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

 

**Certification Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code), I, Gary L. Pittman, Chief Financial Officer of Edge PetroleumCorporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, tomy knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  November 9, 2009 | /s/ Gary L. Pittman      |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                                    | Gary L. Pittman          |
|                                    | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 17.48 Computation of amount of award. ( a ) The amount allowed for damage to or loss of any item of property may not exceed the cost of the item (either the price paid in cash or property, or the value at the time of acquisition if not acquired by purchase or exchange); and there will be no allowance for replacement cost or for appreciation in the value of the property. Subject to these limitations, the amount allowable is either: ( 1 ) The depreciated value, immediately prior to the loss or damage, of property lost or damaged beyond economical repair, less any salvage value; or
( 2 ) The reasonable cost of repairs, when property is economically repairable, provided that the cost of repairs does not exceed the amount allowable under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) Depreciation in value is determined by considering the type of article involved, its cost, its condition when damaged or lost, and the time elapsed between the date of acquisition and the date of damage or loss.
( c ) Replacement of lost or damaged property may be made in kind whenever appropriate.
§ 115.212 Request after withdrawal. ( a ) An agency that has had its interim certification or certification withdrawn, either voluntarily or by the Department, may request substantial equivalency interim certification or certification.
( b ) The request shall be filed in accordance with § 115.202.
( c ) The Assistant Secretary shall determine whether the state or local law, on its face, provides substantive rights, procedures, remedies, and judicial review procedures for alleged discriminatory housing practices that are substantially equivalent to those provided in the federal Fair Housing Act. To meet this standard, the state or local law must meet the criteria enumerated in § 115.204.
( d ) Additionally, if the agency had documented performance deficiencies that contributed to the past withdrawal, then the Department shall consider the agency's performance and any steps the agency has taken to correct performance deficiencies and to prevent them from recurring in determining whether to grant interim certification or certification. The review of the agency's performance shall include HUD conducting a performance assessment in accordance with § 115.206.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T19:09:17-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
### §5732–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5732–1 was editorially reclassified as section 11278 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge, United States

District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the

report and recommendation of the Honorable Beverly R. Stites,

United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Arkansas.

___________

No. 95-4043

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Steven J. Samples, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 8, 1996

 Filed: November 15, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steven J. Samples appeals the district court's denial of his 28

1

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Samples's double jeopardy claims are foreclosed for

the reasons set forth in United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2148-49

(1996) (holding civil forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and (7) are

neither "punishment" nor criminal for purposes of Double Jeopardy Clause),

and United States v. One 1970 36.9' Columbia Sailing Boat, 91 F.3d 1053,

1056 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding Ursery applies to forfeitures under §

881(a)(4)). Likewise, Samples's ineffective-assistance claim based on his

counsel's failure to advise him of a possible double jeopardy defense is

foreclosed. Cf. Thomas v. United States, 951 F.2d 902,
-2-

904 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (counsel not ineffective for failing to

raise meritless issues). The district court properly declined to address

the sentencing issues Samples raises in his supplemental brief. Samples

did not demonstrate cause and prejudice forgiving his failure to raise the

issues on direct appeal. See Reid v. United States, 976 F.2d 446, 448 (8th

Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 945 (1993).

Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the record, we conclude the

district court correctly dismissed Samples's petition.

We deny Samples's request for appointment of counsel on appeal.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
ex10_51.htm









Exhibit 10.51


SECOND AMENDMENT


TO THE


EMPLOYMENT AND NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT







The Sheridan Group, Inc. (the "Employer") and G. Paul Bozuwa (the "Employee") wish to amend the Employee's Employment and Non-Competition Agreement dated April 1, 2007 (the "Agreement") to (i) bring the Agreement into compliance with the requirements of Internal Revenue Code section 409A and the Treasury Regulations and other authoritative guidance issued under that section, pursuant to IRS Notice 2010-6, and (ii) provide additional severance benefits.







Accordingly, the Agreement is amended as follows:







1.  Effective September 1, 2010, a new item (E) is added to Section 6(e)(i) to read as follows:







"and (E) payment of reasonable expenses related to career transition services (outplacement) with a mutually agreed upon provider, in accordance with the Employer's outplacement schedule of benefits."







2.  Effective September 1, 2010, paragraph (ii) of Section 6(e) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:







"(ii) The Employer shall not reduce the amount payable under the provisions of Section 6(e)(i)  if the Employee accepts other employment during the Severance Period."







3.  Effective April 1, 2007, Section 10(g) – Arbitration of Disputes – is amended by deleting the sentence that was added to the end of that Section by Amendment No. 1 and by replacing it in its entirety with the following new language:







"The Employee's right to reimbursement of expenses by the Employer under this Section is available to the Employee during the Employee's lifetime.  The amount of expenses eligible for reimbursement during one calendar year shall not affect the expenses eligible for reimbursement in any other calendar year. Any reimbursement of an eligible expense shall be made to the Employee by the last day of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the expense was incurred."







4.  Effective April 1, 2007, Section 10(i) – Governing Law – is amended by adding the following new sentence to the end of that Section:







"To the extent Code section 409A applies, the terms of this Agreement shall be interpreted as necessary to comply with the requirements of Code section 409A."







In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed, effective as specified herein.








	
ATTEST/WITNESS:

	  	
THE SHERIDAN GROUP, INC.


	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	 	/s/ Dale A. Tepp	 	 	/s/ John A. Saxton
	  	  	  	  	  
	
Print Name:

	
Dale A Tepp

	  	
Print Name:

	
John A. Saxton


	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	
Date:

	
August 31, 2010


	  	  	  	  	  
	 	/s/ Dale A. Tepp	 	 
/s/ G. Paul Bozuwa


	  	  	  	
G. Paul Bozuwa


	
Print Name:

	
Dale A Tepp

	  	  	  
	  	  	  	
Date:

	
September 8, 2010
July 1, 2015

Mr. Corey Ingalls

Technical Specialist

NMotion UAS, LLC

216 North Mosley Street, #210

Wichita, KS 67202

Dear Mr. Ingalls:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 45.23(b), 61.113 (a) and (b), 91.7 (a), 91.9 (b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121,

91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405 (a), 91.407 (a)(1), 91.409 (a)(2), 91.409 (a)(2), 91.417 

(a) and (b), and Subpart H of part 21 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 17, 2015, exemption request on behalf of NMotion UAS, LLC into the 

public docket (No. FAA−2015−1239), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 275

To amend the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

Act of 1996 to allow States and localities to provide primary and preventive care to all individuals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2005

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To amend the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 to allow States and localities 

to provide primary and preventive care to all individuals.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMITTING STATES AND LOCALITIES TO PRO4 VIDE PRIMARY AND PREVENTIVE CARE TO 

5 ALL INDIVIDUALS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 411(b)(1) of the Personal 

7 Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 

8 of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1621(b)(1)) is amended by inserting 

9 ‘‘or for primary and preventive care’’ after ‘‘Act)’’. 
2

•HR 275 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) shall apply to primary and preventive care 

3 furnished before, on, or after the date of the enactment 

4 of this Act.

Æ
### §8905. Authorization of appropriations

(a) For the purpose of establishing the Task Force and developing the comprehensive plan under section 8903 of this title there is authorized to be appropriated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for fiscal year 1981 the sum of $5,000,000 to remain available until expended.

(b) Authorizations of appropriations for the nine fiscal years following the fiscal year in which the comprehensive plan is submitted in final form under section 8903(c)(3) of this title, for purposes of carrying out the comprehensive ten-year program established by section 8902(a) of this title and implementing the comprehensive plan under sections 8903 and 8904 of this title, shall be provided on an annual basis in authorization Acts hereafter enacted; but the total sum of dollars authorized for such purposes for such nine fiscal years shall not exceed $45,000,000 except as may be specifically provided by reference to this paragraph in the authorization Acts involved.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title VII, §706, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 773.)
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

November 5 , 2013

ERRATA

______________________ Appeal No. 2012

- 16 55 ,- 1656

INSITUFORM TECHNOLOG IES, INC.

AND INA ACQUISITION CORP ., Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v.

AMERIK SUPPLIES, INC

. ( formerly known as BJR Trading U.S.A., Inc.)

AND ERIK NIELSEN, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs
- Appellees,

v.

COSMIC

- SONDERMASCHINENBAU G MBH, Third Party Defendant

- Appellant.

De cided: September 23, 2013 Nonp recedential Opinion

______________________ Please make the following change:

Page 1 , change “ Northern District of Illinois ” to

“ Northern District of Georgia”

.
§ 203.502 Responsibility for servicing. ( a ) After January 10, 1994, servicing of insured mortgages must be performed by a mortgagee that is approved by HUD to service insured mortgages. The servicer must fully discharge the servicing responsibilities of the mortgagee as outlined in this part. The mortgagee shall remain fully responsible to the Secretary for proper servicing, and the actions of its servicer shall be considered to be the actions of the mortgagee. The servicer also shall be fully responsible to the Secretary for its actions as a servicer.
( b ) Whenever servicing of any mortgage is transferred from one mortgagee or servicer to another, notice of the transfer of service shall be delivered: ( 1 ) By the transferor mortgagee or servicer to the mortgagor. The notification shall be delivered not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer and shall contain the information required in § 3500.21(e)(2) of this title; and
( 2 ) By the transferee mortgagee or servicer: ( i ) *To the mortgagor.* The notification shall be delivered not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer and shall contain the information required in § 3500.21(e)(2) of this title; and
( ii ) *To the Secretary.* This notification shall be delivered within 15 days of the transfer, in a format prescribed by the Secretary.
[36 FR 24508, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 57 FR 47974, Oct. 20, 1992; 57 FR 58349, Dec. 9, 1992; 59 FR 65448, Dec. 19, 1994; 61 FR 36266, July 9, 1996]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

BENJAMIN TOLKOFF (NYBN 4294443)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7296

Fax: (415) 436-7234

Email: Benjamin.Tolkoff@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLAUDINA HOLCOMB,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-0819 MMC

STIPULATION REQUESTING

ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE MOTIONS

IN LIMINE, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

The parties stipulate as follows:

1. At the last appearance before the Court, the Court ordered that motions in limine

be submitted on January 12, 2010.

2. On January 5, 2010, the parties met with the Honorable Joseph C. Spero and

conducted a settlement conference.

3. The parties are currently engaged in an effort to resolve this matter short of trial

and jointly request that the submission date for motions in limine be extended by two days to

January 14, 2010, and that all other dates set by the Court remain in effect.

Case 3:09-cr-00819-MMC Document 16 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

 /s/

DATED: January 11, 2010 _______________________________

DANIEL BLANK

Attorney for Defendant

/s/

DATED: January 11, 2010 _______________________________

BENJAMIN TOLKOFF

Assistant United States Attorney

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation and for good cause shown, the Court hereby extends the date for

submission of motions in limine to January 14, 2010. All other dates set by the Court are to

remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________ _______________________________

HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

January 12, 2010

Case 3:09-cr-00819-MMC Document 16 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 203.600 Mortgage collection action.

Subject to the requirements of this subpart, mortgagees shall take prompt action to collect amounts due from mortgagors to minimize the number of accounts in a delinquent or default status. Collection techniques must be adapted to individual differences in mortgagors and take account of the circumstances peculiar to each mortgagor.
### §5119c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5119c was editorially reclassified as section 40104 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY ALAN ELLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C09-01094 TEH

ORDER RE HEARING ON

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

The Court is in receipt of the motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Troy Alan

Eller (“Mr. Eller”), filed by Steven B. Taxman, Wesley Wakeford, and John H. Scarpino, of

Taxman Wakeford, 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 660, San Francisco, CA 94104

(collectively, “Counsel”), which is noticed for hearing on July 26, 2010. Counsel have

informed the Court that they mailed a letter to Mr. Eller notifying him of the time, date, and

location of the motion hearing and the reasons they believe such a motion is necessary. 

Counsel were also to serve a copy of the motion on Mr. Eller.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Mr. Eller shall appear in person at the hearing on

Counsel’s motion to withdraw on Monday, July 26, 2010, at 10:00am, in Courtroom 12, on

the 19th Floor, U.S. District Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California

94102. Mr. Eller is advised that he will need a photo ID, such as a driver’s license or

passport, to enter the courthouse. Mr. Eller shall be prepared to discuss whether he plans to

continue litigating this matter by representing himself or by obtaining new counsel. If Mr.

Eller plans to obtain new counsel, he shall apprise the Court of what prospective counsel he

has approached.

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-01094-TEH Document 80 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Mr. Eller at the address on 

file with the Court:

Troy Alan Eller

933 Edwards Avenue, Apt. 11

Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Counsel shall also telephone Mr. Eller no later than Monday, July 19, 2010, to communicate

the contents of this Order.

Counsel shall also appear at the July 26 hearing, unless a substitution of counsel has

been properly filed with this Court prior to the hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/16/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:09-cv-01094-TEH Document 80 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 8, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131538 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

LINSEY PORTER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131538 

 COA: 263470 

Wayne CC: 04-419307-AA

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK,

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 30, 2006 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

MARKMAN, J., concurs and states as follows: 

I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, albeit for a different reason. I 

find it unnecessary to address whether § 21(1)(q) of the Local Government Fiscal 

Responsibility Act, MCL 141.1221(1)(q), has retroactive effect because I believe that the 

then-applicable provisions of § 21 of the act, in conjunction with § 5c(b) of the Home 

Rule City Act, MCL 117.5c(b), afforded the emergency financial manager the authority 

to undertake the action that is in dispute in this case. 

p1205 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 8, 2006 

Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 2, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128602 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

MICHELLE GOWER, Personal Maura D. Corrigan 

Representative of the Estate of Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Edwin Gower, Deceased, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 128602 

 COA: 257970 

Ingham CC: 03-000299-NH

JAMES HARKEMA, M.D., 

CHRISTOPHER SEIP, M.D., 

BENJAMIN B. MOSHER, M.D., 

CHRISTOPHER ABOOD, M.D.,

TONIA REINCKE, PA-C,

SPARROW HOSPITAL, 

GREG A. HOWELLS, M.D.,

KEITH BLUM, D.O.,

CHRISTINA MASER OHM, M.D., 

KEVIN KRAUSE, M.D., 

GREGORY NOWINSKI, M.D.,

JULIE STEIN, M.D., and

WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, 

ROYAL OAK,

 Defendants, 

and 

GEORGE ARTHUR WILLIAMS, M.D., 

and ASSOCIATED RETINAL 

CONSULTANTS, P.C., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2005 order 

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

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

l1026 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 2, 2005 

Clerk