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

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of CNH Holdings  Company,  on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Lisa
Anderson,  Chief  Financial  and  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or
15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: February 19, 2004

/s/ Lisa Anderson
Lisa Anderson
Chief Financial and Accounting Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Scott ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-5064.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 2, 2006.

*195William C. Gallagher, Cassidy, Myers, Cogan *&*Voegelin, L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Scott Anderson pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and was sentenced to a term of seventy-seven months imprisonment. Anderson appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court clearly erred in denying him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 3E1.1 (2004), based on a single positive drug test while he was free on bond pending his sentencing. We affirm.

Anderson entered his guilty plea in March 2005 and was permitted to remain free on bond. In August 2005, he tested positive for marijuana use. He subsequently admitted violating the conditions of his release, his release was revoked, and he was detained. At the sentencing hearing in October 2005, the district court determined that his conduct was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility and denied the adjustment. Anderson argues on appeal that a single positive test for marijuana use is an insufficient reason to deny him the adjustment.

Although the guidelines are no longer mandatory, the sentencing court must determine the correct guideline range and consider the range, with other factors, before imposing sentence. *United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.2005). The guideline commentary on which the court relied in denying Anderson the adjustment states that the court may consider whether the defendant has voluntarily withdrawn “from criminal conduct or associations.” USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.l(b)). This court has held that a defendant’s continued use or sale of drugs after conviction may be a basis for denial of acceptance of responsibility. *United States v. Kidd,*12 F.3d 30, 34 (4th Cir. 1993); *United States v. Underwood,*970 F.2d 1336, 1339 (4th Cir.1992). These decisions do not require multiple instances of drug use to warrant denial of the adjustment, only some continued use of drugs after conviction. Therefore, the district court did not clearly err when it held that Anderson’s continued involvement with drugs did not reflect acceptance of responsibility.

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
CRAFT BREWERS ALLIANCE, INC.
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 BY:
    
    /s/ Mark D. Moreland

     Mark D. MorelandChief Financial Officer
     March 25, 2009
#### Wooten v. Newcon Transp., Inc.

Case below: 178 N.C. App. 698

No. 429P06

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA05-1107)

Denied 11/08/07

Hudson, J., Recused
#### In the Matter of Christine Villanti, Respondent, v Michael Grucci, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 352]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated September 10, 2012, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fields, S.M.), dated May 11, 2012, which awarded the mother counsel fees in the sum of $9,730.

Ordered that the order dated September 10, 2012, is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the mother was properly awarded counsel fees in connection with her petition alleging that the father willfully violated an order of support. Once a finding of willfulness was made against the father for violating the support order *(see Matter of Grucci v Villanti,*108 AD3d 626, 627 [2013]), the Family Court was required by Family Court *843Act § 438 (b) to award counsel fees to the mother *(see Matter of Rutuelo v Rutuelo,*98 AD3d 518 [2012]; *Matter of Musarra v Musarra,*28 AD3d 668 [2006]). Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to disturb the award of counsel fees. Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Lott and Hinds-Radix, JJ, concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wolverine Tube, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 1, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James E.
Deason, Chief Financial Officer of Wolverine Tube, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Wolverine Tube, Inc. and will be retained by Wolverine Tube, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |  |  |                                       
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 7, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ James E. Deason                   
|                     |  |  |  | James E. Deason                       
|                     |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
|                     |  |  |  | Officer and Secretary
No. 869.

#### Mark *v.*Warden of Attica State Prison.

February 9, 1942.

*Ralph Mark, pro se.*

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York, and motion for leave to proceed further *in forma pauperis,*denied.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Patrick W. Hurley, Chief Financial Officer of Sport-Haley, Inc., certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Sport-Haley, Inc.;

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

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 3, 2005

|/s/PATRICK W. HURLEYPatrick W. Hurley
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Joshua Lutrell, Andrew Davis, Moises 

Roman, Joe Rodriguez; and on behalf of 

all other persons similarly situated,

 

 Appellants’,

v.

El Paso County, et al.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00090-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2014DCV3070)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until March 9, 2017. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jo Anne Bernal, the attorney for Appellee’s, 

prepare the brief for Appellee’s and forward the same to this Court on or before March 9, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7

thday of February, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rivera, Appellant.

