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 Quarterly Report
of The Buckle, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 1,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Karen B. Rhoads, 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.





/s/ KAREN B. RHOADSKaren
      B. RhoadsChief
      Financial Officer(principal
      accounting officer)June
      10, 2010
# I

l ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) DynCorp International LLC ) ) Under Contract No. FA8617-12-C-6208 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61735
Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq. Erin L. Felix, Esq.

Polsinelli PC Washington, DC Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

AirForce Deputy ChiefTrial Attorney Col C. Taylor Smith, USAF Jason R. Smith, Esq.

Trial Attorneys OPINION BYADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER By motion dated September 28, 2018, the government moves to dismiss the appeal as moot since the contracting officerrescinded its final decision dated May 11, 2018. The government states it "is no longer asserting the claim from which ASBCA No. 61735 arises." By letter dated October 3, 2018, appellant stated it does not objectto the government's motion to dismiss. When a contracting officerrescinds a government claim and the final decision asserting that claim, the voluntary action moots the appeal, leaving the Board withoutjurisdiction to entertain the appeal any further. URS Federal Support Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 60364, 17-1BCA136,587. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot. Dated: October 9, 2018

(Signatures continued) :Administrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals 

# I I**~**



# I 

# I I 

# I f 

# f l 

# t f 

# i 

# I
l 

# I

# I 

# l

' ·l 

# i i 

### I 

# 1 • 

## j 

# 1 

# \ 

# i ! •\ 1 

## •

. 4**~** I I concur

J. REitTPROUTY Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I concur 

# Ci.u' 

# {P~iCRAIG

# sf CLARKE Administrative Judge Acting Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 61735, Appeal ofDynCorp International LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals 

# I I
I 

# I 

# I I I I 

### J 

# I jj

i 

# I t I 

# f



# . 

# i I
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3359 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3359

 To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
  1968 to authorize grants for heroin and methamphetamine task forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2016

Mr. Leahy (for himself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
  1968 to authorize grants for heroin and methamphetamine task forces.

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

SECTION 1. HEROIN AND METHAMPHETAMINE TASK FORCES.

    (a) In General.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:

        ``PART MM--HEROIN AND METHAMPHETAMINE TASK FORCE GRANTS

``SEC. 3031. HEROIN AND METHAMPHETAMINE TASK FORCES.

    ``(a) Authority.--The Attorney General may make grants to State law 
enforcement agencies for investigative purposes--
            ``(1) to locate or investigate illicit activities through 
        statewide collaboration, including activities related to--
                    ``(A) the distribution of heroin, fentanyl, or 
                carfentanil or the unlawful distribution of 
                prescription opioids; or
                    ``(B) unlawful heroin, fentanyl, carfentanil, and 
                prescription opioid traffickers; and
            ``(2) to locate or investigate illicit activities, 
        including precursor diversion, laboratories, or methamphetamine 
        traffickers.
    ``(b) Applications.--A State law enforcement agency desiring a 
grant under this section shall submit an application to the Attorney 
General at such time and in such form as the Attorney General may 
require.''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a) of title I of 
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
3793(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(28) For activities under part MM, there are authorized 
        to be appropriated--
                    ``(A) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 
                through 2021 to carry out paragraph (1) of section 
                3031(a); and
                    ``(B) $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 
                through 2021 to carry out paragraph (2) of section 
                3031(a).''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert L. Kees, Senior Vice President and 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: August 11, 2006 |  | /s/ Robert L. Kees                               
|                      |  | Robert L. Kees                                   
|                      |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                      |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)     



24
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 30, 2020

t0929 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2020

158240 (88) (97)

SUSAN BISIO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 158240

COA: 335422

Oakland CC: 2015

- 150462

- CZ

THE CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF

CLARKSTON,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a reply to the answer to the motion for

rehearing is GRANTED , and the reply filed with the motion is accepted for filing . The

motion for rehearing of this Court’s July 24, 2020 opinion is considered, and it is

DENIED.

V IVIANO , J. ( dissenting ).

I would grant d efendant

- a ppellee’s motion for rehearing and vacate the Court’s

opinion in order to allow the parties and amici curiae an opportunity to address the merits

of the new legal theory adopted by the majority opinion.
#### VANCE v. AMERICAN SOC. OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS & PUBLISHERS (ASCAP) et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 30, 1953.

*31Edward Vance, pro se.

Schwartz & Frohlich, New York, N. Y., for defendants.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

By order of Judge Irving R. Kaufman, dated October 14, 1952, D.C., 13 F.R.D. 109, plaintiff was directed to “ * * * serve * *' * an Amended Complaint separately stating in separate counts his alleged causes of action, if any * * *”and to “strictly comply with Rule 8(e) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that each averment of the new pleading should be simple, concise and direct

On October 21, 1952, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiff.

