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

# ** **

# **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

# ** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of LaBranche & Co Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey M.Chertoff, Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,and to the best of my knowledge, that:

 

1.                                       the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of, andfor, the period covered by the Report.

 
| Date:  November 9, 2005 | /s/  Jeffrey M. Chertoff |                             |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                              | Name:                    | Jeffrey M. Chertoff              |
|                              | Title:                   | Senior  Vice President and Chief |
|                              |                     | Financial  Officer               |
|                                   |                          |                                  |  |  |

 

 

**Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as a separate disclosure document.  Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to LaBranche & Co Inc. and will be retained by LaBranche &Co Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.**

 

1

----
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

STEPHEN EDWARD HUTSELL,

Appellant.

No. 74157-8-1

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ^

FILED: January 17, 2017

Leach, J. — Stephen Hutsell challenges the trial court's imposition of the

mandatory $100 deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing fee required by

RCW 43.43.7541. He claims the fee, as applied to a repeat felony offender,

violates equal protection. Our recent opinion in State v. Lewis1 considered and

rejected the same argument. We affirm.

FACTS

On May 22, 2015, the State charged Hutsell with possession of a controlled

substance (heroin). He pleaded guilty as charged. Because the State had

Hutsell's DNA on file as a result of a prior conviction, the trial court did not require

Hutsell to undergo a DNA test. It did, however, impose a $100 DNA testing fee.

At sentencing, Hutsell challenged the imposition of the DNA testing fee.

Concluding that a statute required the fee, the court rejected Hutsell's challenge.

Hutsell appeals.

1 194 Wn. App. 709, 379 P.3d 129 (2016), review denied. No. 93420-7

(Wash. Dec. 7, 2016).
No. 74157-8-1/2

ANALYSIS

Hutsell claims that the mandatory DNA collection fee required by

RCW 43.43.7541, as applied to a repeat felony offender, violates equal protection.

But in Lewis, this court considered and rejected the same challenge. We held that

a rational basis exists to impose a fee for every felony sentence because the fee

funds both the cost of collection and the costs to operate and maintain the state

DNA database.2 Following Lewis, we affirm the trial court's imposition of the DNA

testing fee.

Hutsell asks the court to waive his appellate costs. RAP 14.2 permits an

appellate court to bar an award of costs in a decision terminating review. Here,

the State states that it does not intend to request appellate costs. This makes

Hutsell's request moot, and we do not consider it.

CONCLUSION

We affirm.

WE CONCUR:

^ H-VV ) Jt.Alr<$Jk«,

2 Lewis, 194 Wn. App. at 719-20 (citing State v. Johnson. 194 Wn. App.

304, 307-08, 374 P.3d 1206 (2016)).

-2-
#### Seymour Brooks, Appellant, v Citicorp et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 114]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about February 26, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiffs case, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed for plaintiffs failure *13to make out a prima facie showing that when his position with defendant was discontinued in March 1988, he accepted another position with defendant in detrimental reliance on the clause in defendant’s policy guide providing that “[f]ull time officers with 20 years of service by 12/31/88 will be offered placement if their jobs are discontinued” *(see, Matter of De Petris v Union Settlement Assn.,*86 NY2d 406). Furthermore, assuming, as the trial court apparently did before dismissing the complaint, that such clause is contractual in nature, the trial court, for purposes of deciding whether plaintiff had attained 20 years of service as of December 31, 1988, properly refused to consider various of defendant’s employment benefit plans defining a year to be less than 365 days, since plaintiff did not include these documents in his answers to defendant’s interrogatories. We would add that the policy guide is not ambiguous with respect to the meaning of a year, and that extrinsic evidence in that respect would have been inadmissible even if plaintiff’s answers to the interrogatories had included the benefit plan provisions *(see,*W.W.W. *Assocs. v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157, 163). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00181

- CR

R UDOLPH G UY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On App eal from Criminal District

Court No. 2

of Tarrant County ( 1579653 )

Sept ember 7 , 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Chief

Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be di sm issed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22890]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-38-000]


DV Trading, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding DV 
Trading, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an 
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is November 6, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#de989b8c9d91b0b2b7b0bb8dabaeaeb1acaa9eb8bbacbdf0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="63252631202c0d0f0a0d06301613130c111723050611004d040c15">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 16, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22890 Filed 10-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Minority Enterprise Development Week, 2017

Since our earliest days, hardworking entrepreneurs have driven our Nation's prosperity. During Minority Enterprise Development Week, we recognize the contributions that minority-owned businesses make to our economy and our way of life, and we strive to ensure that small business owners have access to the resources they need to achieve the American Dream.

