alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**     The undersigned executive officer of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. (the “Registrant”) herebycertifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2007 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Registrant.              /s/ Dale C. Ringgenberg   Dale C. Ringgenberg, Treasurer and   Chief Financial Officer   February 6, 2008**Note:**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 has been provided to Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. and will be retained by AnchorBanCorp Wisconsin Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
45
The Wiser Oil Company



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 of The Wiser Oil Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George K. Hickox, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to sec.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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification is made solely for the purpose of U.S.C. Section 1350,
and not for any other purpose.



/s/    GEORGE K. HICKOX,
JR.George K. Hickox, Jr.Chief Executive Officer




March 26, 2004



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.
**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**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Frontier Oil Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael C.
      Jennings, Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Michael C. Jennings


Michael
      C. Jennings


Executive
      Vice President -


Chief
      Financial Officer





February
      28, 2007
#### Rey F. Lorenzo ROLDAN, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant.

Civ. No. 84-2458(PG).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

July 10, 1985.

*1156Juan A. Hernández-Rivera, Bayamón, Puerto Rico, for plaintiff.

Fidel A. Sevillano, Asst. U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, for defendant.

ORDER

PEREZ-GIMENEZ, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff filed this action on September 27, 1984, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. The Secretary filed an answer on January 15, 1985, together with the administrative transcript. Thereafter, on March 20, 1985, the Secretary filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Law and was granted until April 22, 1985, to file the memorandum. However, April 22 “came and left” and the Secretary did not file her memo, nor has she filed it to date, even though well over five months have elapsed since the filing of her answer to the complaint.

Rule 801.3(B) of the Local Rules of this Court provides that the Secretary has sixty days to file a memorandum of law in support of her position, running from the date of the filing of her answer to the complaint. The local rule further provides that no extension beyond ninety days will be granted to the Secretary to file her memorandum of law. In the case at bar, the Secretary has clearly failed to comply with the requirements placed upon her by the local rules of this Court.

We have previously emphasized that the Secretary is not relieved “of her ‘duty to defend cases or obey the court’s orders’ ” by the limitation in F.R.Civ.P. 55(e) of default judgments against the United States.*
      *Morales v. Secretary of Health and Human Services,*103 F.R.D. 380, 382 (D.P.R.1984). Specifically, we stated in *Morales*that Rule 55(e) cannot be construed to preclude any sort of sanction from being imposed against the Secretary for her failure to cooperate in the expeditious adjudication of social security claims. *Id.*Moreover, we have admonished the Secretary in several occasions that we will not tolerate her unexplained failures to comply with our orders or with the requirements placed upon her by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. *Id.*Thus, we have held that the Court can penalize the Secretary’s failure to timely contribute a brief or memorandum by considering the case on plaintiff’s brief. *Santiago v. Secretary of Health and Human Services,*599 F.Supp. 722, 724 (D.P.R.1984) *(citing, Alameda v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare,*622 F.2d 1044 (1st Cir.1980).

WHEREFORE, in view of the above, the Secretary is hereby precluded from filing her memorandum of law. The plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days to file his memorandum of law in support of his complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Rule 55(e) provides: "No judgment by default shall be entered against the United States or an officer or agency thereof unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.”
**Exhibit
21**
 
 **SUBSIDIARIES**
 
 
 
 
 Subsidiaries
    
    Jurisdiction
      of Incorporation
    
    Percentage
      Owned By
      RegistrantDCA
      Medical Services, Inc. (1)
    
    Florida
    
    100%DCA
      of Adel, LLC
    
    Georgia
    
    100%DCA
      of Central Valdosta, LLC
    
    Georgia
    
    100%DCA
      of Fitzgerald, LLC
    
    Georgia
    
    100%DCA
      of Hawkinsville, LLC(1)
    
    Georgia
    
    100%DCA
      of So. Ga., LLC
    
    Georgia
    
    100%DCA
      of Royston, LLC
    
    Georgia
    
    100%DCA
      of Baltimore, LLC(2)
    
    Maryland
    
    100%DCA
      of Chevy Chase, LLC
    
    Maryland
    
    80%DCA
      of Rockville, LLC
    
    Maryland
    
    100%DCA
      of Manahawkin, Inc.
    
    New
      Jersey
    
    80%DCA
      of Vineland, LLC
    
    New
      Jersey
    
    51%DCA
      of Cincinnati, LLC
    
    Ohio
    
    60%DCA
      of Norwood, LLC(2)
    
    Ohio
    
    100%DCA
      of Carlisle, Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania
    
    80%DCA
      of Chambersburg, Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania
    
    80%DCA
      of Lemoyne, Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania
    
    100%DCA
      of Mechanicsburg, LLC
    
    Pennsylvania
    
    100%DCA
      of Pottstown, LLC
    
    Pennsylvania
    
    80%DCA
      of Wellsboro, Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania
    
    100%Keystone
      Kidney Care, Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania
    
    100%DCA
      of Ashland, LLC
    
    Virginia
    
    80%DCA
      of Warsaw, LLC
    
    Virginia
    
    100%DCA
      of Aiken, LLC
    
    South
      Carolina
    
    100%DCA
      of Aiken II, LLC(2)
    
    South
      Carolina
    
    100%DCA
      of Barnwell, LLC(2)
    
    South
      Carolina
    
    100%DCA
      of Edgefield, LLC(2)
    
    South
      Carolina
    
    100%
 
 (1)
Inactive
 (2)Under
development
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Matter of C. A., a Juvenile,

 Appellant.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-16-00141-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1

of Denton County, Texas 

(TC# JV-2014-00156)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to consolidate cause numbers 

08-16-00140-CV, 08-16-00141-CV, 08-16-00142-CV, 08-16-00143-CV, and 08-16-00144-CV

into a single appeal. To the extent Appellant is requesting that all five appeals proceed under a 

single cause number, the motion is DENIED. The Court will, however, permit Appellant and 

the State to file consolidated briefs (a single brief bearing all five cause numbers).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANNAMARIE PERRETTA

- ROSEPINK,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 194 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Unpublished Memorandum and

Order of the Superior Court at No. 2154 MDA 2012 entered on February 6,
2015, affirming, vacating and remanding the Judgment of Sentence of the Dauphin County Court of

Common Pleas at No. CP

- 22

- CR

0004272

- 2009 entered on November 8,

2012

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9 th day of February, 2017, issue b. set forth in the Petition for

Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The Order of the Superior Court regarding this

issue is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court to reconsider

its decision in light of Commonwealth v. Veon, A.3d. (Pa. 2016) (69 and

70 MAP 2015).

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
**Exhibits**

 

**Exhibit 4.27**

Simon Enoch Esq 

38 Chiddingstone Street 

Fulham 

London 

SW6 3TG 

 

9 April 2004 

 

DearSimon 

 

As a result of the requirement to change the date of the 2004 Annual GeneralMeeting from 5 May 2004, the letter dated 30 March 2004 (the “Letter”) varying the terms of your appointment as a non executive director of the Company requires amendment. 

 

We have therefore agreed that the words “Annual General Meeting on 5 May 2004” where it appears in the second paragraph of the Letter bedeleted and replaced with the words “Extraordinary General Meeting to be held on 6 May 2004”. Save as aforesaid the Letter will remain in full force and effect. 

 

I will be grateful if you would confirm your acceptance of the terms set out in this letter by signing and returning the attached copy letter.

 

Yours sincerely, 

 

Chairman 

Baltimore Technologies Plc 

 

I have read this letter and accept the terms detailed above. 

 

 

Signature: 

 

 

Date: 

 

 

Name:
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United Stat es Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit

No. 03-1214 UNITED STATES, Appellee,
v. CARLOS TOBAR, Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Jaime Pieras, II, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Boudin, Chief Judge , Lynch and Howard, Circuit Judges .
Carlos Tobar on brief pro se. H.S. Garcia , Un ited States Attorney, Sonia I. Torres-Pabón , Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Pérez-Sosa , Assistant United States Attorney on brief for appellee. September 4, 2003-2-

Per Curiam . Pro se appellant Carlos Tobar appeals a district court or der that denied his motion for sentence modification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) andU.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, as amended by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual , supp. to app. C, Amendment 635 (200 1). Assum ing that the ten-day appeal period in Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) controls, see , e.g. , United States v. Fair , 326 F.3d1317, 1318 (11 th Cir. 2003)(collecting cases), this appeal is timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (mailbox r ule appli es to inmate's notice of appeal), Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2)(weekends and holidays are excluded from filing periods of less than 11 days, unless stated in calendar days). Nevertheless, the appeal fails on another ground. C ontrary to appellant's suggestion, Amendment 635 is n o t retroactive. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c)(2002) . C onsequently, the district court lackedthe authority to reduce appellant's sentence in light of this amendment. See id. § 1B1.10(a)("If none of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable, a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

... is not authorized."); see also , United States v. Jordan , 162 F.3d1, 3 (1 st Cir. 1998)(noting that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), district court "could reduce the sentence if and only if doing so
was 'consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission'"); United States v. Lopez-P ined a , 55 F.3d 693, 697 n.3 (1 s t C ir. 1995)(guideline amendment not listed in-3-

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) may not be applied retroactively); DeSouza v. UnitedStates , 995 F .2d 323, 324 & n. 1 (1 st Cir. 1993)(per curiam)(similar). In view of the foregoing, the order denying appellant's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion is summarily affirmed . See Loc. R. 27(c).
Years Ended December 31,2008
    
    2007
    
    2006
    
    2005
    
    2004Earnings:Income before income taxes
    
    $
    155,371
    
    
    $
    185,059
    
    
    $
    85,668
    
    
    $
    107,653
    
    
    $
    119,138Add:Fixed charges:Interest on long-term debt
    
    
    42,290
    
    
    
    46,828
    
    
    
    43,649
    
    
    
    38,164
    
    
    
    38,721Other interest expense
    
    
    5,571
    
    
    
    5,585
    
    
    
    3,824
    
    
    
    3,389
    
    
    
    3,368Rental expense representative
of interest factor
    
    
    334
    
    
    
    521
    
    
    
    693
    
    
    
    854
    
    
    
    1,002Total fixed charges
    
    
    48,195
    
    
    
    52,934
    
    
    
    48,166
    
    
    
    42,407
    
    
    
    43,091Total earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    203,566
    
    
    $
    237,993
    
    
    $
    133,834
    
    
    $
    150,060
    
    
    $
    162,229Fixed charges
    
    $
    48,195
    
    
    $
    52,934
    
    
    $
    48,166
    
    
    $
    42,407
    
    
    $
    43,091Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    4.22
    
    
    
    4.50
    
    
    
    2.78
    
    
    
    3.54
    
    
    
    3.76
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Arizona Gold and Onyx Mining Company f/k/a Viking Capital Group, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),I, Dick Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.

 

May 8, 2018

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0270

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOR-EL RUBEN QUIROZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until August 21, 2020 to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

July 20 2020

07/20/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0270
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 576 

To increase the threshold for disclosures required by the Securities and 

Exchange Commission relating to compensatory benefit plans, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2015 

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To increase the threshold for disclosures required by the 

Securities and Exchange Commission relating to compensatory benefit plans, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Encouraging Employee 

5 Ownership Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASED THRESHOLD FOR DISCLOSURES RELAT7 ING TO COMPENSATORY BENEFIT PLANS. 

8 Not later than 60 days after the date of the enact9 ment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 576 IS

1 shall revise section 230.701(e) of title 17, Code of Federal 

2 Regulations, so as to increase from $5,000,000 to 

3 $10,000,000 the aggregate sales price or amount of secu4 rities sold during any consecutive 12-month period in ex5 cess of which the issuer is required under such section to 

6 deliver an additional disclosure to investors. The Commis7 sion shall index for inflation such aggregate sales price 

8 or amount every 5 years to reflect the change in the Con9 sumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by 

10 the Bureau of Labor Statistics, rounding to the nearest 

11 $1,000,000. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Russell G. Cole, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Ipswich
Bancorp;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) The company'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 Company and we 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 company, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the company's most recent
     fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting;
     and

(5) The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company'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 company's ability to record, process,
     summarize and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
     over financial reporting.


/s/ Russell G. Cole
-----------------------------
Russell G. Cole, Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2006
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. PD-1245-20 D ELVRON TURNER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEX AS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in w hich SLAUGHTER, J., joined. O P I N I O N Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery

and ultim ately

sentenced to f

ive y ears in prison. In the bill of costs, the trial court assessed Appellant a $25 tim e pay m ent f ee. See T E X . L O C A L G O V ’ T C O D E § 133.103. On appeal, the Court of Appeals struck aD ELVRON TURNER - 2

portion of that f e e as being unconstitutional. Turner v. State , No. 05-19-01493-CR (Tex. App. – Dallas Dec. 11, 2020). The State has f

iled a petition f

o r discretionary

review challenging the court’s constitutional analy sis. W e recently handed down our opinion in Dulin v. State , Nos. PD0856-19 & PD-0857-19, 2021 Tex. Crim . App. LEXIS 273 (Tex. Crim

. App. Mar. 31, 2021), in which we held that the tim e pay m ent f ee was assessed prem aturely because the pendency of appeal suspends the obligation to pay court costs. As a result, there was no need to reach the State’s constitutional argum ents. W e grant review on our own m otion of the f ollowing ground: Should the “Tim e Pay

m ent Fee” be struck as prem aturely assessed? Addressing that ground in light of Dulin , we vacate the judgm ent of the Court of

Appeals, and rem and this case to the Court of Appeals f

or proceedings consistent with this opinion. The State’s petition is ref used.

DATE DELIVERED: May 12, 2021 DO NOT PUBLISH