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








**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**


**(Adopted
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stratus Properties Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), John E.
      Baker, as Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.





Dated:  August
      8, 2007











/s/
        John E. Baker


John
      E.
      Baker


Senior
      Vice President &


Chief
      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.





This
      certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Joseph J. Mesi, II, Appellant, v Lawrence G. Rand, M.D., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[852 NYS2d 868]

Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.
| **OPERATING LEASE ASSETS, NET (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands** | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------|
||
| **Leases [Abstract]**                                                          |           |           |   |   |
| Net gain on sale of operating leases                                           | $ 23,145       | $ 48,479       | $ 50,096 | $ 72,490 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
The net gain (loss) arising from the lessor's sale of assets held- or available-for-lease under contractual arrangements classified as operating leases.
+ References
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 840 -SubTopic 30 -Section 40 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121566025&loc=d3e44908-112734
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_GainLossOnSaleOfLeasedAssetsNetOperatingLeases**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_LeasesAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 on Form 10-K of Waxman
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

o    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

October 21, 2003
                                        /s/ Melvin Waxman
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Melvin Waxman
                                        Chairman of the Board and Co-Chief
                                        Executive Officer


                                        /s/ Armond Waxman
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Armond Waxman
                                        President, Co-Chief Executive Officer
                                        and Treasurer


                                        /s/ Mark Wester
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mark Wester
                                        Senior Vice President and Chief
                                        Financial Officer










                                       19
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in T H C IR . R. 47.5.4.

** 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41460 Summary Calendar

OTIS RAY LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MICHAEL WARREN ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CV-758

- - - - - - - - - - July 16, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Otis Ray Lee, #560033, filed a p r o se , in forma pauperis civil rights action against Dr. Michael Warren, Dr. Owen J. Murray, Dr. Russell McDonald, and Dr. Jason Calhoun. He alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court, after conducting a Spears v. McCotter ** hearing, dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915No. 97-41460 -2- (e)(2)(B)(i) and (e)(2)(B)(ii). We have reviewed the record and Lee’s brief on appeal and perceive no error by the magistrate judge. Lee v. Warren et al. , No. 1:96-CV-758 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 1997). The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. The appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 246 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 246

 Commemorating the 53rd anniversary of Senator Margaret Chase Smith's 
``Declaration of Conscience'' speech in which she defended the American 
                   rights to free speech and dissent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2003

Mr. Allen submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Commemorating the 53rd anniversary of Senator Margaret Chase Smith's 
``Declaration of Conscience'' speech in which she defended the American 
                   rights to free speech and dissent.

