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

**Section 1350 Certification -- Principal Financial Officer**

 

**Citizens Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of Citizens Financial Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Len E. Schweitzer, Vice President and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

 

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

 

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

 

| By:    | /s/ Len E. Schweitzer                                 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Len E. Schweitzer                                     |
|   | Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Date: July 12, 2006

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Citizens Financial Corporation and will be retained by CFC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 98-4826 ANTHONY LEE CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-303) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: May 3, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. E. Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Anthony Cunningham appeals his convictions for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) (1994), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 1998). Cunningham's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether the district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting C unningham's guilty plea and whether the court erredby not affording Cunningham the opportunity to object to his presentence report. Our review of the record discloses that the district court sufficiently complied with Rule 11 in informing Cunningham of his rights and in ascertaining the voluntariness of his plea. Because the district court did not violate any substantial right, Cunningham's conviction must stand. See United States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114, 117 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, the record further discloses that the district court explicitly inquired whether Cunningham read the presentence report, reviewed it with his attorney, and fully understood it. Cunningham had ample opportunity to raise any objections he had to the report during this discussion, but did not. In accordance with Anders , we have examined the entire record inthis case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the judgment order of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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
2
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2400 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2400

         To prevent States from prohibiting male circumcision.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2011

  Mr. Sherman (for himself, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Nadler, Mr. 
 Berman, Mr. Engel, Mr. Levin, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Israel, and 
Mr. Ackerman) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To prevent States from prohibiting male circumcision.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Religious and Parental Rights 
Defense Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Male circumcision carries significant medical benefits, 
        including lower risk of sexually-transmitted diseases, certain 
        kinds of infection, and overall improved hygiene.
            (2) Male circumcision is an important part of many world 
        religions, including Judaism and Islam, and observers have 
        safely embraced its practice for generations.

SEC. 3. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW PROHIBITING MALE CIRCUMCISION.

    No State or political subdivision of a State may adopt or continue 
in force a law, regulation, or order that prohibits or regulates the 
circumcision of males who have not attained the age of 18 years and 
whose parent or guardian has consented to the circumcision, unless such 
law, regulation, or order--
            (1) applies to all such circumcisions performed in the 
        State; and
            (2) is limited to ensuring that all such circumcisions are 
        performed in a hygienic manner.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50605 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CURTIS M. SHUBIN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-96-CR-138-1

- - - - - - - - - - May 29, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Curtis M. Shubin appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Shubin contends that the district court erred in denying him a full three-point offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b)(1). Because Shubin has not demonstrated that he “timely provid[ed] complete information to the government concerning his own involvement in the offense,”No. 97-50605 -2- the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying him the full § 3E1.1(b) reduction. See United States v. Mills , 9 F.3d 1132, 1136 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Gonzales , 19 F.3d 982, 983 (5th Cir. 1994); § 3E1.1(b)(1). Shubin’s argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by this court’s holding in United States v. Rawls , 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
#### Swahtwotjt *against*Hoage.

a motion to change the *ve<> n^e**where,the that7 hechas on°thedmerfts¡ he must also add, *as ke is “¿unit,*as m othercaae3"

MOTION op the part of the defendant to change rnt zv> . ° *venue*in this cause. The affidavit of the defendant stated, that he had a good and substantial defence on the merits ; but did not add, “ as he was advised by counsel.”

*Per Curiam.*

We perceive so great a laxity in affidavits to change the venue, that we think it necessary to adopt a stricter rule than has hitherto been observed in this respect; *4and shall require the party, who swears to a defence, to statei <t as he is advised by counsel.”(a)

Motion denied.

(a)

 In *Metcalf*v. *Clark, 5 Johns. Rep.*361. it wtis decided, that these words were not necessary, on a motion to change the venue.
## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00104

- CR

LAPRENSE DERELL WILLIS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 18F1272

- 005

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

A ppellant, Laprense Derell Willis , perfected this appeal from a judgment of conviction
entered by the 5th Judicial District Court of Bowi e County, Texas, in trial court cause number

18F1272

- 005 . Appellant’s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking the permanent

abatement of thi s appeal due to the death of the appellant. According to the motion, appellant

died on December 30, 202 3, w hich was after the appeal was perfected but before this Court

issued its mandate.
In accordance with Rule 7.1(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant
this motion and permanently abate this appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 7.1(a)(2); Stat e v. McCaffrey
, 76 S.W.3d 392, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“ We have long held that the death of the appellant
during the pendency of his appeal deprives the court of jurisdiction [,] and the proper disposition

is [ permanent ] abatement. ”); Whitmire v. State
, 943 S.W.2d 894, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)
(per curiam).

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: December 27, 2023 Date Dec ided: January 9, 2024

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 10.33

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE  WESTERN GAS RESOURCES, INC.  1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN

This First Amendment to the Western Gas Resources, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan is made this 12th day of January, 2001, effective
January 1, 2001.