Defendants, American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, Shapiro Bernstein & Co. and Santly-Joy, Incorporated (Motion No. 31), Dutchess Music Corporation (Motion No. 11), Main Street Songs, Inc. (Motion No. 32), Music Publishers Protective Association, Inc. (Motion No. 37) and Edwin H. Morris & Company, Inc. (Motion No. 70) now move “for an order dismissing the complaint herein on the ground that it fails to comply with Rule 8(e) of the Federal Rules”, or for relief in the alternative.

A reading of the amended complaint discloses that it utterly fails to comply with Judge Kaufman’s order that it be simple, concise and direct, as is required by Rule 8(e) (1).

No purpose would be served by again setting forth the history of this protracted litigation as that has been fully done in the opinion of Judge Irving R. Kaufman, dated September 30, 1952, wherein he directed the service of the amended complaint now under attack.

Full opportunity has been given plaintiff to set forth his claims, whatever they may be. He has ignored the court’s offer to supply, or its advice that he retain competent counsel.

The time has come when this court must assert its indisposition to be further imposed upon by this plaintiff’s refusal to retain or accept competent counsel.

The motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with F.R.Civ.P. rule 8(e), 28 U.S.C. are granted with prejudice and without leave to plead over.

In view of the foregoing, defendants’ American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, Shapiro Bernstein & Co. and Santly-Joy, Incorporated, supplemental prayer for summary judgment is not passed upon.

Settle order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL FAST FOOD CORPORATION,  INC. FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1996,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                713,303
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                         232,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                           304,425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    1,295,156
<PP&E>                              8,354,515
<DEPRECIATION>                     (2,499,211)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      7,938,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               3,440,759
<BONDS>                             2,756,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                               386
<COMMON>                               83,108
<OTHER-SE>                          1,134,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        7,938,272
<SALES>                             4,049,772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    4,049,772
<CGS>                               4,085,365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       4,085,365
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    1,135,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    344,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (1,348,654)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (1,348,654)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                       (1,348,654)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (.27)
        

</TABLE>
1 Michael J. Astrue has been appointedto serve as Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

2 The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2225

___________ June Kittler, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, 1 Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 3, 2007 Filed: May 14, 2007

___________ Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. June Kittler appeals the district court’s 2order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Kittler alleged disability since January 2001 from-2- dizziness, chest pain, and pain and numbne ss in her left arm. Following a second hearing upon an Appeals Council remand, anadministrative law judge (ALJ) found that (1) Kittler’s medically determinable im pairments--mild mitral valve click and soft systolic murmur, and possible ischemia in her legs--were severe, but not of listinglevel severity; (2) he r allegations and tes timony about the nature and severity of her impairments were not entirely credible; (3) she had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a full range of light work ; and (4) considering her age, education, work experience, and RFC, the Medical Vo cational Guidelines directed a finding of not disabled. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the denial of benefits. See Gonzales v. Barnhart , 465 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).
Because the ALJ gave multiple valid r easons for finding Kittler’s subjective complaints not entirely credible, we de fer to those credibility findings. See Guilliams v. Barnhart , 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (deference to ALJ’s credibility determination is warranted if it is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence). The ALJ’s RFC determination is also supported by the record. See Stormo v. Barnhart , 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004) (in determining RFC, ALJ should consider medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of limitations ). Finally, Kittler has failed to provide evidence of bias. See Rollins v. Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (quasi-judicial administrative officers, such as ALJs, are presumed to be unbiased, but presumption can be rebutted by showing conflict of interest or another specific reason to disqualify ALJ).
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
No. 114, Misc.

#### McMahan *v.*Bennett, Director, Bureau of Prisons.

May 20, 1946.

327 U. S. 770.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Robert Copple, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cinemark USA, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e)
and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:  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 quarterly report is being
prepared;b)
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation;
andc)
    disclosed in this quarterly 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 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  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. Date: May 16, 2005 CINEMARK USA, INC.By:
    
    /s/Robert CoppleRobert CoppleChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             518
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,148
<ALLOWANCES>                                       854
<INVENTORY>                                     22,632
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,828
<PP&E>                                         238,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 260,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,449
<BONDS>                                        155,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                    (35,787)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   260,440
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               174,370
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  146,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,239
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,712
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,795
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,795
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7485

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DWAYNE ALTWAN LANGFORD, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:07-cr-00013-HMH-1) 

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dwayne Altwan Langford, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean 

Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dwayne Altwan Langford appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. 

Langford, No. 8:07-cr-00013-HMH-1 (D.S.C. July 27, 2009). 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