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

Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to
U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2007 of Palatin
Technologies, Inc. (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.

|Dated:  September 12, 2007 | /s/ Stephen T. WillsStephen T. WillsExecutive Vice President
     and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|-------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2139 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 121

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2139

                          [Report No. 103-215]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend title 44, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for 
      the National Historical Publications and Records Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 4, 1993

   Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
                    Union, and ordered to be printed

                                                 Union Calendar No. 121
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2139

                          [Report No. 103-215]

To amend title 44, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for 
      the National Historical Publications and Records Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 1993

 Mr. Condit (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Thomas of Wyoming, and Mr. 
    Sharp) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Government Operations

                             August 4, 1993

  Additional sponsors: Mr. Foglietta, Mr. Payne of Virginia, and Ms. 
                               Slaughter

                             August 4, 1993

   Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
                    Union, and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 44, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for 
      the National Historical Publications and Records Commission.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2504(f) of 
title 44, United States Code is amended by striking ``(f)(1)'' and all 
that follows through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting the 
following:
    ``(f)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
Historical Publications and Records Commission such amounts as may be 
necessary to carry out this chapter for each of fiscal years 1994, 
1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.''.
```
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 American Tax Credit Properties L.P. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
Hussey, Chief Financial Officer of Richman Tax Credit Properties Inc., general
partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties L.P., general partner of the
Registrant, 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;
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/James HusseyJames
      HusseyChief
      Financial Officer of Richman TaxCredit
      Properties Inc., general partner ofRichman
      Tax Credit Properties L.P., generalpartner of the RegistrantAugust
      4, 2009
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3743-19

CRAIG WATTS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ESSEX COUNTY SHERIFF'S

OFFICE and 64 LLEWELLYN, 

LLC, a New Jersey corporation,

Defendants-Respondents.

____________________________

Submitted September 16, 2021 – Decided September 30, 2021

Before Judges Gooden Brown and Gummer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-3655-19. 

Craig Watts, appellant pro se. 

Courtney M. Gaccione, Essex County Counsel, 

attorney for respondent Essex County Sheriff's Office 

(Alan Ruddy, Assistant County Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3743-19

In this latest challenge by plaintiff of defendant Essex County Sheriff's 

Office's post-foreclosure sale of property formerly owned by plaintiff to 

defendant 64 Llewellyn, LLC, plaintiff appeals orders granting defendants'

motions to dismiss the complaint, denying plaintiff's cross-motion for summary 

judgment, and denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. We affirm the 

orders granting defendants' motions to dismiss and denying plaintiff's summaryjudgment motion substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Stephen L. 

Petrillo's comprehensive, written decision. We affirm the order denying 

plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because we see no abuse of discretion in 

that decision. See Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021).

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT (11)




               STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 Three Months Ended September 30,          
                            -----------------------------------------------
                                   1996                     1995              
                            ----------------------    ---------------------
                                         Fully                       Fully
                            Primary     Diluted         Primary     Diluted        
                            -------     -------         -------     -------
                                    (In thousands, except per share)
<S>                       <C>         <C>             <C>           <C>
Net income                 ($1,085)    ($1,085)         $3,058       $3,058           
                            ======      ======          ======       ======                           
Average share
  Common                     7,576       7,576           7,424        7,424
  Common equivalents           543         627             397          457                  
                            ------      ------          ------       ------
   Total                     8,119       8,203           7,821        7,881
                            ======      ======          ======       ======

Earnings per common share  ($ 0.13)    ($ 0.13)         $ 0.39       $ 0.39
                            ======      ======          ======       ======
</TABLE>





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                Nine Months Ended September 30,       