Submitted July 19, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Fire and Aviation

3833 South Development Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83705-5354

http://www.nifc.gov

May 28, 2009

In Reply Refer to:

9215 (FA-331) P

EMS Transmission 05/29/2009

Information Bulletin No. FA IB-2009-017

To: State Fire Management Officers

From: Deputy Assistant Director (NIFC), Fire and Aviation

Subject: Ensuring Currency and Validity of IQCS Records for Employees in IFPM Designated 

Positions

All Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees in Interagency Fire Program Management (IFPM) 

designated positions must meet IFPM qualification standards by the October 1, 2010 implementation 

deadline. Recent review of Interagency Qualification and Certification System (IQCS) records 

indicates that a number of designated employees either do not meet requirements, or their IFPM 

position has not been entered on the IFPM Job Data page in IQCS. All BLM supervisors of IFPM 

designated employees should validate pertinent IQCS data and ensure that employees are on track to 

meet the implementation deadline. 

For information on recently modified IFPM qualification requirements, see the National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group’s IFPM Decision Paper #4, “Modification of Interagency Fire Program 

Management Minimum Qualification Standards—Mid Course Review” at 

http://www.ifpm.nifc.gov/documents/nwcg/NWCG_Memorandum_IFPM_Decision_Paper-4.pdf.

Adjustments have been made to IQCS to reflect the modified IFPM qualifications. Both regular and 

new IQCS users should familiarize themselves with these changes. A training module on data entry 

and database query is available on the IQCS website at http://iqcs.nwcg.gov. Click on the “Training” 

link to access the modules. 

Please refer questions to Ted Mason, BLM Fire Management Training Unit Program leader, 208-387-

5334.

Signed by: Authenticated by:

Denise Schmitz, Acting Erin K. Maskalick

Deputy Assistant Director (NIFC), Fire and Aviation Records Management Specialist

Distribution:

FA DAD (NIFC) 

FA DAD (WO)

BLM ADs
2

FA Management Team

BLM Library

Ted Mason (FA-331)
**Exhibit 15.2**

**ENFORCEMENT DECREE OF THE FRAMEWORK ACT ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS**

 

**
 
**

Amended by Enforcement Decree No. 22605 of Dec. 31, 2010, effective Jan. 24, 2011 

**CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS**

**Article1 (Purpose)**

The purpose of this Enforcement Decree is to provide matters delegated under the Framework Act on Telecommunications (the“Act”) and matters necessary for its enforcement. 

**CHAPTER II Deleted <2009.8.18>**

Article 2 Deleted <2009.8.18> 

Article 3 Deleted<2009.8.18> 

Article 4 Deleted <2009.8.18> 

Article 5 Deleted <2009.8.18> 

Article 6 Deleted<2009.8.18> 

Article 7 Deleted <2009.8.18> 

Article 8 Deleted <2009.8.18> 

Article 9 Deleted<2009.8.18> 

Article 10 Deleted <2009.8.18> 

**CHAPTER III TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT**

Article 11 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 12 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 13 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 14 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 15 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 16 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 17 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 18 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 19 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 20 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 21 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 22 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 23 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 24 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 25 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 26 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 27 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 28 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 29 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 30 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 31 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 32 Deleted <2010.12.31> 

**CHAPTER IV Deleted <2010.12.27>**

Article 33 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 34 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 35 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 36 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 37 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 38 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 39 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 40 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 41 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 42 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

**CHAPTER IV Deleted <2010.12.27>**

Article 43 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 44 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 45 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 46 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 47 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 48 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 49 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 50 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 51 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

**CHAPTER VI SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS**

Article 52 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 53 Deleted<2010.12.27> 

Article 54 Deleted <2010.12.31> 

Article 54-2 Deleted <2010.12.27> 

Article 55 Deleted<2010.12.31> 

**ADDENDA <Amended by No. 22605, Dec. 31, 2010>**

Article 1 (Enforcement Date) This Decree shall be effective as of January 24, 2011. <Proviso Omitted> 

Article 2 through Article 12 Omitted 

Article 13 (Amendment ofOther Laws) (1) through (3) Omitted 

(4) Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Telecommunication shall be partly amended as follows: 

Article 32 shall be deleted 

Article 54 and Article 55 shalleach be deleted. 