The United States is entering upon a new period of economic revival. Unemployment is at a 16-year low, businesses are expanding, and wages are rising. Ensuring that minority-owned businesses remain strong and vibrant is vital to the growth of our great Nation. Minority-owned firms employ eight million people and generate more than $1 trillion in annual economic output. They export their products at a greater rate than non-minority businesses and provide a great boost to our global competitiveness.

My Administration is committed to creating a business climate in which minority business enterprises can thrive and expand. The Unified Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code, my Administration's basic plan for tax cuts and tax reform, calls for a steep reduction to the corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent. This reform will lift up our entrepreneurs, our businesses, and our families. The Framework also caps the top tax rate for millions of family-owned and small- and mid-sized businesses at 25 percent—the lowest it has been in more than 80 years. We also want Americans to be able to invest in capital to build their businesses, so for 5 years, we will allow them to deduct 100 percent of their capital investments. By eliminating needless regulations, promoting fair and reciprocal trade relationships, lowering taxes, and increasing the flow of capital, the United States will further cement its status as a global economic powerhouse.

During Minority Enterprise Development Week, we recommit to empowering every hardworking American to write our next great chapter. Let us work together to ensure that every American citizen can flourish and give back to our country and our communities.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 22 through October 28, 2017, as National Minority Enterprise Development Week. I call upon all Americans to celebrate this week with programs, ceremonies, and activities to recognize the many contributions of American minority business enterprises.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

[FR Doc. 2017-23525

Billing code 3295-F8-P
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home > News Articles > Commission Meeting Scheduled for September 21, 2023

Commission Meeting Scheduled for September 21, 2023


Posted on:


September 13, 2023 Posted September 13, 2023 SUNSHINE ACT MEETINGS **DATE AND TIME**: September 21, 2023; 1:00 p.m. **PLACE**: The meeting will be held at the Surface Transportation Board at the address below and also streamed live on the FMC YouTube channel. **Surface Transportation Board**395 E. Street, SWRoom # 1042 (Hearing Room)Washington, DC 20423 **STATUS**: The meeting will be held on September 21, 2023, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in the Hearing Room of the Surface Transportation Board and will be open for public observation. If technical issues prevent the Commission from streaming live, the Commission will post a recording of the meeting as soon as possible on the Commission’s webpage at www.fmc.gov. Any person wishing to attend the meeting in-person should report to Surface Transportation Board with enough time to clear building security procedures. **MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED**: Staff Briefing, Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022



Staff Briefing, Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services **CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION**: Amy Strauss, Acting Secretary, (202) 523–5725
 Commission Meeting Agenda
 Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Nathan WALTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-30362.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 24, 2008.

Brett L. Grayson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western Dis*382trict of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Nathan Walton, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James Nathan Walton, federal prisoner # 11948-035, appeals the district court’s denial of his “motion to compel specific performance of plea agreement and for substantial assistance pursuant to [18] U.S.C. § 3553(e), Fed. Rules Cr. Proc. Rule 35(b), 18 U.S.C.A., U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1,” in which he challenged the sentence imposed for his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues that Government breached the plea agreement by failing to file a motion for a reduction of his sentence on account of his substantial assistance. He argues that the Government’s refusal to file a motion for a reduction of his sentence and the district court’s denial of this motion violated his due process rights.

Section 5K1.1 has no postsentencing application, and only the Government can file a motion for reduction of a defendant’s sentence pursuant to § 3553(e) and Rule 35(b). *United States v. Lopez,*26 F.3d 512, 523 (5th Cir.1994); *United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir.1994). Walton’s motion was “an unauthorized motion which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain.” *See Early,*27 F.3d at 142. Walton argues for the first time on appeal that the Government’s refusal to file such a motion was based on his race. We will not consider a new argument raised for the first time on appeal. *See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,*183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999); *cf. United States v. Cervantes,*132 F.3d 1106, 1109 (5th Cir.1998). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Walton’s motion. *See Early,*27 F.3d at 142.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Cause No. PD

- 0143

- 15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

CYNTHIA AMBR OSE, §

Appellee/Petitioner, § § FROM THE FOURTH

vs. § COURT OF APPEALS § SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS , § 04

- 13

- 00788

- CR

Appellant/

Respondent. §

PETITIONER ’ S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AT ORAL ARGUMENT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

Now comes the CYNTHIA AMBROSE, Petitioner, by and through her

undersigned counsel, Dayna L. Jones, and hereby gives notice to the Court that the

undersigned counsel will app ear on October 7, 2015 at 9 a.m. and present oral

argument.

