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 connectionwith the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ending June  30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Janet M. Biski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifyto the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| 3.     | The Report  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                  |
| 4.     | The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |

 

 
| Date: August 12, 2003 |   |                    |   |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                  | By:    | /s/ Janet M. Biski      |
|                  |   | Janet M.  Biski         |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to SRS Labs, Inc. and will beretained by SRS Labs, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                          A.S.V., INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                 EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, 1996 AND 1995

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                     1997        1996        1995
                                                  ----------  ----------  ----------
<S>                                               <C>         <C>         <C>
BASIC
 Earnings
  Net income                                      $2,323,557  $  921,509  $  439,852
                                                  ==========  ==========  ==========
 
 Shares
  Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding                              4,910,744   4,787,692   4,741,502
                                                  ==========  ==========  ==========
 
 Earnings per common share                        $      .47  $      .19  $      .09
                                                  ==========  ==========  ==========
 
DILUTED
 Earnings
  Net income                                      $2,323,557  $  921,509  $  439,852
  Add after tax interest expense applicable
   to 6.5% convertible debentures                    206,700      49,635           -
                                                  ----------  ----------  ----------
 Net income applicable to common stock            $2,530,257  $  971,144  $  439,852
                                                  ==========  ==========  ==========
 
 Shares
  Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding                              4,910,744   4,787,692   4,741,502
  Assuming exercise of options and warrants
   reduced by the number of shares which could
   have been purchased with the proceeds from
   the exercise of such options and warrants         568,478     370,449     222,609
  Assuming conversion of 6.5% convertible
   debentures                                        454,545     109,029           -
                                                  ----------  ----------  ----------
 
  Weighted average number of common and
   common equivalent shares outstanding            5,933,767   5,267,170   4,964,111
                                                  ==========  ==========  ==========
 
 Earnings per common share                        $      .43  $      .18  $      .09
                                                  ==========  ==========  ==========
 
</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2760

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Quentin C. Adams, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2006 

Filed: July 10, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Quentin C. Adams (Adams) guilty of one count of conspiring to

distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; two

counts of possessing with intent to distribute more than 5 grams of cocaine base in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and one count of aiding and abetting the

distribution of cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

The district court1

 sentenced Adams to a total of life imprisonment and 8 years’

supervised release. On appeal, Adams’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v.
-2-

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and moved to withdraw. Adams filed a pro se

supplemental brief.

Counsel argues the district court abused its discretion by allowing evidence of

Adams’s 2000 Missouri conviction for second-degree drug trafficking under Federal

Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was too remote in time from the instant offenses.

We find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Love, 419 F.3d 825, 828 (8th

Cir. 2005) (standard of review; finding no abuse of discretion as to prior convictions

that were even more remote in time).

Adams argues the evidence is insufficient to support any of his convictions.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and giving the

government the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the

evidence, as we must, we conclude the evidence is sufficient. See United States v.

White, 241 F.3d 1015, 1021-22 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review; elements of

conspiracy conviction); United States v. Rodgers, 18 F.3d 1425, 1429 (8th Cir. 1994)

(elements of possession-with-intent convictions); United States v. Ellefson, 419 F.3d

859, 863 (8th Cir. 2005) (elements of aiding-and-abetting conviction).

Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

______________________________
I 

## 379

**OFFICE OF**  THE **ATTORNEY** GENERAL **OF** TEXAS **AUSTIN --=k!tz**  **‘ G**  **1 I** 
I?onoreblo DeKltt Oreer State Hlghwey EI@neer Austin, Texar Dear

### sir8

OnJune 14, 1940 pr4a4aersor in ofSit ior on the r0iioring qucstionr

‘!Xoul& the State this departzent

na aoquirea by by the State or ight 0r way a66a lease It 

### ror ion **0r** oil 8na

dedication, prescription or the puro,h.ase0r a mer4 sclsseent r0r 

### road waypurpo44r only 

### as set out in our 

### OpinionX0. 0-Ssil, a oopy of r?Aah is attaahed hereto.

Hoauthority h4obean granted to anyon4 to 10444 a highway right-or-way 

### forttr de*slopr,snt 0r oil andgar a2a it lmaoubtrul Ii ruah autl:orlty hsa besn granted 

### whether dnyEonordble i%?Itt SrWr, page 8

arllllng operations oould be pen%Itted cn a right-of-Way 80 long 4s It la being u3ed for rosa 

