until June 2004 and that he filed a notice of pendency on the property in August 2004—several months before.defendant Fremont Investment & Loan issued its loan to Francine. Thus, the Court cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that plaintiff ratified the deed.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Eigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals *(22*NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 31, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D22-423 Lower Tribunal No. 21-15145 

### Birol Ozyesilpinar, Appellant, vs. 

### GLM Omnimedia Group LLC, et al.,

Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Birol Ozyesilpinar, in proper person. Holland & Knight, LLP, Scott D. Ponce and Benjamin A. Taormina, for appellees Voice Media Group, LLC, Voice Media Group, Inc., and Miami New Times, LLC; Toth Funes PA, Brian Toth and Freddy Funes, for appellees DMG Media, Ltd., Daily Mail and General Trust PLC, and Associated Newspapers Ltd.; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, and James H. Wyman, for appellee Raw Story Media, Inc. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Ozyesilpinar v. Reach PLC, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1004a (Fla. 3d DCA May 17, 2023).
SOFTWARE ORDERING AND DISTRIBUTION

Mission Planning software under Configuration Management  (CM) control by the Hill AFB Mission Planning Support Facility (MPSSF) can be ordered using the Technical Order Distribution Office  (TODO) system.  (Defined by  T.O. 00-5-17)

A TODO account (and account custodian) is established with the Tinker AFB Automated Computer Program Identification and Numbering System (ACPINS), by filing an AF Form 43.  (See A. & B. below)

As a user, if you do not know your current TODO account custodian, please contact CM at the MPSSF  800-SSF-SSFX, Dsn 777-6538. (menu  #4) 

The TODO account information should be kept current in the Tinker AFB ACPINS database because, as each item of software is revised, the new revision is automatically sent, to the TODO accounts that have a requirement on file for the previous revision of the software. It will be sent to the person and address shown in the database. Delivery information can be updated using the AF Form 43. (See Items A and B below)

Each item of unique software is assigned a Computer Program Identification Number (CPIN) when it is certified and authorized for distribution by the users Major Command  (MAJCOM).

When users need software, they notify the TODO. The TODO orders the software using its CPIN, on an AFTO 157. This establishes a requirement for the software. The 157 is sent to the Software Control Center at Hill AFB.  The order is logged into the ACPINS system and the software is mailed to the TODO, who is responsible for providing the software, locally, to the user. (See C. & D. below)

Attached:

A. AF Form 43

B. Form 43 Instructions

C. AFTO 157

D. Form 157 Instructions
#### In the Matter of David Avigdor, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[964 NYS2d 275]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1992. He maintained an office for the practice of law in Connecticut, where he was admitted to practice in 1983.

In June 2012, respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut upon his plea of guilty to a violation of 18 USC § 1012, making a false statement to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a serious crime as that term is defined by Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d) *(see Matter of Ruegger,*207 AD2d 166 [1995]; *see also Matter of Misiano,*33 AD3d 254 [2006]). The District Court sentenced respondent to three years of supervised probation and ordered him to pay a $3,000 fine and $20,000 in restitution. As part of his criminal plea, respondent knowingly and voluntarily *1248resigned from the practice of law in Connecticut for a period of one year effective July 2, 2012.

Petitioner now moves for a final order of discipline pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (g) based upon respondent’s conviction and sentence for a serious crime. In response, respondent has filed an affidavit requesting that certain mitigating circumstances be considered in imposing a disciplinary sanction. In mitigation, respondent cites his service as a rabbi to a Connecticut congregation for the past 32 years, expresses remorse for his misconduct, and has submitted numerous character letters written on his behalf.

Under the circumstances presented and in the interest of justice, we conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective nunc pro tunc as of July 2, 2012 *(see Matter of Cecil,*190 AD2d 986 [1993]; *see also Matter of Klarman,*22 AD3d 953 [2005]).

Mercure, J.E, Lahtinen, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur.

Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective nunc pro tunc as of July 2, 2012, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              67
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5536
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1347
<INVENTORY>                                       2321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6886
<PP&E>                                            7118
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5362
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   11328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6983
<BONDS>                                          18973
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       7717
<COMMON>                                         12213
<OTHER-SE>                                      (34558)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     11328
<SALES>                                          16940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 16940
<CGS>                                            10997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    17823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1680
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 897
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2563)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (2563)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2937)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.27)


</TABLE>
No. 622.

#### Holland, Administrator, *v.*A. H. Belo Corporation.

March 9, 1942.

L. Metcalfe Walling, present administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Department of Labor, substituted as the party petitioner in the place and stead of Thomas W. Holland, resigned, on motion of *Solicitor General Fahy*for the petitioner.
#### State v. Coltrane

Case below: 184 N.C. App.-(19 June 2007)

No. 348A07

1. Defs NOA (Dissent) (COA06-895)

2. Defs PDR as to Additional Issues

1. _

2. Denied 10/11/07
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 11, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00254

- CV

Charles J. MELNIK, Appellant

v.

Dewayne BALDWIN , Tonia Baldwin, Appellee

From the County Court a t Law No 1, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CV

- 0012 Honorable Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On December 5, 2018, appellees filed a motion for extension of time in which to file their

brief. Appellees request an extension of ninety (90) days. Appellees’ motion is GRANTED IN PART; the deadline for filing appellees’ brief is extended by sixty (60) days. Appellees’ brief is

due on or before January 15, 2019

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### Linda M. Ysla, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[870 NYS2d 805]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), entered May 22, 2007, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint *(see*CPLR 3212). Spolzino, J.E, Ritter, Santucci and Garni, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Poole, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 656]

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered August 16, 2012, resentencing defendant, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 25 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2678 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 2,2-Methylenebis[6-(2Hbenzotriazolyl-2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutylphenol)phenol]. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 2,2- 

Methylenebis[6-(2H-benzotriazolyl-2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3- 

tetramethylbutylphenol)phenol]. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2,2-METHYLENEBIS[6-(2H-BENZOTRIAZOLYL-2- 

4 YL)-4-(1,1,3,3- 

5 TETRAMETHYLBUTYLPHENOL)PHENOL]. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Headings 3824.90.2800 and 

7 9902.25.26 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

8 United States (relating to 2,2-Methylenebis[6-(2H9 benzotriazolyl-2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3- 

10 tetramethylbutylphenol)phenol]) is amended by striking 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2678 IS

1 the date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/ 

2 31/2011’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS