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

                                 CORRESPONDENCE
                      Certification Pursuant to 906 by CFO

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1250,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Surgical Safety Products, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Paul
Gray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully compiles with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                                    /s/ R. Paul Gray
                                                    R. Paul Gray

                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    Surgical Safety Products, Inc.
May 20, 2003
```
# C_2013344EN.01001702.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Martin y Paz Diffusion SA v David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV

(Case C-661/11) (1)

1

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5 - Consent on the part of the proprietor of a trade mark to the use, by a third party, of a sign which is identical with that mark - Consent given in a situation where there is shared use - Possibility for that proprietor to put an end to the shared use and regain the exclusive use of its mark)

2013/C 344/28

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin y Paz Diffusion SA

Applicant:

Defendants: David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Proprietor’s rights over a registered mark where there is an extended period of sharing the use of the mark with a third party in a form of co-ownership for part of the goods covered and irrevocable consent given by the proprietor to that third party to use of that mark — National rule prohibiting the proprietor of the mark from making wrongful or abusive use of its right — Prohibition of use of the mark by the proprietor to the detriment of the third party — Penalty

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, precludes a proprietor of trade marks which, in a situation where there has been use shared with a third party, had consented to the use by that third party of signs which are identical to its marks in respect of certain goods in classes for which those marks are registered and which no longer consents to that use, from being deprived of any possibility of asserting the exclusive right conferred upon it by those marks against that third party and of itself exercising that exclusive right in respect of goods which are identical to those of that third party.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

1

---
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2347

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Randy Dabney, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2007

Filed: December 1, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Randy Dabney challenges the district court’s determination that his prior

Missouri conviction for stealing a truck is a “violent felony” within the meaning of

18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We review de novo the district court’s determination that a prior

conviction is a qualifying “violent felony.” See United States v. Davidson, 527 F.3d

703, 707 (8th Cir. 2008). 

While this case was pending on appeal, the United States Supreme Court issued

its decision in Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581, 1583, 1585-86 (2008) (to be

“violent felony” under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), crime must be “roughly similar, in kind as

well as in degree of risk posed,” to examples listed in statute; listed crimes all
-2-

typically involve purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct). Following Begay, we

re-examined whether auto theft should be considered a “crime of violence.” See

United States v. Williams, 537 F.3d 969, 971, 973-76 (8th Cir. 2008) (this court has

never recognized distinction between “crime of violence” and “violent felony”;

analyzing Missouri auto-theft law in light of Begay). After noting that the relevant

Missouri statute sets forth three distinct offenses (auto theft without consent, auto theft

by deceit, and auto theft by coercion), see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.030, we concluded

that only auto theft by coercion satisfied Begay’s requirements and qualified as a

“crime of violence,” see Williams, 537 F.3d at 973-976. Therefore, Dabney’s prior

conviction for stealing a truck is a “violent felony” only if he committed the offense

of auto theft by coercion.

In determining whether Dabney committed auto theft by coercion, our inquiry

is restricted to examining a “limited universe of judicial documents.” See United

States v. Reliford, 471 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2006) (when offense is eligible for

“violent felony” classification but state criminal statute is over-inclusive--that is,

elements of offense also encompass conduct that does not constitute “violent felony”-

-court must consider facts underlying conviction; inquiry is conducted by examining

limited universe of judicial documents), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2248 (2007); see also

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005) (inquiry is limited to terms of

charging document, terms of plea agreement or transcript of colloquy, or some

comparable judicial record of this information). 

Because we cannot determine from the present record whether Dabney

committed auto theft by coercion, we vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing. See Williams, 537 F.3d at 973 (instructing district court, after

considering materials permissible under Shepard, to determine which auto-theft

offense appellant committed).

______________________________
§ 376.104 Functions. The functions of the Commission include: ( a ) All functions vested in the Commission under the DOE Act;
( b ) All functions delegated to the Commission by the Secretary of Energy in accordance with the DOE Act; and
( c ) All functions vested in the Commission by statute.
##### 



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
  (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.
 August 10, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Rocco B. CommissoRocco B. CommissoChairman and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Mark E. StephanMark E. StephanExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
§ 1308.35 Small claims procedure. ( a ) The Contractor may elect to have the appeal processed under this section, if the amount in dispute is $10,000 or less. This amount shall be determined by totalling the amounts claimed by TVA and Contractor.
( b ) Appeals under this section shall be decided, whenever possible, within 120 days after the Hearing Officer receives written notice that the Contractor has elected to proceed under this section. Such election may be made a part of the notice of appeal.
( c ) An appeal under this section shall be determined on the basis of the record on appeal and those documents in the appeal file identified in § 1308.27(b)(1), (2), and (3). Other documents may be considered in the determination of the appeal as may be stipulated to by the parties, or as the Hearing Officer may order on motion by a party. No evidentiary hearing shall be held unless the Hearing Officer directs testimony on a particular issue. Discovery and other prehearing procedures may be conducted under such time periods as the Hearing Officer may set to meet the 120-day period, and the Hearing Officer may reserve up to 30 days to prepare a decision. Upon request by either party, the Hearing Officer shall hear oral argument after the record is closed, and may direct oral argument on specified issues if the parties do not request it.
( d ) The Hearing Officer's decision under this section will be short and contain only summary findings of fact and conclusions of law. The decision may, at the Hearing Officer's discretion, be rendered orally at the conclusion of any oral argument held. In such case, the Hearing Officer will promptly furnish the parties a typed copy of the decision, which shall constitute the final decision.
( e ) Decisions under this section shall be final and conclusive except for fraud, and shall have no value as precedent for future appeals.
**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 report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Mike Heather, 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, 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.

 
| February 14,   2011 | **/**s**/**MIKE HEATHER     |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------|
| ** **               | **Mike Heather**            |
| ** **               | **Chief Financial Officer** |

 

----
# C_2011282EN.01002003.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/20

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Fapricela v Commission

(Case T-398/10 R)

(Application for interim measures - Competition - Decision of the Commission imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application to suspend operation - Financial damage - Lack of exceptional circumstances - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 282/41

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (Ançã, Portugal) (represented by: M. Gorjão-Henriques and S. Roux, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Bottka, agents, assisted by M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel), inter alia in so far as it imposes the obligation to set up a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
### §233. Penalty for violations

Any person, firm, or corporation, or association who shall knowingly pack or cause to be packed apples in barrels, or who shall knowingly sell or offer for sale such barrels in violation of the provisions of this Act shall be liable to a penalty of $1 and costs for each such barrel so sold or offered for sale, to be recovered at the suit of the United States in any court of the United States having jurisdiction.

(Aug. 3, 1912, ch. 273, §6, 37 Stat. 251.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act Aug. 3, 1912, ch. 273, §§1–6, 37 Stat. 250, 251, which is classified to sections 231 to 233 of this title and to sections 20 to 23 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

#### Codification

This section is also set out as section 23 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.
#### § 158.1 Notice to audited person.

An audit conducted by the Commission's staff under authority of the Natural Gas Act may result in a notice of deficiency or audit report or similar document containing a finding or findings that the audited person has not complied with a requirement of the Commission with respect to, but not limited to, the following: A filed tariff or tariffs, contracts, data, records, accounts, books, communications or papers relevant to the audit of the audited person; matters under the Standards of Conduct or the Code of Conduct; and the activities or operations of the audited person. The notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document may also contain one or more proposed remedies that address findings of noncompliance. Where such findings, with or without proposed remedies, appear in a notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document, such document shall be provided to the audited person, and the finding or findings, and any proposed remedies, shall be noted and explained. The audited person shall timely indicate in a written response any and all findings or proposed remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person disagrees. The audited person shall have 15 days from the date it is sent the notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document to provide a written response to the audit staff indicating any and all findings or proposed remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person disagrees, and such further time as the audit staff may provide in writing to the audited person at the time the document is sent to the audited person. The audited person may move the Commission for additional time to provide a written response to the audit staff and such motion shall be granted for good cause shown. Any initial order that the Commission subsequently may issue with respect to the notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document shall note, but not address on the merits, the finding or findings, or the proposed remedy or remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person disagreed. The Commission shall provide the audited person 30 days to respond to the initial Commission order concerning a notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document with respect to the finding or findings or any proposed remedy or remedies, or both, in any combination, with which it disagreed.

