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



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the

Annual Report of Commerce Group Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the

fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 (the "Report") for the

purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the

United States Code.



I, Sidney Sodos, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial

Officer of Commerce Group Corp., (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, that:



1.   the Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended

March 31, 2010, (the "Form 10-K"), 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of

the Company.



Date: July 14, 2010                        /s/ Sidney Sodos

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

Sidney Sodos

Vice President, Treasurer

and Chief Financial Officer
1 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40458

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LAWRENCE EDWARD FUGATE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-00-CR-396-1

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

April 5, 2002

Before DUHÉ, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Lawrence Edward Fugate appeals his jury conviction for

possession with intent to distribute 605 kilograms of marijuana.

He contends that he was denied a fair trial because of the

prosecutor’s misconduct in suggesting to the jury during its

questioning of Fugate that he bore responsibility for presenting

certain witnesses and in making certain remarks during closing

argument. 

Even if the prosecutor’s questioning was improper, Fugate has

not shown that the questions deprived him of a fair trial as the
2

prejudicial effect, if any, of the questions was small, the

district court stopped the questioning quickly and instructed the

jury as to the proper burden of proof, and there was sufficient

evidence for the jury to find that Fugate was not an unwitting

driver. See United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234,

1237 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328, 1344

(5th Cir. 1994).

Nor was there any plain error in the prosecutor’s closing

argument because the district court’s charges to the jury helped

mitigate any prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remarks and the

Government put on ample evidence of Fugate’s guilt. See United

States v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1279 (5th Cir. 1995); United

States v. Gallardo-Trapero, 185 F.3d 307, 321 (5th Cir. 1999).

Consequently, the conviction is AFFIRMED.
r O„GINAI 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 06-0544 

IN RE PETITION OF MICHAEL JAMES JOHNSON 

FOR REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN 

THE BAR OF MONTANA 

ORDER 

Michael James Johnson has petitioned for reinstatement to active status in the State 

Bar of Montana. The petition states that on September 9, 2022, Johnson was placed on 

inactive status by the State Bar of Montana pursuant to Rules 3B2, 5, and 12 of the Rules 

for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for noncompliance with CLE requirements. Rule 

13 of the CLE Rules provides that reinstatement may be granted by the Court upon 

"certification by the [CLE] Commission that the attorney has completed the minimum 

continuing education requirements." Thus, the Court will need additional information to 

consider the petition. Johnson must provide a letter or documentation from the 

Commission certifying Johnson's completion of CLE requirements for the reporting 

year(s) for which Johnson has been placed on inactive status. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the petition of Michael James Johnson for reinstatement to 

active status in the State Bar of Montana is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to the Petitioner and the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this l9 day of November, 2023. 

FILED 

NOV 1 4 2023 

Bowen Greenwooa 

Clerk of Ct:,:xeme Court 

State of Montano 

,,iff/#,g7 r,\?

Chief Justice 

e • 

(4-e /-2--/4- 

11/14/2023

Case Number: PR 06-0544
.94 in 21,. 

Justices 

2
Exhibit 12
                                                                                
                                                                                
                              WISCONSIN BELL, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                        
                              (Dollars in Millions)
                                        
                                    1998      1997      1996      1995      1994
                                    ----      ----      ----      ----      ----


1. EARNINGS

 a) Income before interest expense,
    income tax, extraordinary
    item and undistributed
    equity earnings (2), (3)......  $   518.0 $   358.0 $   348.8 $   348.8 $
    192.4
    

 b) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1)......       4.6       4.1       4.8       4.6       4.4
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 1(a) and 1(b).....  $  522.6  $  362.1  $  353.6  $  353.4  $  196.8
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
2. FIXED CHARGES

 a) Total interest expense
    including capital
    lease obligations........  $   30.1  $   30.3  $   28.1  $   29.5  $   28.5
    
 b) Capitalized interest.....       0.6       0.6       0.7       1.2       0.6

 c) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1)......       4.6       4.1       4.8       4.6       4.4
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 2(a) through 2(c).  $   35.3  $   35.0  $   33.6  $   35.3  $   33.5
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
FIXED CHARGES.................    14.80     10.35     10.52     10.01      5.87
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========


(1)  One-third of rental expense is considered to be the amount representing
    return on capital.
    
(2) The results for 1998 reflect a one-time pretax gain of $147.4 million from
    the sale of certain telephone assets to Century Telephone Enterprises, 
    Inc., as well as a one-time pretax charge of $1.1 million for the costs 
    of early redemption of $140 million of long-term debt.
    
(3)  The results for 1995 reflect a $24.1 million pretax credit primarily
     from settlement gains resulting from lump sum pension payments from the
     pension plan to former employees who left the business in the
     nonmanagement work force restructuring.  Results for 1994 reflect a
     $71.8 million pretax charge associated with the nonmanagement work force
     restructuring.
[No. 55078-1-I.

Division One.

November 14, 2005.]

#### Beatrice L. Clark, *Appellant,*v. Renton School District Board of Directors, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-2-28741-3, James D. Cayce, J., entered September 9, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 10281 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
AUDIE EUGENE COUCH , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11

- CR

- 61

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Audie Eugene Couch, federal prisoner # 42886

- 177, has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidel ines. By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Couch challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal

. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Couch

* 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 7, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10281 Document: 00515519286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2020No. 20

- 10281

2 must demonstrate that he will present a nonfrivolo us issue for appeal. See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The Supreme Court has prescribed a two

- step inquiry in considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826

- 27 (2010). Before it considers a defendan t’s post

- conviction conduct and the statutory sentencing factors, the district court must first determine whether the defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction and the extent of the reduction authorized under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. Couch pleaded guilty to possessing 49 grams of methamphetamine, and
he was found responsible at sentencing for 60.1 kilogra ms. His base

- offense
level of 38 was not lowered by Amendment 782. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). The district court did not e rr in determining that Couch is ineligible for a sentence reduction

. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s., comment. (n.1(A)). Because Couch has not presented a nonfrivolous issue for review, the request for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. The appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2; Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202. Case: 20-10281 Document: 00515519286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2020
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), WHICH CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A
KNOWING OR WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION.

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549

      Re: Nuveen Investments, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") of Nuveen Investments, Inc. (the "Company") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

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

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

Dated as of this 9th day of May 2005.

                                    /s/ John P. Amboian
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    John P. Amboian
                                    President
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.3

                                             
                                             
                                             March 24, 1997


ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, L.L.C., as Rights Agent,
As successor to First Interstate Bank, Ltd.
400 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA  90071

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is hereby made to that certain Rights Agreement, dated as of March 3,
1989 and amended as of June 11, 1990 (the "Rights Agreement"), by and between
Wynn's International, Inc. and ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, L.L.C., as
Rights Agent (the "Successor Agent"), as successor to First Interstate Bank,
Ltd.  The Rights Agreement is hereby amended by deleting in its entirety the
fifth sentence of Section 21 and replacing it with the following sentence:

     "Any successor Rights Agent, whether appointed by the Company or by
     such a court, shall be either (a) a corporation organized and doing
     business under the laws of the United States or of any state of the
     United States, in good standing, which is authorized under such laws
     to exercise corporate trust powers and is subject to supervision or
     examination by federal or state authority and which has at the time of
     its appointment as Rights Agent a combined capital and surplus of at
     least $100,000,000 or (b) an affiliate of such a corporation."

In executing and delivering this amendment, the Successor Agent shall be
entitled to all the privileges and immunities afforded to the Rights Agent under
the terms and conditions of the Rights Agreement, as hereby amended.

                                     WYNN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.
     
                                     By:    GREGG M. GIBBONS
                                            ----------------------------------
                                     Title: Vice President - Corporate Affairs
                                            ----------------------------------

CHASEMELLON SHAREHOLDER
SERVICES, L.L.C.,
as successor Rights Agent


By:    DEREK R. LENNINGTON
       -------------------------------------
Title: Vice President
       -------------------------------------
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: John Elsworth Combest v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00712-CR

Trial court case number: 1221980

Trial court: 184th District Court of Harris County

On January 13, 2014, counsel for Appellant, John Elsworth Combest, filed a Motion to 

Extend Time to file Appellate Brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the brief must be filed by 

March 8, 2014. This is the final extension of this deadline. No further requests for extension 

will be considered.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/Rebeca Huddle

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 18, 2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7433
ROBERT LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EARNEST SMITH, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; KENNETH HARRIS, Director, Classification Committee; DONALD ASKREW, Sergeant; OFFICER JENKINS; LIEUTENANT DAVIS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-114-CT-BR-5) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lloyd v. Smith , No. CA-95-114-CT-BR-5 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 1995). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,214,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,943,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,157,000
<PP&E>                                      25,836,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,993,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,491,000
<BONDS>                                     28,013,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,478,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,993,000
<SALES>                                      5,814,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,814,000
<CGS>                                        1,563,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,563,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,848,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             871,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                532,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    65,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   467,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BTG INTERNATIONAL INC. , § § Plaintiff , Counterclaim § No

. 509 , 2017 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below : Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. 12562

- VCL WELLSTAT THERAPEUTICS § CORPORATION , § § Defendant, Counterclaim § Plaintiff Below , § Appellee. §

Submitted: June 6 , 2018 Decided: June 11 , 2018
Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA , VAUGHN , SEITZ , and TRAYNOR , Justices, constituting the Court en Banc

. O R D E R In this appeal, the appellant argues that the Court of Chancery abused its discretion and made errors of law in shaping its remedy in this breach of contract case between two parties who had a joint venture to market a new drug. As to all
issu es that were fairly raised below, we conclude, with one exception, that the Court of Chancery’s rulings were su pported by the factual record, within its remedial discretion, and consistent with the applicabl e legal principles. The only argument of the app ellant that has merit involves a comparatively small issue, given the large number of issues that the Vice Chancellor was required to address in his thoughtful2

and thorough post

- trial decision

. That issue involves when pre

- ju dgment interest was to begin. The appellee argued for March 2, 2016 as the starting point because
that was the date when the breach of contract began to impose injury on it. 1 Instead of hewing to that date, the Court of Chancery imposed pre

- judgment interest from the time of breach, 2 even though the appellee itself had argued for a later date and did not present evidence that it suffered damages until March 2, 2016 , when the
effects of the breach would have first manifested themselves. Given that the appellee did not argue for this d ate, and given the applicable legal principles, we reverse in this minor respect and remand to have the final judgment run pre

- judgment interest
from March 2, 2016 , rather than September 15, 2015 . In all other respects, we affirm the Court of Chancery’s f inal judgment and order of November 2, 2017 on the basis
of its well

- reasoned opinion of September 19, 2017

. 3
BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice

1 App. to Opening Br. at A1787 (Wellstat Therapeutics’ (Corrected) Opening Post

- Trial Brief) (noting that its damages expert calculated NPV

- discounted damages as of the date of breach: March 2, 2016). 2 BTG Int’l Inc. v. Wellstat Therapeutics Corp. , C.A. No. 12562

- VCL, 2017 WL 4151172, at * 21 (Del. Ch. Sept. 19, 2017) (“Interest shall run from September 15, 2015, when BTG first breached the Distribution Agreement by failing to provide the Commercial Plan.”). 3 Id. ; BTG Int ’l Inc. v. Wellstat Therapeutics Corp. , C.A. No. 12562

- VCL, 2017 WL 5046358 (Del. Ch. Nov. 2, 2017) (ORDER).
----

| (1)   | Form S-8 No. 333-136132 pertaining to the National Technical Systems, Inc. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | Form S-8 No. 333-106426 pertaining to the National Technical Systems, Inc. 2002 Stock Option Plan |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (3)   | Form S-8 No. 333-106425 pertaining to the National Technical Systems, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4)   | Form S-8 No. 333-04905 pertaining to the National Technical Systems, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (5)   | Form S-3 No. 333-152615 pertaining to the registration of 358,713 shares of NTS common stock |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------|---------------------------|

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-7056 September Term, 2021

1:20-cv-02206-TNM

Filed On: September 10, 2021

Deborah Laufer, Individually,

Appellant

v.

Alamac Inc., A Washington, DC Corporation,

doing business as River Inn Washington DC,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Katsas, and Walker, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by the appellant. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's May 17, 2021 order be

affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant lacks standing. See

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk
CHURCHILL TAX-FREE FUND OF KENTUCKY
                                Supplement to the
                       Statement of Additional Information
                 Dated April 30, 2005 as Previously Supplemented
                                  June 17, 2005


     The following is added to the material under the caption "Reduced Sales
Charges for Certain Purchases of Class A Shares", "General":

o    For the 90-day period beginning August 19, 2005 and ending November 16,
     2005, customers of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. who are eligible for the
     Edward Jones Free Switch Program.

                         The date of this supplement is
                                 August 18, 2005