(5) through (9) Omitted
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2653 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on compound of strontium 

chloroapatite-europium. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. BUNNING 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 compound 

of strontium chloroapatite-europium. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMPOUND OF STRONTIUM CHLOROAPATITE4 EUROPIUM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.66 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 compound of strontium chloroapatite-europium) is amend8 ed by striking the date in the effective period column and 

9 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2653 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 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2018 BLM Airward & Certificate of Recognition

* BURCH & BECK AIRWARD

* LAS VEGAS HELITACK – VENDOR MECHANIC, CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE 
* Greg Burch, Air Tactical Group Supervisor 

* Scott Beck, Pilot

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 while flying on the Grassy Ridge Fire, the Air Tactical Aircraft and flight crew experienced an in- flight emergency prompting an immediate landing at Rexburg (RXE) Airport. 

The Air Tactical Group Supervisor (ATGS) and Pilot started smelling an odor produced from burning wire. The ATGS immediately turned off the air conditioning (AC) unit, as it had a breaker trip two days earlier. His first thought was that

maybe the AC unit could be the problem. Soon after switching off the AC unit, the Door Indicator Light came on, the Pilot 

went to reset the switch and it immediately popped off again. Then the pilot’s radio and intercom went out. 

The decision was made to head to the nearest airport which was identified as RXE. The Global Positioning System (GPS) then 

turned off and then came back on. The Pilot and ATGS went through the Electrical Emergency Procedures Check List and set up 

for a straight in landing to Runway 17, RXE. The ATGS notified the dispatch center and the Incident Commander (IC) of the 

emergency situation via radio in route to the airport. Due to the Pilot’s radio being out, the ATGS made the radio calls on the

Rexburg CTAF/Unicom. Upon landing, additional aircraft items started to fail. The right ``Gen Out`` light illuminated and a

couple circuit breakers popped. Once the plane landed the gear down warning started to sound. The aircraft was taxied to 

parking and the pilot went through the shutdown procedures, however the engines would not shut down. The ATGS held in 

the door activation switch and the pilot reset a couple of the breakers and then the engines shut down. The pilot and ATGS did 

a quick survey of the aircraft to ensure there was no smoke or fire. The only thing they noticed was the strong odor of burning wire. With all power turned off, the aircraft was monitored while the pilot and ATGS made calls to Dispatch, company owner 

and Chief Mechanic. 

The quick methodical reaction and effective Crew Resource Management (CRM) within the cockpit implemented by the Pilot and ATGS lead to a successful recovery of the aircraft. Great work by all involved while keeping cool heads in a very stressful 

situation. Safecom 18-0646
Burch (left), Beck (middle), BLM National Aviation Safety Advisor Kirk Rothwell
Las Vegas Helitack 

Ex-Use Contract, Vendor Mechanic
[936 NE2d 912, 910 NYS2d 31]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Carlos Reyes, Respondent.

Decided October 19, 2010

*864APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Susan Axelrod*and *Alan Gadlin*of counsel), for appellant.

*Office of the Appellate Defender,*New York City *(Richard M. Greenberg, Heather L. Holloway*and *Rosemary Herbert*of counsel), for respondent.

*865OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), appeal dismissed upon the ground that the reversal by the Appellate Division was not “on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]; *see People v Howard,*74 NY2d 943 [1989]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
#### Edwin Pope et al., Appellants, v Safety and Quality Plus, Inc., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted August 2, 2010;

decided October 14, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
      OFFICER**







Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of Patco Industries, Ltd. (the “Company”) hereby
      certifies that based on his knowledge:




(i)  the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
      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 as of and
      for
      the periods covered in the Report.







Dated:
                July 14, 2005
            /s/
                William C. Patridge
              Name:William
                C. Patridge
              Title:Chief
                Executive Officer (principal executive officer and principal financial
                officer)








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification
      is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit
      to
      the Form 10-QSB and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form
      10-QSB.