alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Wisconsin Gas LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Allen L. Leverett, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Company.

/s/ALLEN L. LEVERETT
ex10-3.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.3

     

    
      FIRST
AMENDMENT

      TO THE
INTERNAP NETWORK SERVICES CORPORATION

      1999
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS' STOCK OPTION PLAN

       

      
 

      This First Amendment to the Internap
Network Services Corporation 1999 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan") is made and entered into by Internap Network Services Corporation (the
"Company").

      


      W I T N E
S S E T H:

      


      WHEREAS, the Company maintains the
Plan, which is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Company (the "Board"), to provide for grants of incentive
compensation to its non-employee directors; and

      


      WHEREAS, the Board has determined
that it is advisable to amend the Plan at this time to increase the number of
shares available for the issuance of awards under the Plan; and

      


      WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan
permits the Board to amend the Plan at any time; and

      


      WHEREAS, the Board adopted
resolutions approving the First Amendment on February 27, 2003;

      


      NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby
amends the Plan as follows:

      


      1.

      
        
           

        

        
           

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

         

      

      Effective as of the date of
shareholder approval of this First Amendment, Section 4(a) of the Plan shall be
amended to read as follows:

      


      "(a) Share Reserve. Subject to the
provisions of Section 11 relating to adjustments upon changes in stock, the
stock that may be issued pursuant to Options shall not exceed in the aggregate
three million, five hundred thousand (3,500,000) shares of Common
Stock."

      


      2.

      
        
           

        

        
           

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

      


      Except as specifically amended
hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has
caused its duly authorized officer to execute this First Amendment on the date
set forth below.

       

       

                                                                          INTERNAP NETWORK
SERVICES CORPORATION

      


      


      By:_______________________________________________________________

      


      


      Name:_____________________________________________________________

      


      


      Title:______________________________________________________________

      


      


      Date:______________________________________________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derek A. Jones, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[852 NYS2d 905]

*1203Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William McGinnis, Chief Executive 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, 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, as amended; and
 
 (2) 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 presented in the Report.
 Dated: May 31, 2011/s/ William McGinnisWilliam McGinnisChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive 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.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3490 

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide for an option 

under the Secure Mail Initiative under which a person to whom a 

document is sent under that initiative may require that the United 

States Postal Service obtain a signature from that person in order 

to deliver the document, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 1, 2016 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. PERDUE, and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide 

for an option under the Secure Mail Initiative under 

which a person to whom a document is sent under that 

initiative may require that the United States Postal Service obtain a signature from that person in order to 

deliver the document, and for other purposes. 

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


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3490 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening the De3 partment of Homeland Security Secure Mail Initiative 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. OPTION FOR SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT UNDER 

6 THE SECURE MAIL INITIATIVE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning not later than 1 year 

8 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

9 of Homeland Security shall provide for an option under 

10 the Secure Mail Initiative (or any successor program) 

11 under which a person to whom a document is sent under 

12 that initiative may require that the United States Postal 

13 Service obtain a signature from that person in order to 

14 deliver the document. 

15 (b) FEE.—The Secretary shall require the payment 

16 of a fee from a person requiring a signature under sub17 section (a). Such fee may be set at a level that will ensure 

18 recovery of the full costs of providing all such services. 

19 Such fee may also be set at a level that will recover any 

20 additional costs associated with the administration of the 

21 fees collected. 

22 SEC. 3. REPORT. 

23 Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

24 of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall sub25 mit to Congress a report which includes— 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3490 IS

1 (1) the implementation of the requirements 

2 under section 2; 

3 (2) the fee imposed under section 2(b); and 

4 (3) the number of times during the previous 

5 year that a person required a signature under sec6 tion 2(a). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 Zenith National Insurance Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Stanley R. Zax, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and William J. Owen, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each 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:



|/s/STANLEY R. ZAX  |  |                                                              
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:              |  | Stanley R. Zax                                               
|Title:             |  | Chairman of the Board and President
(Chief Executive Officer)
|Date:              |  | February 16, 2006                                            
|/s/WILLIAM J. OWEN |  |                                                              
|Name:              |  | William J. Owen                                              
|Title:             |  | Chief Financial Officer                                      
|Date:              |  | February 16, 2006                                            

---



QuickLinks
#### Cheryl K. CROWE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent.

No. 2008-3056.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 11, 2007.

Cheryl K. Crowe, pro se.

ORDER

Order Vacated, See — Fed.Appx. ——, 2007 WL 4698377.

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) and to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
Order issued February 25 , 201 5 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________

No. 05

- 1 4

- 0 0 309

- CR

________________________________________

PATRICK DARNELL LAWRENCE , Appellant



### V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee



### O R D E R

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the August 22, 2014 motion of

Kathleen A. Walsh for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to remove Kathleen A. Walsh as counsel of record for appellant. We

DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to

Patrick Darnell Lawrence , TDCJ No. 1914343

, Sanchez State Jail, 3901 State Jail Road, El Paso,

Texas, 79938

- 8456.

/ Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and            procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ Robert CoppleRobert CoppleChief Financial Officer
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

March 10 , 2015 Session

ANDREW R. LUNN, DDS V



### . CAROLE MICHELLE LUNN

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County

No. 1 1

- 0240 Jeffrey M. Atherton, Chancellor

No. E2014

- 0086 5

- COA

- R3

- CV

- FILED

- JUNE 29, 2015

D. M ICHAEL S WINEY

, J.

, concurring and dissenting.

