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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kim R. Payne, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ KIM R. PAYNE                                 
|Kim R. Payne,                                    
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

November 7, 2008

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank A. Pici, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of PVG GP, LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Frank A. Pici                         
|                     |  |  |  | Frank A. Pici                             
|                     |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit
to the Report. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
905 A.2d 867

#### IN THE MATTER OF IAN J. HIRSCH, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 264661972).

September 12, 2006.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-047, concluding that LAN J. HIRSCH of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1972, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating *RPC*1.15(a) and (b) (failure to safekeep property) and *RPC*3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal);

And the Court having determined from its review of the matter that the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct is a censure;

And respondent through counsel having assented to the imposition of a censure;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that IAN J. HIRSCH is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5384 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5384

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the allowance of the 
 deduction of State and local general sales taxes in lieu of State and 
                     local income taxes permanent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2004

 Mr. Brady of Texas (for himself, Mr. Baird, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. 
  Bell, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Bilirakis, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. 
 Boyd, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Carter, Mr. 
 Cooper, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mr. DeLay, 
Mr. Dicks, Mr. Duncan, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ford, Mr. Foley, Mr. 
 Gibbons, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Granger, Mr. Hall, Ms. Harris, 
Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. 
Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Paul, 
Mr. Porter, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shaw, 
  Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. 
Weldon of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the allowance of the 
 deduction of State and local general sales taxes in lieu of State and 
                     local income taxes permanent.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Permanent Sales Tax Deduction Act of 
2004''.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES MADE PERMANENT.

    Paragraph (5) of section 164(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (I).
                                 <all>
```
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 307

EX PA R TE JO SEP H D EN N I S LE W I S , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 1 0 6 0 9 3 2 - A I N T HE 1 7 8 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM HA RRI S CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W
. 2 d 8 2 4 , 8 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of murder and sentenc ed to life imprisonment. The Four teenth Court of Appeals aff irmed his conviction. Le wis
v . S tat e , No. 14-07-00377- CR (Tex. App. - Houston [ 14 Dist.] , May 29, 2008)
. th Applicant conte nds that he wa s denied the opportunity to petition thi s Court for discre tionary revie w, beca

use counse l failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been a ffirme d and failed to a dvise him of his rig ht to petition for discretionar y revie w pro se. Appellate c ounsel filed2

ana f f id a v it w it h th e tr ia l c o u rt, in d ic a ti n g th a t he ti me ly ma il e d th e n o ti f ic a ti o n to A p p li c a n t. We
rema nded this application to the trial cour t for finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law. The re cord ha s now bee n supplemented with an a ffidavit and a uthenticate d copies of the pr iso n ma il logs f

ro m App lic a nt’ s unit

duri ngthe a

pp lic a ble pe ri od

of tim e . B a se d o n th os e documents, the trial court has entered findings of fac t and conc lusions of law that Applicant did not timely rec eive the notific ation from appellate counsel that his conviction had bee n aff irmed and that he had a rig ht to petition for discretionary revie w pro se. See E

x parte Riley , 1 9 3 S. W. 3 d 9 0 0 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2006). We f

ind, the ref

ore, that Applicant is e ntitled to the oppor tunity to file an out-of

tim e pe tit ion

fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w o f t

he jud g me nt o f the F ourt e e nth Cou rt of Ap pe a ls i n Ca

us e No. 14-07-00377- CR

that aff irmed his conviction in Cause No. 1060932-A from the 178th J udicial District Court of Har

ris County
. Applicant shall file his petition for discre tionary revie w with the F ourt e e nth

Court of Ap pe a ls w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f t he date on

wh ic h th is C ourt ’s mand a te iss ue s.

Deliver ed: Marc h 3, 2010 Do no t pu bli sh
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 I, Ellen M. Ingersoll, Chief
Financial Officer of Viad Corp, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.
  
  the report on Form 10-Q of Viad Corp for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  2.
  
  the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Viad Corp. Date: November 5, 2010 By /s/ Ellen M.
Ingersoll

Ellen M. Ingersoll 
Chief Financial Officer  4
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5152 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5152

    To require the Secretary of Defense to take such actions as are 
     necessary to change the reimbursement rates and cost sharing 
requirements under the TRICARE program to be the same as, or as similar 
 as possible to, the reimbursement rates and cost sharing requirements 
   under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan provided under the 
 Federal Employee Health Benefit program under chapter 89 of title 5, 
                          United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2004

 Mr. Norwood introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Secretary of Defense to take such actions as are 
     necessary to change the reimbursement rates and cost sharing 
requirements under the TRICARE program to be the same as, or as similar 
 as possible to, the reimbursement rates and cost sharing requirements 
   under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan provided under the 
 Federal Employee Health Benefit program under chapter 89 of title 5, 
                          United States Code.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR TRICARE PROGRAM TO HAVE REIMBURSEMENT RULES 
              AND COST SHARING REQUIREMENTS EQUIVALENT TO BLUE CROSS/
              BLUE SHIELD STANDARD PLAN.

    (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall take such actions 
as are necessary to change the reimbursement rules and cost sharing 
requirements under the TRICARE program to be the same as, or as similar 
as possible to, the reimbursement rules and cost sharing requirements 
under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan provided under the 
Federal Employee Health Benefit program under chapter 89 of title 5, 
United States Code.
    (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``TRICARE program'' has 
the meaning provided under section 1072(7) of title 10, United States 
Code.
    (c) Implementation.--The Secretary of Defense shall implement the 
requirement under subsection (a) not later than October 1, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 574 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 574

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat gold, silver, and 
platinum, in either coin or bar form, in the same manner as stocks and 
 bonds for purposes of the maximum capital gains rate for individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

  Mr. Hayworth (for himself and Mr. Gibbons) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat gold, silver, and 
platinum, in either coin or bar form, in the same manner as stocks and 
 bonds for purposes of the maximum capital gains rate for individuals.

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

SECTION 1. GOLD, SILVER, AND PLATINUM TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS 
              STOCKS AND BONDS FOR MAXIMUM CAPITAL GAINS RATE FOR 
              INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1(h)(6) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definition of collectibles 
gain and loss) is amended by striking ``without regard to paragraph (3) 
thereof'' and inserting ``without regard to so much of paragraph (3) 
thereof as relates to palladium and the bullion requirement for 
physical possession by a trustee''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002.
                                 <all>
```
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 Quintek  Technologies,  Inc. on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof, I, Andrew Haag, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report 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:  October 11, 2004