Whereas, on June 1, 1950, United States Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a 
        Republican from Maine, issued her ``Declaration of Conscience'' in a 
        speech to the Senate, in response to the defamatory accusations that 
        characterized the anti-communist crusades of Senator Joseph McCarthy and 
        others;
Whereas, in the speech, Senator Smith defended the basic American principles of 
        ``the right to criticize; the right to hold unpopular beliefs; the right 
        to protest; the right of independent thought'', and affirmed that ``the 
        exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his 
        reputation or his right to a livelihood'';
Whereas history has judged well Senator Smith's appeal for protection of the 
        fundamental American rights of free speech and dissent, in contrast to 
        the efforts by Senator McCarthy and others to employ questions of 
        people's patriotism as a political weapon; and
Whereas, on June 6, 1989, President George H.W. Bush awarded Senator Smith the 
        Presidential Medal of Freedom and stated that ``Senator Smith's finest 
        hour came when she issued the `Declaration of Conscience', an historic 
        and courageous speech denouncing McCarthyism, and she spoke out when so 
        many others remained silent'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) commemorates the 53rd anniversary of Senator Margaret 
        Chase Smith's ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech in which she 
        defended the fundamental American rights to criticize, to hold 
        unpopular beliefs, to protest; and of independent thought; and
            (2) affirms that the principles enunciated in the 
        ``Declaration of Conscience'' remain valid today.
                                 <all>
```
#### ROSOF v. ROTH et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 8, 1953.

*444A. Bernard King, New York City, for plaintiff.

Chauncey H. Levy and Sydney Basil Levy, New York City, for defendant.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Plaintiff-trustee instituted this action to-avoid and to recover an alleged preference paid to the defendant by the bankrupt within four months of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. Section 60, subs, a and1 b, of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 96,. subs, a and b.

The trustee of the bankrupt estate-now moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. To succeed on this motion, he must establish that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,” as to which he has the burden-of proof. In the instant case these are: (1) that the transfer was made within four months prior to the bankruptcy; (2) that the bankrupt was insolvent at the time of the transfer; (3) that the effect of the transfer will be to enable the defendant to-obtain a greater percentage of his debt than any other, creditor of the same class; and (4) that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent. Cusick v. Second National Bank, 73 App.D.C. 16, 115 F.2d 150; In re Sossaman, D.C., 39 F.Supp. 113; In re Venie, D.C., 80 F.Supp. 247.

Except as to the first element, the-trustee has failed to meet this burden by satisfactory proof. No facts, books or records or any evidential matter are submitted to show insolvency on the date of the transfer, March 30th, 1950. The filing of the petition in bankruptcy on June 8th, 1950, less than four months thereafter, does not necessarily establish insolvency on the date of the transfer.

A further issue exists in view of the exchange of checks on the date of transfer,, as to whether there was, in fact, a depletion of the estate and that defendant, by reason of the transaction, obtained a greater percentage than other creditors of the same class.

*445Finally, while the fact that the 'bankrupt’s check was countersigned by one who acted as bookkeeper for both the plaintiff and the defendant, who also was an officer of the plaintiff, might lead to an inference that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent, in view of the denials in the opposing affidavit, an issue also exists as to this element.

The obliteration of the plaintiff’s records relating to the ownership of stock in the bankrupt’s corporation by the defendant’s wife, while undoubtedly suspicious, do'es not necessarily establish that there is a well-grounded belief of the fact of insolvency on the part of the defendant. Cusick v. Second National Bank, supra, 115 F.2d at page 153. The issue is whether or not the defendant had reasonable ground to believe that the debtor was insolvent; the determination of this issue should not be made upon the inadequate affidavit here presented.

The situation here does not warrant a denial of a trial of the issues. Arnstein v. Porter, 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 464.

The motion is denied.

Settle order on notice.
# 18SNR03_00

# image1.png
#### Michael J. Pronti, Doing Business as Best Construction Company, Appellant, v Chrysanthe Grigoriou, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 718]

Carpinello, J.

This mechanic’s lien foreclosure action arises out of a written contract between the parties whereby plaintiff agreed “to arrange” for an independent contractor to install vinyl siding on defendant’s residence for the sum of $11,000. The contract also provided that defendant would pay $500 for “cleanup/dump fees.” After completion of the project and payment of the full contract price by defendant, plaintiff demanded payment of the $500 dump fees. Defendant’s refusal to pay this additional sum prompted this action. In her answer, defendant alleges that the work was done in an unworkmanlike manner and counterclaims that it will cost her $10,520 to remedy same. Plaintiff now appeals from an order of Supreme Court denying his motion for summary judgment.

We affirm. We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs argument that he is entitled to summary judgment on his claim for the $500 in dump fees and related collection expenses. To award such relief at this juncture would “violate[ ] the well-established rule that it is improper to award summary judgment while there exists a *1136meritorious counterclaim for an amount equal to or greater than that demanded in the complaint” *(Illinois McGraw Elec. Co. v John J. Walters, Inc.,*7 NY2d 874, 876-877 [1959]). This is especially true where, as here, the claim and counterclaim arise from the same underlying transaction *(see Yoi-Lee Realty Corp. v 177th St. Realty Assoc.,*208 AD2d 185, 189 [1995]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 908

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to specify that imprisonment 

for reentering the United States after removal subsequent to a conviction 

for a felony shall be under circumstances that stress strenuous work 

and sparse living conditions, if the alien is convicted of another felony 

after the reentry. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2003

Mr. ROHRABACHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to specify 

that imprisonment for reentering the United States after 

removal subsequent to a conviction for a felony shall 

be under circumstances that stress strenuous work and 

sparse living conditions, if the alien is convicted of another felony after the reentry.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 908 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SPECIFICATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF IM2 PRISONMENT. 

3 Section 276(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 

4 Act (8 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘For purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2), any term of im7 prisonment imposed on an alien whose removal was subse8 quent to a conviction for commission of a felony shall be 

9 under circumstances that stress strenuous work and hu10 mane, but sparse, living conditions and omit educational 

11 or rehabilitation programs that might otherwise apply to 

12 the alien, if the alien is convicted for commission of an13 other felony after the reentry or attempt described in sub14 section (a)(2).’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 335 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 95
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 335

                          [Report No. 108-231]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2427) to authorize the 
 Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations for 
    the reimportation of prescription drugs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                July 24 (legislative day, July 23), 2003

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2427) to authorize the 
 Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations for 
    the reimportation of prescription drugs, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the bill (H.R. 2427) to authorize the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to promulgate regulations for the reimportation of 
prescription drugs, and for other purposes. The bill shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce or their designees; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2427 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time 
designated by the Speaker.

                                                  House Calendar No. 95

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 335

                          [Report No. 108-231]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2427) to authorize the 
 Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations for 
    the reimportation of prescription drugs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                July 24 (legislative day, July 23), 2003

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
v. 2 Crim. No. 11-459
BLAS ERNERS ESPINAL-CABRERA, : ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

a/k/a “Hermano”

This matter having come before the Court on the joint
application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the
District of New Jersey (Mary E. Toscano, Special Assistant U.S.
Attorney, appearing), and defendant BLAS ERNERS ESPINAL-CABRERA
(Patrick J. Brackley, appearing), for an order granting a
continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and
the defendant being aware that he has the right to have the
matter brought to trial within 70 days of the date of his
appearance before a judicial officer of this court pursuant to
Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3161(c) (1), and as
the defendant has consented to such a continuance, and for good
and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should
be continued for the following reasons:

(1) The parties request an opportunity for sufficient
time to review the evidence and engage in plea negotiations,

which would render any subsequent trial of this matter

unnecessary;


(2) Taking into account the exercise of diligence,
therefore, the facts of this case require that defense counsel be
permitted a reasonable amount of additional time to review the
evidence with the defendant, and should plea negotiations fail
time for effective trial preparation in this matter.

(3) As a result of the foregoing, pursuant to Title 18,
United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7), the ends of justice
served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of
the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this ot! aay of October, 2011,

ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued
for a period of 60 days from September 30, 2011 to November 29
2011; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from September 30, 2011 through

November 29, 2011 shall be excludable in computing time under the

Y/R

HON, DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH
United States District Judge

Speedy Trial Act of 1974.



Form and entry
consented to:

oo
Metis f britate—

Mary E. Toscano

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

A Atrite, LC henles,
Patrick J. Brackley
Counsel for defendant BLAS ERNERS ESPINAL-CABRERA