### orhlgMay pur;osas.Ses Doone, et al Ion 

### Fo. 0-d. ve. Clr;rk, et al, 214 5. ‘Y. 607,. and

### our o>inThe requset ror en a?lnlm Cues not ;artloul~rly rerer to rlgbts-ot-my which h:arr he133amdcn4a ror hlt:Lwaps anrlroad purposes as aid t?.e request on &Ioh Oylnlcn tTo. O-521 xas baaed, but mewish to point cut t:.ot i.+tlcle !367Ja, Pereon*s Axmotated Texas Statutoa, prorlfies that the State !?lghwayCcmniisalon my recozsend to t!:e 

### Covcmcr.the sale 0r 

### ay rlght-or-wny no longer needed rot suohhIgh=ay 

### ktrneeded 

### for u6e

### or oltleens aS a

### maa, remmend to the Copsrnor the tair eza reaecnable value or suah land, andThat the Soverncr Eay l xeoute a proger deed of oonveyehce of ’saze, where **the** laud onwhich the rlght-or-way Is located Is awns&In fee simple by the State. **It** 

### further provides thet t3e httorhsy General shall approve all transfers under the Aot. It Is our opinion that the deed and uoaveyanoe a.e&tI@nad la sail! statute ~ea&s an cutright oonvegance of all of the State’s Interest as the r0110ting language 13used:

VomeyIhg all of t?.c state’s rlt;ht, titls and Interest In said land so aoqulred.. and for the further reascn that the policy of tr:e legislature htzsa be411to makespeeliio nnddcflnlte rrovlslons wherein any Eeyzrtzent of the govermnent la allowed to lease land for dcv010pcm or 011 0d aha.

It lo our opinion t>slt with respect to abendcned roads wh9reIn the State ms t.!ic hn,a In 038sti~yls that it cannot be leabed by the State HighwayCoz+Asaion for oil end gas purposes but can only besold unCer the provisions of the above statute ana should It be desirable for the Yighxay Cumlsslon to lease the abandoned rights-of-my no cwned in ice slz?ple by the State for 011 ena gas purposes It ~111 be necessary r0r tSs Leglslaturs to speolrically grant sue+, mthcrity, Very truly yours
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131957 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131957 

 COA: 270555 

Washtenaw CC: 03-000753-AR 

WILLIAM ALLEN SIMPSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 13, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21741]



[[Page 46672]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1


Income Taxes

CFR Correction

    In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sec.  1.1551 to end 
of part 1, revised as of April 1, 2017, on page 331, in Sec.  1.6045-4, 
in paragraph (m), after the designation (1), the designation (i) is 
added.

[FR Doc. 2017-21741 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

Innkeepers USA Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the“Company”), operates principally through two entities, (i) Innkeepers Financial Corporation, a Virginia corporation (“IFC”), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and (ii) Innkeepers USA LimitedPartnership, a Virginia limited partnership (the “Partnership”), of which IFC is the sole general partner. All of the Company’s hotels are owned by (a) the Partnership, (b) subsidiary limited partnerships that are owned 99%by the Partnership and 1% by either the Company directly or corporations that are wholly-owned by the Company or (c) limited liability companies that are owned, wholly or in substantial part, by the Partnership. All of the Company’s hotelsare leased by their owners to corporate subsidiaries of the Company that are owned 100% by either (I) the Partnership or (II) a limited liability company owned 100% by the Partnership. The following table lists all of the subsidiaries of theCompany (other than IFC and the Partnership): 

Innkeepers Financial Corporation II 

Innkeepers Financial Corporation III 

Innkeepers Financial Corporation IV 

Innkeepers Financial Corporation V 

Innkeepers Financing Partnership, L.P. 

Innkeepers Financing Partnership II, L.P. 

Innkeepers Financing Partnership III, L.P. 

Innkeepers Financing Partnership IV, L.P. 

KPA Valencia, LLC 

KPA Ft. Walton, LLC 

Innkeepers Residence Addison, Inc. 

Innkeepers Residence Addison, L.P. 

Innkeepers Residence Arlington, Inc. 

Innkeepers Residence Arlington, L.P. 

Innkeepers Residence Atlanta-Downtown, Inc. 

Innkeepers Residence Atlanta-Downtown, L.P. 

Innkeepers Residence Denver-Downtown, L.P. 

Innkeepers Residence East Lansing Inc. 

Innkeepers Residence East Lansing L.P. 

Innkeepers Residence Eden Prairie, Inc. 

KPA Louisville, LLC 

Innkeepers Residence Grand Rapids, Inc. 

KPALeaseco, Inc. 

KPA Leaseco III, Inc. 

KPA Leaseco V, Inc. 

Innkeepers Residence Grand Rapids, L.P. 

Innkeepers Residence Portland, Inc. 

Innkeepers Residence Portland, L.P. 

Innkeepers Residence San Mateo, Inc. 

Innkeepers Residence San Mateo, L.P. 

Innkeepers Residence Shelton, Inc. 

Innkeepers Residence Shelton, L.P. 

Innkeepers Residence Sili I, L.P 

InnkeepersResidence Sili II, Inc. 

Innkeepers Residence Sili II, L.P. 

Innkeepers Residence Wichita East, L.P. 

Innkeepers RI Altamonte, Inc. 

Innkeepers RI Altamonte, L.P. 

Innkeepers RIGeneral, Inc. 

Innkeepers RI General, L.P. 

Innkeepers RI Northwest, Inc. 

Innkeepers RI Northwest, L.P. 

Innkeepers Schaumburg, L.P. 

InnkeepersSummerfield General, L.P. 

Innkeepers Summerfield General II, L.P. 

Innkeepers Sunrise Tinton Falls, L.P. 

Innkeepers Westchester, L.P. 

KPA Leaseco II, Inc. 

KPA Leaseco IV, Inc. 

KPA Morristown, LLC
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 29, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael M. Searles, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section906 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ MICHAEL M. SEARLES  **Michael M. Searles,**  **Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**Date: September 7, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.2

           WRITTEN statement furnished pursuant to section 906 of the
               sarbanes-oxley act of 2002, 18 u.s.c. section 1350

         The undersigned, William C. Gray, is the Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of Carver Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

         This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Report").

         By execution of this statement, I certify that:

                  a)       the Report fully complies with the requirements of
                           Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
                           of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

                  b)       the information contained in the Report fairly
                           presents, in all material respects, the financial
                           condition and results of operations of the Company as
                           of the dates and for the periods covered by the
                           Report.



February 13, 2004                                    /s/ William C. Gray
-----------------                                    -------------------
Dated                                                William C. Gray
WILLIAM HENRY CAIN , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1377

_____ ________________________/ Opinion filed March 8, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello , Judge

. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee for Appellant ; William H enry Cain , pro se
. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence for sale or delivery of cocaine, but based on the state’s proper concession of error in response to our2 Harri son order , 1 we reverse the imposition of the $100 cost for the FDLE Operating Trust Fund pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes, and the $100 sheriff’s investigative cost pursuant to section 938.27. The trial court did not orally pronounce these co sts at the sentencing hearing. See Nix v. State , 84 So. 3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). On remand, the trial court may reimpose the FDLE Operating Trust Fund cost after following the proper procedure. Id. However, t he sheriff’s investigatory cost may not be reimposed on remand because the record does not show that the state requested this cost. See Mills v. State , 177 So. 3d 984 ( Fla. 1st DCA 2015);
Bratton v. State , 156 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ; Cook v. State , 149 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014 ).
AFFIRMED in part ; REVERSED in part and REMANDED with directions

. WETHERELL , MAKAR , and WINOKUR J J

. , CONCUR.

1 Harrison v. State , 146 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (establishing a procedure pursuant to which the state is given an opportunity to respond to preserved sentencing error claims raised in an Anders brief).
EXHIBIT 99.1


      The following certification is provided by the undersigned as Chief
Executive Officer of Industri-Matematik International Corp. on the basis
of such officer's knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                          CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Industri-Matematik
International Corp. ("Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16,
2002 ("Report"), I, Lin Johnstone, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 1    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


/s/ Lin Johnstone
--------------------------
Name: Lin Johnstone
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: December 16, 2002
#### Anthony BOVE, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2010-7072.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2011.

Stephen J. Wenger, Burlington, NJ, for Claimant-Appellant.

Alex P. Hontos, Department of Justice, David J. Barrans, Y. Ken Lee, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

RADER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. That court dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the 120-day appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The appellant sought this court’s review.

This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of our decision in *Henderson v. Shinseki,*589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc) (affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is *966not subject to equitable tolling). In *Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and concluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that the appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional, we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
Exhibit 23.1








Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders


of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc.





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-163210), and Form S-8 (No. 333-69175) of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated March 25, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2010 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010, which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.








/s/Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC





Albany, Georgia


March 31, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                         412,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,991,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,703,594
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,649,003
<PP&E>                                       4,502,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,335,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,456,224
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          118,636
<PREFERRED>                                         15
<COMMON>                                         7,536
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,242,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,335,570
<SALES>                                     13,869,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,869,084
<CGS>                                       11,170,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,035,199
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,180,904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                622,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   622,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>