                          ---------------------------------------------
                                 1996                        1995 
                          ----------------------    -------------------
                                        Fully                    Fully
                          Primary       Diluted     Primary     Diluted     
                          -------      --------     -------     -------  
                                 (In thousands, except per share)


<S>                      <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>
Net income                $ 5,764      $ 5,764      $ 7,071     $ 7,071
                          =======      =======      =======     =======
Average shares
  Common                    7,540        7,540        7,422       7,422
  Common equivalents          518          627          224         457
                          -------      -------      -------     -------
  Total                     8,058        8,167        7,646       7,879
                          =======      =======      =======     =======

Earnings per common share $  0.72      $  0.71      $  0.92     $  0.90
                          =======      =======      =======     =======
</TABLE>





Common share equivalents assume exercise of stock options and warrants, if
dilutive.
#### Monica Consuelo Constantino HUIRACHE, a.k.a. Consuelo Constantino Huirache, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72421.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 6, 2011.

Monica Consuelo Constantino Huirache, El Monte, CA, pro se.

Lauren E. Fascett, David V. Bernal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Cac-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*22MEMORANDUM **

Monica Consuelo Constantino Huirache, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The agency concluded that Constantino Huirache was ineligible for cancellation of removal because her conviction under Cal.Penal Code § 273a(b) was categorically a “crime of child abuse” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)®. We subsequently held that a conviction under section 273a(b) is *not*categorically a crime of child abuse. *See Fregozo v. Holder,*576 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir.2009). We therefore remand for application of the modified categorical analysis in light of the definition of “child abuse” set forth in *Matter of Velazquez-Herrera,*24 I. & N. Dec. 503 (BIA 2008). *See id.*at 1040.

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Constantino Huirache’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2431 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2431

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the Federal building in Jacksonville, Florida, as the 
                ``Charles E. Bennett Federal Building''.
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2431

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the Federal building in Jacksonville, Florida, as the 
                ``Charles E. Bennett Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building at 400 Bay Street in Jacksonville, Florida, is 
designated as the ``Charles E. Bennett Federal Building''. If a new 
Federal building is built in Jacksonville, Florida, to replace the 
building at 400 Bay Street, the new Federal building shall be 
designated as the ``Charles E. Bennett Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any reference in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 is deemed to be a reference to the ``Charles E. Bennett 
Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 1993.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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 American Tax Credit Properties L.P. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
Hussey, Chief Financial Officer of Richman Tax Credit Properties Inc., general
partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties L.P., general partner of the
Registrant, 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;
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/James HusseyJames
      HusseyChief
      Financial Officer of Richman TaxCredit
      Properties Inc., general partner ofRichman
      Tax Credit Properties L.P., generalpartner
      of the RegistrantJuly
      29, 2010
# United States Court of Appeals **For the First Circuit**

No. 00-1837 No. 00-1910 MERRILL W. KEARNEY, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. J.P. KING AUCTION COMPANY, INC.,

J. CRAIG KING, Defendants, Appellees.
ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on September 13, 2001 is amended as follows: Page 28, line 16 of footnote 19: replace "in such AS way as to" with "in such A way as to"
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2014

EUGENE GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus WILLIAM S. COHEN, Honorable, Secretary Department of Defense; U. S. DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY; RICHARD E. BEALE, Executive Director, in his individual and official capacity; CROSBY JOHNSON, Director of Contracts, in his individual and official capacity; VICKIE ARCHILLETTI, Manager, Contracts Business Unit, in her individual and official capacity; LARRY HAHN, Director, Contract Equipment Division, in his individual and official capacity; HAROLD WHITE, Supervisor, Contract Equipment Branch, in his individual and official capacity; ARAM DARAKAJUIAN, Supervisor, Personnel Relations Specialist, in his individual and official capacity; PHIL KOREN, General Counsel, in his individual and official capacity; JOHN SCHERE, II, General Counsel, in his individual and official capacity; KATHY HAWTHORNE, Contract Specialist, in her individual and official capacity; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Defendants - Appellees, and MEDICAL COLLEGE OF VIRGINIA; JOEL SILVERMAN, Doctor, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-99-255-3)- 2 - Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Gray, Appellant Pro Se. M. Hannah Lauck, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Eugene Gray appeals the district court’s order denying as untimely his motion to reconsider a prior order dismissing his civil action. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Gray’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we deny Gray’s motion for a stay and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gray v. Cohen , No. CA-99-255-3 (E.D. Va. June 12, 2003). 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