I concur in the majority’s opinion with the sole exception that I cannot agree with the majority that the amount of alimony in futur o awarded to Wife should be

increased from $5 00 per month after eight years to $2,288 . I agree with the majority that the transitional alimony must be changed to another type of alimony to comply with

Tennessee law , and that the only other type that fits under the statute s is alimony in futuro . My only disagreement is with the majority’s sua sponte changing of the amount ordered by the trial court.

The majority states in a footnote that “we conclude that there exists no reason for the award to automatically decrease to $500 per month after ei ght years.” My response to this is that Wife never raised an issue as to this $500 per month alimony

award

. It is unsurprising that the majority was given “no reason for the award to automatically decrease to $500 per month after eight years” as Husband never had a reason on appeal to make any such argument as this issue never was raised by Wife on appeal. It has been my experience that usually this Court encourage s parties both in their briefs and in oral argument to address only the issues that are bef ore this Court on appeal.

The majority’s chang ing of the alimony from transitional to in futuro , a change I agree with, means that Wife likely will receive considerably more in this alimony than she would have under the trial court’s alimony award. Des pite that unrequested but required beneficial change to Wife, something Wife never raised on appeal but which I agree with the majority is required , the majority without any request

or argument being made by Wife to increase the $500 per month alimony then decides- 2

-

sua sponte and without the legal necessity of doing so to increase the amount from $500 per month to $2,288 per month. The m ajority has not only more than just tinkered with the amount of alimony awarded, something we normally avoid if possible, it has done so without any request or legal necessity that it do so. I cannot agree with this sua sponte modification of the monthly amount of alimony to be awarded to Wife after the first eight years of what is now alimony in futuro . I, rather, would have the now alimony in futuro decrease from $2,288 per month to $500 per month as originally ordered by the trial

court.

_____________________________ D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pedro Abraham LOPEZ-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-10264

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, Amanda R. Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, David E. Sloan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro Abraham Lopez-Diaz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v.*
      *389
      *Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Lopez-Diaz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation:

Under date of  January 29, 1999,  we reported on  the balance sheets  of
Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation (Company) as of December 31,  1998
and 1997,  and  the  related  statements  of  operations,  shareholders'
equity, and cash flows  for each of the  years in the three-year  period
ended December 31, 1998, which are included in the 1998 annual report to
shareholders.  These  financial statements  and our  report thereon  are
incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form
10-K.  In  connection with our  audits of  the aforementioned  financial
statements, we also  audited the related  financial statement  schedule.
The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the  Company's
management.  Our  responsibility  is  to  express  an  opinion  on  this
financial statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion,  such financial statement  schedule, when considered  in
relation to the basic  financial statements taken  as a whole,  presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.


KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
January 29, 1999
14(b)     REPORTS ON FORM 8

               There were no Form 8-K filings by the Company during the fourth
               quarter of 1998.

Exhibit 11 - Statement re:  Computation of Per Share Earnings:

Net Income Per Common Share:

     In March 1997, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings per Share" which makes certain
changes to the manner in which earnings per share is reported. The Company has
adopted this standard for the year ended December 31, 1997.

                                        1998        1997          1996  
                                     ----------   ----------   ----------
Numerator-
  Net income -
     Basic & Diluted                 $1,007,000   $5,536,000   $4,709,000
Denominator -
  Weighted average common shares
      outstanding - Basic             9,297,119    9,522,167    9,568,502
  Incremental shares from assumed
      conversions of stock options       47,628       89,182       89,695
                                     ----------   ----------   ----------
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding - Diluted               9,344,747    9,611,349    9,658,197

Basic earnings per share             $     0.11   $     0.58   $     0.49
Diluted earnings per share           $     0.11   $     0.58   $     0.49


                                       37
#### ACE GRAIN CO., Inc. v. AMERICAN EAGLE FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK et al.

United States District Court, S. D. *New*York.

April 5, 1951.

See also D.C., 95 F.Supp. 784.

Otto & Easterday, New York City, for plaintiff.

Rein; Mound & Cotton, New York City, Bert Cotton, .New York City, for defendants.

McGOHEY, District Judge.

By order dated February 26, 1951, I provided that defendant Rhode Island ig required to post a bond or other security as a condition precedent to filing an answer in this suit. An appeal from that order has been dismissed on the ground that the order, being interlocutory, is not *165appealable. Rhode Island then moved before me for a certificate pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. rule 54(b), 28 U.S.C.A. that the order in so far as it requires a bond is final and that there is no just reason for delay in having it reviewed by the Court of Appeals.

Prof. Moore is of the view that the purpose of the rule is to empower the District Judge, presumably familiar with the litigation, to determine “when one branch of it * * * is * * * ripe for appellate review.” * That -appears to be so.

While I do not agree with Rhode Island;s contention that I lacked authority to require the bond, I do agree that the order is as final on that point now as it ever will be. Accordingly, I think that Rhode Island should have an opportunity now to seek review of that portion of my order of February 26, 1951, which requires Rhode Island to post a bond or other security as a condition to filing an answer in this suit.

Submit appropriate certificate.

*

 Moore’s Commentary on the Judicial Code 517.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 37651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16913]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15238 and #15239; WYOMING Disaster Number WY-
00039]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Wyoming

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Wyoming (FEMA-
4327-DR), dated 08/05/2017.

DATES: Issued on 08/05/2017.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/04/2017.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/07/2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 08/05/2017, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    Incident: Flooding.
    Incident Period: 06/07/2017 through 06/22/2017.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Areas: Fremont and Park Counties and the Wind River Reservation 
within Fremont County.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.500
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 152386 
and for economic injury is 152390.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2017-16913 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P