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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 64

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow penalty-free distributions from qualified retirement plans on account of the death or disability 

of the participant’s spouse. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Mrs. EMERSON 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 allow penalty-free distributions from qualified retirement plans on 

account of the death or disability of the participant’s 

spouse.

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

3 SECTION 1. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED RETIRE4 MENT PLANS ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH OR DIS5 ABILITY OF PARTICIPANT’S SPOUSE. 

6 (a) DISTRIBUTIONS PERMITTED.—

7 (1) 401(K) PLANS.—Subclause (I) of section 

8 401(k)(2)(B)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
2

HR 64 IH 

1 1986 (defining qualified cash or deferred arrange2 ment) is amended by striking ‘‘, death or disability’’ 

3 and inserting ‘‘or the death or disability of the par4 ticipant or the participant’s spouse’’. 

5 (2) 403(B) ANNUITIES.—

6 (A) Clause (ii) of section 403(b)(7)(A) of 

7 such Code is amended by inserting ‘‘(or, if ear8 lier, the employee’s spouse dies or becomes dis9 abled (as do defined)’’ after ‘‘section 

10 72(m)(7))’’. 

11 (B) Subparagraph (A) of section 

12 403(b)(11) of such Code is amended by insert13 ing before the comma at the end ‘‘or when the 

14 spouse of the employee dies or becomes disabled 

15 (as so defined)’’. 

16 (3) ROTH IRAS.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

17 408A(d)(2) of such Code is amended—

18 (A) by inserting before the comma at the 

19 end of clause (ii) ‘‘or made to the individual on 

20 or after the death of the individual’s spouse’’, 

21 and 

22 (B) by striking clause (iii) and inserting 

23 the following new clause: 

24 ‘‘(iii) attributable to the disability 

25 (within the meaning of section 72(m)(7)) 
3

HR 64 IH 

1 of the individual or the individual’s spouse, 

2 or’’. 

3 (b) PENALTY-FREE WITHDRAWALS.—Subparagraph 

4 (A) of section 72(t)(2) of such Code is amended—

5 (1) by inserting before the comma at the end of 

6 clause (ii) ‘‘or made to the employee on or after the 

7 death of the employee’s spouse’’, and 

8 (2) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the fol9 lowing new clause: 

10 ‘‘(iii) attributable to the disability 

11 (within the meaning of subsection (m)(7)) 

12 of the employee or the employee’s spouse,’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to distributions after December 31, 

15 2001.

Æ
# 16SNR09_00

# image1.png
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Howard M. Bailey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.



By:

/s/ Howard M. BaileyName:

Howard M. BaileyTitle:

Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Occam Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Occam Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 3:11-mj-02525-DEA   Document 35   Filed 05/05/14   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 80

Case 3:11-mj-02525-DEA   Document 35   Filed 05/05/14   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 81
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 Microtune, Inc.,
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nancy A. Richardson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 



Date:  July 31, 2003

---

|* |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Microtune, Inc. and will be retained by Microtune, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
|- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The Collins Park and Belt Railroad Company *et al. v.*The Short Electric Railway Company *et al.*

Lumpkin, J. — Unless a “ judgment for a sum certain” has been rendered in the trial court, the Supreme Court has no authority, under section 4286 of the code, to award damages in favor of the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, although in the opinion of the court the cause was taken up for delay only. In such case, the plaintiff in error will be allowed to withdraw the writ of error over the objection of opposing counsel. *Brantley*v. *Buck et al.,*62 *Ga.*172; *Ransom & Co.*v. *Coleman,*45 *Ga.*316; *Bailie*v. *ICinchley et al.,*52 *Ga.*487; *Dozier et al.*v. *Williams,*57 *Ga.*600.

*Leave to withdraw granted.*

November 12,1894.

By two Justices.

Application to withdraw writ of error.

The exceptions were, to an order directing the receiver of the property of a railroad company to sell the same, under certain provisions.

Simmons & Corrigan, for plaintiffs in error. Hines & Eelder, Glenn & Slaton, J. A. Anderson, N. J. & T. A. Hammond, Ellis & Gray and Palmer & Read, *contra.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 788 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 788

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 26, 2003

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in 
                    the States of Utah and Arizona.