#### DANIEL AND CONGETTA DOWD, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Submitted April 16, 1996

Decided April 30, 1996.

*721Before Judges BAIME and KIMMELMAN.

*Michael F. Chiarella,*attorney for appellants.

*Bongiovanni & Pavliv,*attorneys for respondent *(Ernest Bon-giovanni,*on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court denying their request for farmland assessment for the 1993 tax year. We agree that plaintiffs’ property did not qualify for farmland assessment.

Plaintiffs’ property consists of approximately twelve acres, ten acres of which is divided into three horse pastures, one acre of which is devoted to the planting and raising of evergreen seedlings, and their home is located on the remaining portion.

Three to four horses, on the average, are pastured by their owners on plaintiffs’ property for grazing purposes at the rate of $75 per month per horse. In 1992, the grazing operation yielded about $2300 per year, and the sale of evergreen seedlings yielded about $650.

*N.J.S.A.*54:4-23.3 provides that land is “deemed to be in agricultural use when devoted to the production for sale of plants and animals useful to man ... including the breeding and grazing of any or all of [the] animals.” Grazing alone without breeding does not satisfy the statute. The sale of animals must also take place. Plaintiffs do not meet these key elements.

*N.J.S.A.*54:4-23.5 provides that land “five acres in area” shall be deemed devoted to agricultural or horticultural use when the gross sales of such products produced thereon average $500 per year for two years next preceding the tax year in issue. Plaintiffs do gross in excess of $500 per year from the sale of evergreen seedlings, but they do not devote five acres in area for that purpose.

*722Accordingly, we affirm the Tax Court judgment of June 16, 1995, for the reasons expressed by Judge Hamill in her very thorough and well-written opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000912276
<NAME>  BRYLANE CAPITAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-01-1997
<CASH>                                           3,285
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,975
<INVENTORY>                                    168,821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               274,227
<PP&E>                                         122,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 705,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          192,499
<BONDS>                                        401,362
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   705,234
<SALES>                                        705,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               705,353
<CGS>                                          346,572
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  348,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               296,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,026
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                       315
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,408
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,456
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,952
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Form 8810

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

Corporate Passive Activity Loss and Credit Limitations

▶ Attach to your tax return (personal service and closely held corporations only).

▶ Information about Form 8810 and its separate instructions is at www.irs.gov/form8810.

OMB No. 1545-0123

2016

Name Employer identification number

Part I 2016 Passive Activity Loss

Caution: See the instructions and complete Worksheets 1 and 2 before completing Part I.

1a Current year income (from Worksheet 2, column (a)) . . 1a

b Current year deductions and losses (from Worksheet 2, 

column (b)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1b ( )

c Prior year unallowed losses (from Worksheet 2, column (c)) 1c ( )

d Combine lines 1a, 1b, and 1c. If the result is net income or zero, see instructions . 1d

2 Closely held corporations enter net active income and see instructions. Personal 

service corporations enter -0- on this line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

3 Unallowed passive activity deductions and losses. Combine lines 1d and 2. If the

result is net income or zero, see the instructions for lines 1d and 3. Otherwise, go to

line 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

4 Total deductions and losses allowed. Add the income, if any, on lines 1a and 2 and 

enter the result (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Part II 2016 Passive Activity Credits

Caution: See the instructions and complete Worksheet 5 before completing Part II.

5a Current year credits (from Worksheet 5, column (a)) . . 5a

b Prior year unallowed credits (from Worksheet 5, column (b)) 5b

6 Add lines 5a and 5b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

7 Enter the tax attributable to net passive income and net active income. See instructions 7 

8 Unallowed passive activity credit. Subtract line 7 from line 6. If the result is zero or 

less, enter -0- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

9 Allowed passive activity credit. Subtract line 8 from line 6. See instructions . . . 9 

Part III Election To Increase Basis of Credit Property

10 If the corporation disposed of its entire interest in a passive activity or former passive activity in a fully 

taxable transaction, and the corporation elects to increase the basis of credit property used in that activity 

by the unallowed credit that reduced the property’s basis, check this box. See instructions . . . . . ▶

11 Name of passive activity disposed of ▶

12 Description of the credit property for which the election is being made ▶

13 Amount of unallowed credit that reduced the property’s basis . . . . . . ▶ $

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 10356T Form 8810 (2016)