RECITALS



NOW, THEREFORE,THE western Gas Resources, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan is amended as follows:

ADOPTED
by the Board of Directors of Western Gas Resources, Inc. effective as of the date first set forth above.

| |  | WESTERN GAS RESOURCES, INC.
| |  | ---------------------------
| |  | By                         
| |  | Title                      



QuickLinks
#### James Owen, Individually and as a Shareholder of Starpoint Publishing Corp., Appellant, v Lindsay Hamilton et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 26, 2007;

decided February 19, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19723]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1023-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 09/5/17 Negotiated Rates--DTE 
Energy Trading, Inc. R-1830-14 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20170905-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1024-000.
    Applicants: Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-conforming Agreement--Duke 
Contract No. 850002 to be effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20170905-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1025-000.
    Applicants: Dogwood Energy, LLC, Kansas Municipal Energy Agency.
    Description: Request for Waiver and Expedited Action of Dogwood 
Energy, LLC, et. al. and Kansas Municipal Energy Agency.
    Filed Date: 9/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20170905-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19723 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             855                     774
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,868                  38,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                       962                     969
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,968                  78,984
<PP&E>                                          47,305                  46,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,400                   9,848
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,472                 144,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,723                  58,329
<BONDS>                                         26,439                  33,960
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           254                     252
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,922                  80,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,472                 144,721
<SALES>                                         39,634                  44,260
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,634                  44,260
<CGS>                                           42,764                  36,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,329                  39,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   295                   1,778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 805                   (217)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,795)                   3,558
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (247)                   1,434
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,548)                   2,124
<DISCONTINUED>                                     479                     574
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,069)                   2,698
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.40)                    0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)                    0.11
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              61
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (125)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          23,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,571)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                1
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         18,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,332
<CGS>                                           12,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,003
<INCOME-TAX>                                       391
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                612
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       612
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


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

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

PETITION OF HARRY W. 

ANDERSON FOR A WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

§ 

§ No. 377, 2015

§

§

Submitted: July 29, 2015

Decided: September 9, 2015

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 9th day of September 2015, upon consideration of the petition of Harry 

Anderson for an extraordinary writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The petitioner, Harry W. Anderson, seeks to invoke the original 

jurisdiction of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of 

mandamus compelling the Department of Correction to credit him with two years, 

nine months, and nine days of time served on his third violation of probation. The 

State of Delaware has filed an answer and asked the Court to deny Anderson’s 

petition. After careful review, we find that Anderson’s petition manifestly fails to 

invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction. 

(2) This Court’s “original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus is 

limited to instances when the respondent is a court or a judge thereof.”1

 This Court 

 1 In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991). See also Del. Const. of 1897 art. IV § 11(5) 

(defining Court’s original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs).
2

does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed to the Department 

of Correction.2

 Accordingly, Anderson’s petition must be dismissed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of 

a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice

 2 See, e.g., In re Johnson, 2007 WL 4216981, at *1 (Del. Nov. 30, 2007) (dismissing petition for 

writ of mandamus directing Department of Correction officials to credit petitioner with 

accumulated good time).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JULIO RIVERA
, Appellant,

v.

NEW HOPE POWER COMPANY
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3704

[ November 21, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Cymonie S. Rowe , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2015CA005566XXXXMB AO

.

Paul B. Feltman of Alvarez, Feltman, & DaSilva, P.L., Coral Gables, for appellant.

Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Marjorie Gadarian Graham, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, and C. Brooks Ricca, Jr. of C. Brooks Ricca, Jr. and Associates, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Yero v. Miami

- Dade C ty

. , 838 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

M AY AND F ORST

, JJ., and H ILAL
, J ENNIFER , Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 10.1



 December 30, 2010 
 Robert Soper 
 203 Greystone Drive 
 Shavertown, PA 18708 
 Dear Bob: 
 Reference is made to that certain Employment Agreement made as of April 2, 2009 and effective January 1, 2009 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
 Pursuant to Section 4 of the Agreement, the term of the Agreement shall
automatically renew for an additional term of three (3) years unless either party shall notify the other of its intention to terminate by notice delivered not later than one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the end of the current
term of June 30, 2011. The Employer and the Employee have determined to modify the Agreement as further set forth in this letter. 

Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, entitled “Term”, is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in its stead: 

“4. Term 
 This
Agreement shall govern Executive’s employment with the Employer from the Effective Date through and including June 30, 2013. This Agreement, including this paragraph, shall automatically renew for an additional term of two (2) years
unless either party shall notify the other of its intention to terminate, or unless otherwise terminated as provided herein. Any such notice of intention to terminate shall be delivered not later than one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to
the end of the then current term and shall be effective at the end of such term, except as otherwise provided herein.” 
 Paragraph 5 of
the Agreement, entitled “Base Annual Salary”, is hereby modified to delete the words “and 5% of the then current Base Annual Salary each year thereafter” from the second sentence thereof. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement is further
modified to add the following sentence at the end: “Commencing January 1, 2011, and on each January 1 thereafter during the term of this Agreement, any increase in the Base Annual Salary shall be in accordance with the Employer’s
Compensation Performance Review Program.” 
 In all other respects the Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect. 

The parties hereunto set their hands as of the date above written to evidence their consent to the aforesaid modifications of the Agreement. 

Downs Racing, L.P. 
 By: Mohegan Commercial
Ventures PA, LLC, 
 its General Partner 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/    MITCHELL GROSSINGER
ETESS        

	 	 	 Mitchell G. Etess
 Manager


 Accepted and agreed: 

			
		
		 	 /s/    ROBERT J.
SOPER        

	 	 	Robert Soper