[Order 675-A, 71 FR 29784, May 24, 2006]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the second
quarter 10-QSB for the fiscal year ending August 31, 1999 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000835412
<NAME> TMS, INC>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                         347,447
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,550,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                   179,791
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,395,231
<PP&E>                                       3,025,373
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,490,763
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,655,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          676,077
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       686,565
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,925,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,655,039
<SALES>                                      1,127,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,127,316
<CGS>                                          694,630
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,790,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,095,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                28,652
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (667,620)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (955)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (666,665)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (666,665)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

777 Old Saw Mill River Road

Tarrytown, NY 10591

914-789-2800

www.progenics.com 
 
 th
  Tarrytown, NY, San Francisco, CA, January 30, 2014 A Phase 2 trial of Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen Antibody Drug Conjugate (PSMA ADC) in Taxane-Refractory Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC)
 
 A discussion with CEO Mark Baker and Senior Management of these findings will be webcast at 7:00 PM PST/10 PM EST on Thursday, January 30. .
 
 TM ® www.progenics.com
 Contact:
Kathleen Fredriksen

Corporate Development

(914) 789-2871

kfredriksen@progenics.com  Editors Note
BEFORE THEY MAKE PLANS 

WITH FRIENDS...

Establish some family rules for social and extracurricular

activities.

Young people don’t always have all the facts when it comes to 

alcohol and other drugs. Talk with your children about the risks of 

underage drinking and substance use, and be clear and consistent 

about your expectations. For tips on how—and when—to begin the 

conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-056
### §70k. Application of other laws

The provisions of this subchapter shall be held to be in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any other Act of the United States.

(Pub. L. 85–897, §14, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1724.)
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 73 FR 32429, June 9, 2008.

§ 21.14 Request for reconsideration. ( a ) The protester, any intervenor, and any Federal agency involved in the protest may request reconsideration of a bid protest decision. GAO will not consider a request for reconsideration that does not contain a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is deemed warranted, specifying any errors of law made or information not previously considered.
( b ) A request for reconsideration of a bid protest decision shall be filed not later than 10 days after the basis for reconsideration is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier.
( c ) GAO will summarily dismiss any request for reconsideration that fails to state a valid basis for reconsideration or is untimely. To obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show that GAO's prior decision contains errors of either fact or law, or must present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the decision; GAO will not consider a request for reconsideration based on repetition of arguments previously raised.
[61 FR 39042, July 26, 1996, as amended at 73 FR 32430, June 9, 2008; 83 FR 13825, Apr. 2, 2018]
### §4306. Application of section 4303 protections to production of products, processes, and services

Notwithstanding sections 4303 and 4305 of this title, the protections of section 4303 of this title shall not apply with respect to a joint venture's production of a product, process, or service, as referred to in section 4301(a)(6)(D) of this title, unless—

(1) the principal facilities for such production are located in the United States or its territories, and

(2) each person who controls any party to such venture (including such party itself) is a United States person, or a foreign person from a country whose law accords antitrust treatment no less favorable to United States persons than to such country's domestic persons with respect to participation in joint ventures for production.

(Pub. L. 98–462, §7, as added Pub. L. 103–42, §3(g), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 119.)
ex10-8.htm


Exhibit 10.8

 

BANK OF COMMERCE HOLDINGS

NOTICE OF EXERCISE OF STOCK OPTION BY OPTIONEE

 

Pursuant to the 2010 Equity Plan and the Option Agreement dated [INSERT], between Bank of Commerce Holdings, a California corporation (the “Company”), and me, [INSERT], I hereby elect to purchase [INSERT] shares of the common stock of the Company (the “Shares”), at the option price of $[INSERT] per share. My certified or cashiers check (or another form of immediately available funds) in the amount of $[INSERT] is enclosed. The shares are to be [issued in one certificate(s) and registered in the name(s) of INSERT].

 

I certify that my tax identification number is: [INSERT]

 

I hereby agree to be bound by all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Bank of Commerce Holdings 2010 Equity Plan Agreement. 

 

 

	
Dated:
	
[INSERT]
	 	  
	  	  	 	  
	
COMPANY
	  	 	
BANK OF COMMERCE HOLDINGS

	  	  	 	
a California corporation

	  	  	 	  
	  	
By:
	 	  
	  	
Print Name:
	 	
Samuel D. Jimenez

	  	
Title:
	 	
EVP / Chief Operating Officer

	  	  	 	  
	
GRANTEE
	
By:
	 	  
	  	
Address:
	 	
[INSERT]

	  	  	 	
[INSERT]