    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 ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 
Boundary Revision Act''.

SEC. 2. GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOUNDARY REVISION.

    (a) In General.--The first section of Public Law 92-593 (16 U.S.C. 
460dd; 86 Stat. 1311) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``That in'' and inserting ``Section 1. (a) 
        In''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) In addition to the boundary change authority under subsection 
(a), the Secretary may acquire approximately 152 acres of private land 
in exchange for approximately 370 acres of land within the boundary of 
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, as generally depicted on the map 
entitled `Page One Land Exchange Proposal', number 608/60573a-2002, and 
dated May 16, 2002. The map shall be on file and available for public 
inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service. 
Upon conclusion of the exchange, the boundary of the recreation area 
shall be revised to reflect the exchange.''.
    (b) Change in Acreage Ceiling.--Such section is further amended by 
striking ``one million two hundred and thirty-six thousand eight 
hundred and eighty acres'' and inserting ``1,256,000 acres''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 25, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### GERSICH v. LONDON & LANCASHIRE INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA (Gersich, third-party defendant).

No. 2223.

United States District Court W. D. Wisconsin.

Oct 25, 1951.

*84W. B. Foster, Hurley, Wis., for plaintiffs.

Hughes, Anderson & Davis, Superior, Wis., for defendants and third-party plaintiffs.

Schubring, Ryan, Petersen & Sutherland, Madison, Wis., for third-party defendant.

STONE, District Judge.

The third-party defendant, Edward Gersich,. filed his motion herein to dismiss the third-party complaint, upon the ground that there is no diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the third-party defendant.

The authorities are somewhat divided as to whether a third-party proceeding is an ancillary proceeding to the main action.

In this proceeding the third-party plaintiffs seek contribution from the third-party defendant in the event plaintiffs recover against the defendants and third-party plaintiffs. If the said motion to dismiss is granted, then a second trial involving the' same parties and the same witnesses will be necessary, doubling the cost of the litigation to the parties, the court, and the Government. Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., was designed to eliminate this unnecessary expense to those involved in litigation. Its purpose is to avoid a multiplicity of suits, and thus save the time and work of the courts, juries and litigants. All of the issues arising out of one transaction, in this instance an automobile collision, should be determined in one action.

Rule 14 should be liberally construed. There is a diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the defendants and third-party plaintiffs. There is a diversity of citizenship betwee'n the defendants and third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant. The plaintiffs are making no claim against the third-party defendant. Leave to bring in third-party defendants under this Rule rests in the sound discretion of the court. The cases supporting this holding are found in U.S.C.A. Title 28, Rules 1-16, pages 549-555.

The jurisdiction of this court was originally properly invoked on grounds of diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the original defendants. A third-party complaint invoking ancillary jurisdiction of this court is not subject to dismissal for lack of diversity of citizenship between original plaintiffs and third-party defendant residing in the same state so long as the original defendant remains in the case.

The motion of the third-party defendant to dismiss the third-party complaint upon the ground that there is no diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the third-party defendant is denied.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sheldon Hoffman Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934: and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| DATE:  | ** January 16, 2009** | ** ** | BY:                                   |       /s/**Sheldon Hoffman** |
|--------|---------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                            |       | Sheldon Hoffman                       |
|   |                            |       | Chief Executive Officer  and Director |

 

----
# 16QRTL5_00

# image1.png
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lloyd Hoffman Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. ss. 1350,as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934: and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| DATE:  | ** January 16, 2009** | ** ** | BY:                     |       /s/**Lloyd Hoffman** |
|--------|---------------------------------|------------|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                            |       | Lloyd Hoffman           |
|   |                            |       | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-107445) and the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-48534, 333-56610, 333-85236, 333-103271, 333-113318 and 333-123280) pertaining to the 1997
Stock Plan, the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2001 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and the vEngines, Inc. 2000 Stock
Incentive Plan of our reports dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Centillium
Communications, Inc., Centillium Communications, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Centillium Communications, Inc., included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
   March 10, 2006