Respectfully submitted:

___ /s/ Dayna L. Jones

______ DAYNA L. JONES Bar No. 24049450 LAW OFFICE OF DAYNA L. JONES 1800 McCullough San Antonio, Texas 78212 (210) 255-8525 office (210) 223-3248 facsimile

Attorney for Petitioner, CYNTHIA AMBROSE PD-0143-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 9/3/2015 4:23:28 PM Accepted 9/3/2015 4:29:29 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above foregoing Unopposed Motion for

Extension of Time to File Brief has been served via e

- mail through the EFSP

Electronic Filing System , to S. Patrick Ballantyne

, Assistant Criminal District

Attorney

, sballantyne@bexar.org , on this the 3 rd day of September , 20 15

.
By:

___ /s/ Dayna L. Jones

______ DAYNA L. JONES
J-S44017-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. DALE HODGES Appellant No. 1746 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 29, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0002482-2012

CP-25-CR-0002490-2012
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and JENKINS, J. CONCURRING STATEMENT BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 I concur in the result. However, in my opinion, t he majority’s focus on whether Hodges’ motion for a mistrial was untimely and resulted in waiver is misplaced. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedur e 605, “[w]hen an event prejudicial to the defendant occurs during tr ial only the defendant may move for a mistrial; the motion shall be made when the event is disclosed. Otherwise, the trial judge may declare a mistrial o nly for reasons of manifest necessity.” Pa. R. Crim. P. 605(B). Indeed, the re medy of a mistrial “is an extreme one, and is required only when an incident is of such a nature that its unavoidable effect is to deprive the appellant of a fair and impartial trial. Commonwealth v. Johnson , 719 A.2d 778, 787 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc) (citation omitted).J-S44017-15

- 2 -

Whether the jury could adequately hear the testimon y of a complaining witness gives rise to a question regard ing whether Hodges was denied a fair and impartial trial, with a unanimous verdict. See Commonwealth v. Brown , 332 A.2d 828, 831-32 (Pa. Super. 1974) (where juror’s responses were inconclusive regardin g whether he heard all testimony, hearing impairment was significant enoug h to prevent fair, impartial trial and mistrial was required). Thus, instantly, the trial court was obligated to consider whether the jury could render a fair verdict. Had the trial court determined that the jury’s inability to hear testimony operated to deny Hodges a fair tribunal, the trial court would have been required to declare a mistrial sua sponte

. Johnson , supra . Ultimately, in my view, defense counsel’s delay in requesting a mistrial should not be dispositive regarding whether the tri al court appropriately refused to grant a mistrial since it was the trial court’s obligation to ensure a fair tribunal. However, as the record in this matt er does not indicate clear error on which to reverse the trial court for failu re to order a mistrial sua sponte , I concur in the majority’s result.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3052 

To limit liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 for service station dealers with 

respect to the release or threatened release of recycled oil. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2009 

Mr. CAPUANO (for himself, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. FRANK of 

Massachusetts, Mr. CLAY, Mr. DOYLE, and Mr. PASCRELL) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To limit liability under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 for 

service station dealers with respect to the release or 

threatened release of recycled oil. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. 

4 Section 114(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental 

5 Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3052 IH

1 U.S.C. 9614(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(5) PRIOR TO EFFECTIVE DATE.—No person 

4 (including the United States or any State) may re5 cover, under the authority of subsection (a) (3) or 

6 (4) of section 107, from a service station dealer for 

7 any response costs or damages resulting from a re8 lease or threatened release of recycled oil, or use the 

9 authority of section 106 against a service station 

10 dealer other than a person described in subsection 

11 (a) (1) or (2) of section 107, with respect to any pe12 riod between November 8, 1986, and the effective 

13 date described in paragraph (4), if the service sta14 tion dealer had complied with all applicable laws and 

15 regulations relating to the disposal of such oil.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS