alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersignedofficer of FirstCity Financial Corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Form 10-Q”) ofthe Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

| Date: August 10, 2007 |   |                      | /s/ J. Bryan Baker |   |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|                  |   | J. Bryan Baker            |
|                  |   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant toItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andis not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporationlanguage in such filing.

----
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 the Quarterly  Report of Wilder Richman  Historic  Properties
II, L.P. (the  "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2005
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Neal Ludeke,  Chief Financial  Officer of Wilder Richman Historic
Corporation,  general partner of the Registrant,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S) 1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to (S) 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 Registrant.

/s/ Neal Ludeke
-------------------------------------------------------
Neal Ludeke
Chief Financial Officer of Wilder Richman
Historic Corporation, general partner of the Registrant
June 9, 2006
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 184

To amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to eliminate the requirement

that central station service be unavailable in the case of rural electrification loans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to eliminate

the requirement that central station service be unavailable in the case of rural electrification loans.

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

3 That section 4 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936

4 (7 U.S.C. 904) is amended by striking ‘‘who are not re5 ceiving central station service’’.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1892

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Great Western

Trail for potential addition to the National Trails System.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 28, 1993

Mr. HANSEN (for himself, Mr. ORTON, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. KYL,

Mr. STUMP, Ms. SHEPHERD, Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming, and Mr. WILLIAMS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the

Great Western Trail for potential addition to the National Trails System.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THE GREAT WESTERN TRAIL

4 AS A STUDY TRAIL.

5 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16

6 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new paragraph:

8 ‘‘( ) The Great Western Scenic Trail, a system of

9 trails to accommodate a variety of travel users in a cor-
2

HR 1892 IH

1 ridor of approximately 3,100 miles in length extending

2 from the Arizona-Mexico border to the Idaho-Montana3 Canada border, following the approximate route depicted

4 on the map identified as ‘Great Western Trail Corridor,

5 1988’, which shall be on file and available for public in6 spection in the Office of the Chief of the Forest Service,

7 United States Department of Agriculture. The trail shall

8 be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. Notwith9 standing section 7, motorized vehicles may be permitted,

10 in accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary of

11 Agriculture, on components of the Great Western Scenic

12 Trail system.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 2000 UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<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>                                          16,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  288,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                    43,455
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          16,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 291,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        176,585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   291,144
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,641
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,529
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,075
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,705
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,970
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39


</TABLE>
#### Lizzie A. MEREDITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALDWIN PIANO, INC., originally sued as Baldwin Piano Company, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 09-3926, 10-1309.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 14, 2010.

Filed: Feb. 10, 2011.

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Lizzie A. Meredith, an African-American, was employed in the Trumann, Arkansas manufacturing plant of Baldwin Piano, Inc., for about 16 years with a satisfactory work record. She was discharged as part of a reduction-in-force, along with 13 other employees — 12 of whom were white. Baldwin closed the plant 19 months later.

Meredith sued Baldwin, alleging the termination was based on race, in violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark.Code Ann. § 16-123-101; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, *et. seq.*Baldwin moved for summary judgment. Meredith claimed that Baldwin’s reduction-in-force explanation for her termination is pretextual, because she was experienced at the plant (though not in her department), and her seniority was wrongly calculated.

In well-reasoned orders, the district court1 granted summary judgment to Baldwin and awarded it costs. *See Meredith v. Baldwin Piano, Inc.,*3:08CV00046-SWW, 2009 WL 4251020 (E.D.Ark. Nov.23, 2009) (granting summary judgment); 2010 WL 386415 (E.D.Ark. Jan.26, 2010) (awarding costs).

As no error of law appears in these orders, this court affirms. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge, Eastern District of Arkansas.
2014-0863.

#### State v. Perkins.

Hancock App. No. 5-13-01, 2014-Ohio-752. On motion for delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.
ACCEPTED

06-15-00130-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

11/17/2015 6:53:39 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 11/18/2015 8:08:00 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
February 25, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00138-CV V.

FREEDMEN'S TOWN PRESERVATION COALITION, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

order signed by the court below on February 12, 2015. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, The City of Houston.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.2

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 the Annual Report of Aladdin Knowledge Systems Ltd. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Erez
Rosen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to 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.

| | /s/ EREZ ROSEN                                       
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| |                                                      
| | Erez Rosen
  Chief Financial Officer
   June 28, 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.

70

---

---
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1631

AN ACT

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to

Superior Court of the District of Columbia.Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of thepermitted for cases under the jurisdiction of theincrease the maximum amount in controversy
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1631

AN ACT

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to increase

the maximum amount in controversy permitted for cases

under the jurisdiction of the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia.

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 ‘‘District of Columbia

5 Justice Reform Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 1631 EH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

2 PERMITTED FOR CASES UNDER JURISDIC3 TION OF SMALL CLAIMS AND CONCILIATION

4 BRANCH OF SUPERIOR COURT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11–1321, D.C. Code, is

6 amended by striking ‘‘$2,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$5,000’’.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

8 subsection (a) shall apply to cases filed with the Superior

9 Court of the District of Columbia on or after the date of

10 the enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Charles Lee Timms, * From the 104th District Court

 of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 22364-B.