                                /S/ ANDREW HAAG
                                --------------------
                                Andrew Haag
                                Chief Financial Officer
Exh 4.1 Trasnfer Retrictions on Stock








Exhibit 4.1 
STATEMENT REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON 
TRANSFERABILITY OF SHARES OF COMMON STOCK 
(To Appear On Stock Certificate Or To Be Sent 
To Stockholders Issued Shares Without Certificates) 


The shares represented by this certificate are subject to restrictions on Beneficial Ownership, Constructive Ownership and Transfer for the purpose of the Corporation's maintenance of its status as a Real Estate Investment Trust under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).  Subject to certain further restrictions and except as expressly provided in the Corporation's charter:  (a) no Person may Beneficially Own or Constructively Own shares of the Corporation's Common Stock in excess of 9.8% (in value or number of shares) of the outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Corporation unless such Person is an Excepted Holder (in which case the Excepted Holder Limit for such Excepted Holder shall be applicable); (b) no Person may Beneficially Own or Constructively Own shares of Capital Stock of the Corporation in excess of 9.8% of the value of the total outstanding shares of Capital Stock of the Corporation, unless such Person is an Excepted Holder (in which case the Excepted Holder Limit for such Excepted Holder shall be applicable); (c) no Person may Beneficially Own or Constructively Own Capital Stock that would result in the Corporation being “closely held” under Section 856(h) of the Code or otherwise cause the Corporation to fail to qualify as a REIT; and (d) other than as provided in the Corporation's charter, no Person may Transfer shares of Capital Stock if such Transfer would result in the Capital Stock of the Corporation being owned by fewer than 100 Persons.  Any Person who Beneficially Owns or Constructively Owns or attempts to Beneficially Own or Constructively Own shares of Capital Stock which causes or will cause a Person to Beneficially Own or Constructively Own shares of Capital Stock in excess or in violation of the above limitations must immediately notify the Corporation.  If any of the restrictions on Transfer or ownership are violated, the shares of Capital Stock represented hereby will be automatically transferred to a Trustee of a Trust for the benefit of one or more Charitable Beneficiaries.  In addition, upon the occurrence of certain events, attempted Transfers in violation of the restrictions described above may be void ab initio.  


All capitalized terms in this legend have the meanings defined in the charter of the Corporation, as the same may be amended from time to time, a copy of which, including the restrictions on Transfer and ownership, will be furnished to each holder of Capital Stock of the Corporation on request and without charge.
#### HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, v. Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2012-1608.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 11, 2013.

*982Frederick L. Ikenson, Blank Rome, LLP, of Washington, DC, argue for plaintiff-appellee. Of counsel were Kierstan Lee Carlson and Larry Hampel.

Carrie A. Dunsmore, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Nathaniel J. Halvorson, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

William E. Perry, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, of Seattle, Washington, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief was Emily Lawson.

DYK, MAYER, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jerome BROWN, also known as Jamel Brown, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-4663-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2012.

David A. Lewis, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Daniel C. Richenthal, Assistant United States Attorney (Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; Brent S. Wible, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), New York, NY, for Appellee.

Present: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Jerome Brown appeals the sentence of 72 months’ imprisonment imposed by the district court on October 28, 2011. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

“Reasonableness review is akin to review for abuse of discretion, under which we consider whether the sentencing judge exceeded the bounds of allowable discretion, committed an error of law in the course of exercising discretion, or made a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” *United States v. Williams,*475 F.3d 468, 474 (2d Cir.2007) (citation and alterations omitted). “Whether the District Court correctly interpreted U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 is a question of law, which we review *de novo.” United States v. Cuello,*357 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir.2004).

The district court correctly considered the factors identified in *Cuello*to determine that Brown’s previous New York state youthful offender adjudication counted as a previous conviction for a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. This Court has addressed the status of New York state youthful offender adjudications as previous convictions in many contexts, *see, e.g., United States v. Pereira,*465 F.3d 515 (2d Cir.2006); *United States v. Jones,*415 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.2005); *United States v. Driskell,*277 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.2002); *United States v. Matthews,*205 F.3d 544 (2d Cir.2000), and we do not disturb those decisions here. As the district court identified the proper Guidelines range and sentenced Brown accordingly, we cannot conclude that the sentence in this case was either proeedurally or substantively unrea*48sonable. *See United States v. Eberhard, 525*F.3d 175, 179 (2d Cir.2008) (“[I]n the overwhelming majority of cases, a Guidelines sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of sentences that would be reasonable in the particular circumstances.” (citation omitted)).

We find Brown’s remaining arguments to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.
Case 2:11-mj-03651-MF Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1
Case 2:11-mj-03651-MF Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 2
Case 2:11-mj-03651-MF Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 3
Case 2:11-mj-03651-MF Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 4
Case 2:11-mj-03651-MF Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 5
Case 2:11-mj-03651-MF Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 6