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Borrell, Also Known as Julio Cesar Borrell, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 186]

*892Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, the Supreme Court properly admitted evidence seized from his person and his vehicle at the time of his arrest *(see People v Knapp,*52 NY2d 689, 694-695 [1981]; *People v Hughes,*138 AD2d 523, 524 [1988]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly found that, under the circumstances, the marital privilege did not apply to the defendant’s communications with his wife *(see Matter of Vanderbilt [Rosner—Hickey],*57 NY2d 66, 73 [1982]; *People v Patterson,*39 NY2d 288, 304 [1976], *affd*432 US 197 [1977]; *cf. People v Fediuk,*66 NY2d 881 [1985]).

However, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence seized from his apartment. The police were not authorized to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s apartment when the key provided to them by the defendant’s estranged wife proved to be non-functioning *(see People v Yalti,*76 AD2d 847 [1980]). Thus, the evidence obtained as a result of the search should have been suppressed *(id.).*Accordingly, the convictions supported by this evidence must be vacated, and the counts of indictment No. 3794/94 relating to possession of weapons recovered from the search of the defendant’s apartment must be dismissed *(see*CPL 470.20 [3]; *People v Rossi,*80 NY2d 952 [1992]; *cf. People v Perkins,*189 AD2d 830 [1993]).

Furthermore, since the evidence of distinctive clothing recovered during the search should also have been suppressed, and the clothing provided significant support for the identification of the defendant as the masked man responsible for the robberies and burglary charged under indictment No. 3794/94, the convictions with respect to those counts must be vacated, and a new trial is required on those counts.

The Supreme Court erred when it directed that the sentence *893imposed on count three of indictment No. 4841/94, run consecutively to the sentence imposed on count six. Since the convictions under those counts both arose from a single transaction, the sentences imposed on those counts must run concurrently with each other (see *People v Ramirez,*89 NY2d 444, 451 [1996]). Nonetheless, we deem it appropriate to direct that the concurrent sentences imposed on counts three and six run consecutively to the sentences imposed on the remaining counts of that indictment *(id.*at 454).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Ritter and Miller, JJ, concur.
|                                         | 31.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|---------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
|                                         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|I, Lisa Norman, certify that:           
|1.                                       | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Home Alliance Corporation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|2.                                       | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 annual report.
|3.                                       | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results from operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.                





|By:  /s/Lisa NormanLisa Norman
Chief Executive Officer & Chairman | Date:  April 15, 2015
|----------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 140 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17528]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration on Aging


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request; SMP (Formerly Senior Medicare Patrol) Program 
Outcome Measurement

AGENCY: Administration on Aging, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Administration on Aging (AoA) is announcing that the 
proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments on the collection of information by 
August 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information by 
fax 202.395.6974 to the OMB Desk Officer for AoA, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Summey, telephone (202) 357-
3533; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfdbd0cdd6cc91cccad2d2dac6ffded0de91d7d7cc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86e2e9f4eff5a8f5f3ebebe3ffc6e7e9e7a8eeeef5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, AoA has 
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for 
review and clearance.
    Grantees are required by Congress to provide information for use in 
program monitoring and for Government Performance and Results Act 
(GPRA) purposes. This information collection reports the number of 
active volunteers, issues and inquiries received, other SMP program 
outreach activities, and the number of Medicare dollars recovered, 
among other SMP performance outcomes. This information is used as the 
primary method for monitoring the SMP Projects.
    AoA estimates the burden of this collection of information as 
follows: Respondents: 54 SMP grantees at 23 hours per month (276 hours 
per year, per grantee). Total Estimated Burden Hours: 14,904 hours per 
year.

    Dated: July 17, 2009.
Kathy Greenlee,
Assistant Secretary for Aging.
[FR Doc. E9-17528 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7724

TIMOTHY JAY BLACKWELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. M. VANYUR, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-97-256)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 26, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Jay Blackwell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Blackwell v. Vanyur,

No. CA-97-256 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 1997). 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