Vs. No. 11-24-00086-CR * May 9, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered Charles Lee Timms’s motion to dismiss this appeal 

and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with 

this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
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 Quarterly Report of Interlink Electronics, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, E. Michael Thoben, III, Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer 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.



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|/s/ E. Michael Thoben, III                                            
|E. Michael Thoben, III Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Officer

December 22, 2006
#### Alphonso HAYNESWORTH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Michael Laubshire; Robert Ward; Jon Ozmint; Willie Eagleton; Redfearn Miller; Annie Sellars; Beverly Baker; Anthony Whiltington; Pamela D. McDowell; Officer Driggers; Officer Joseph; G. Rogers, Captain; K. Lear, Sergeant; Sergeant Thomas; Ms. Thomas; A. Graves; B. Miller, Mrs., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-6717.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 30, 2010.

*844Alphonso Haynesworth, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alphonso Haynesworth appeals the distinct court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Haynesworth v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr.,*No. 8:10-cv-00507-CMC (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2010). We deny Haynesworth’s motion for an order to show cause and 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.*

*

 The district court's order is a final, appealable order. *See Young v. Nichols,*413 F.3d 416, 418 (4th Cir.2005).
EX-10.11.(A) AMENDMENT



 






	 	 	 	 	 



EXHIBIT 10.11(a)





     AMENDMENT dated as of October 3, 2007, to the Amended and Restated American Color Graphics,
Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan”), as amended and restated effective as of
July 1, 2005.



     WHEREAS, American Color Graphics, Inc. (the “Company”) sponsors the Plan and Section
4.5 of the Plan grants the Company the right to amend the Plan.



     NOW, THEREFORE, Section 2.3(i) of the Plan is amended by deleting the phrase “the six month
anniversary of the Participant’s termination of employment with the Company or its subsidiaries”
and replacing such phrase with the following: “the Participant’s termination of employment with the
Company or its subsidiaries, except that no payment shall be made earlier than January 1, 2008”.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed, as of the day
and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	AMERICAN COLOR GRAPHICS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Stephen M. Dyott
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Stephen M. Dyott 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chairman & CEO 	 
	 




7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             534
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,056
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,914
<PP&E>                                         352,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                 147,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,554
<BONDS>                                         29,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           187
<OTHER-SE>                                     170,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,848
<SALES>                                         52,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,833
<CGS>                                            8,889
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,195
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,466
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,466
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,466
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47


</TABLE>
#### Khosrou Hajikhan MOHAMMADI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74445.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 2, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 10, 2010.

Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: THOMAS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mohammadi’s experiences in Peru did not rise to the level of past persecution, given that Mohammadi failed to show that the unfulfilled threats forming the “primary part of [his] past persecution claim” were either “especially menacing,” *Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000), or “accompanied by ... violent confrontations, near-confrontations and vandalism,” *Mashiri v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th Cir.2004). Substantial evidence likewise supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mohammadi lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution. The 2002 and 2003 Country Reports on Peru are silent regarding discrimination against Middle Easterners or those perceived to be Muslim, *see Kazlauskas v. INS,*46 F.3d 902, 906 (9th Cir.1995), and Mohammadi did not rebut the government’s argument that he could reasonably relocate to a bigger city in Peru to avoid the problems he experienced in the small town of Barranca, *209*see*8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, the BIA’s denial of Mohammadi’s asylum and withholding of removal claims was supported by substantial evidence.

Because Mohammadi presented no evidence of past torture or of country conditions conducive to future torture, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mohammadi is ineligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Remand to the agency for further proceedings is unnecessary because Mohammadi has not established that he suffered any prejudice from the translation problems at his removal hearing and therefore has shown no violation of his due process rights. *See, e.g., Gutierrez-Chavez v. INS,*298 F.3d 824, 830 (9th Cir. 2002).

PETITION DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
SHARON KELLER PRESIDING JUDGE

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS CHERYL JOHNSON MIKE KEASLER BARBARA P. HERVEY ELSA ALCALA BERT RICHARDSON KEVIN P. YEARY DAVID NEWELL JUDGES 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS
P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 ABEL ACOSTA CLERK (512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB GENERAL COUNSEL (512) 463-1597

S UPREME C OURT B UILDING , 201 W EST 14 TH S TREET , R OOM 106, A USTIN , T EXAS 78701

W EBSITE WWW

. TXCOURTS

. GOV / CCA

. ASPX April 15, 2015

2nd Court Of Appeals Clerk Debra Spisak 401 W. Belknap, Ste 9000 Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

371st District Court Presiding Judge 401 W Belknap Fort Worth, TX 76196-7118

Debra Ann Windsor Assistant District Attorney 401 W. Belknap Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * District Clerk Tarrant County Thomas Wilder 401 W. Belknap Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Terry Barlow 1110 E. Weatherford Fort Worth, TX 76102

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

District Attorney Tarrant County Sharen Wilson 401 West Belknap Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: MILLER, CHRISTOPHER ADRIAN CCA No. PD-0038-14 COA No. 02-12-00487-CR Trial Court Case No. 1264863D

The court has issued an opinion on the above referenced cause number.

Sincerely,

_____________________________ Abel Acosta, Clerk