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





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SS.1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of IR BioSciences Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John
Fermanis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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 Company.




IR
      BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.Date: March
      31, 2008
            By:
            /s/ John N.
      FermanisJohn
      N. FermanisChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, an other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
97- 2648.

#### Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Okocha.

Reported at 83 Ohio St.3d 3, 697 N.E.2d 594. On motion for reconsideration and motion to strike motion for reconsideration: Motions denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

This Document Relates To All Actions

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:19-md-2885

Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

ORDER

After consideration of Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Authorize Disclosure 

of Military Records, Plaintiffs’ Motion is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11), this Court hereby orders the disclosure of the information 

contained in Plaintiffs’ August 8, 2019, Touhy requests as it pertains to the individual 

active duty service members identified in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits “A1 through A4.”

SO ORDERED on this ___ day of January, 2023.

_________________________

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3652-3 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 1
#### The State ex rel. BF Goodrich Company, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel BF Goodrich Co. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 337.]

(No. 97-2487

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Elizabeth T. Smith*and *Randall W. Mikes,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Mary Ann O. Rini,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

*Barkan & Neff*and *Robert E. DeRose,*for appellee Wanetta Hamilton.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 2 2

- 2487 LT Case No. 20 16

- C A

- 016 914

- X

_____________________________
H ERITAGE P ROPERTY AND C ASUALTY I NSURANCE C OMPANY , Appellant,

v.

P AMELA M ILES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County

. David Dugan , Judge

. Daniel M. Schwarz, and Kara Rockenbach Link, of Link & Rockenbach, PA, West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Matthew Struble, of Struble, P.A., Indialantic, for Appellee.

October 3, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.

M AKAR , J AY , and S OUD , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barsun Boone, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on December 7, 1977, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Bloom, Markewich, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302**I, Keith R. Schroeder, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orchids Paper Products Company (the“Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [reserved](c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 14, 2007 /s/ Keith R. Schroeder   Keith R. Schroeder        Chief Financial Officer  
-32-
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.12


Base Salaries. The Board of Directors of the Company approved the Compensation
Committee's recommended base salaries for the executive officers listed below
(the "Named Executive Officers") in the amounts indicated, effective January 1,
2005.


<Table>
<S>                                            <C>
                                               Base Salary         Last Salary
Name                                              Amount(1)        Increase Date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank C. Stipes, Esq.                            $ 297,500    November 19, 2001
Freddy Maldonado                                   255,000    September 24, 2001
Pedro R. Dominguez                                 162,000    September 24, 2001
Ricardo Hernandez, CPA                             170,000    September 24, 2001
Miguel Vazquez                                     250,000    June 1, 2001

</Table>

Base salaries for each Named Executive Officer are reviewed by the Compensation
Committee following the 18-month anniversary of such Named Executive Officer
start date with the Company, with the exception of the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, Mr. Frank C. Stipes, whose compensation is reviewed annually.


Annual Incentive Awards. The Board of Directors of the Company approved the
Compensation Committee's recommended annual incentive awards for 2004, payable
in cash, to the Named Executive Officers as follows:


<Table>
<S>                                        <C>
                                           Annual Incentive
Name                                            Award
-----------------------------------------------------------
Frank C. Stipes, Esq.                          $1,824,792
Freddy Maldonado                                  921,250
Pedro R. Dominguez                                613,500
Ricardo Hernandez, CPA                            514,167
Miguel Vazquez                                    720,833
</Table>

Annual incentive awards include a Christmas bonus that is granted under Puerto
Rico legislation. The Company has normally granted one month of salary as a
Christmas bonus.

The Company will provide additional information regarding the compensation of
the Named Executive Officers in its Proxy Statement for the 2005 Annual Meeting
of Shareholders.

---------------------------------------
(1) Does not include (i) perquisites and other personal benefits, including an
    allowance for business and entertainment expenses, which, in the aggregate,
    do not exceed the lesser of $50,000 or 10% of the total salary and bonus
    reported for the Named Executive officer, or (ii) cash payments in respect
    of accrued and unused vacation time.
exhibit 10(d)




Exhibit
10(d)




AMENDMENT

TO

EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

 

This
Amendment to Employment Agreement is entered into effective as of the
11th day of
May, 2001, by and between TXU Corp., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), and T.
L. Baker, an individual (“Employee”).

 

WHEREAS,
the Company and Employee entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as
of July 1, 2000 (“Employment Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS,
the parties now desire to amend the Employment Agreement to extend the Term
thereof by one (1) year such that the Term shall expire on June 30,
2004.

 

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth herein and in the
Employment Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as
follows:

 


	 	
      1.
	
      Extension
      of Term.
      Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the
      date “June 30, 2003” with the date “June 30, 2004”, and, as amended, said
      Section 2 shall be and read in full as
follows:




 

“2.
Term: This
Employment Agreement shall commence as of the date first set forth above and,
unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions hereof, shall expire on
June 30, 2004 (“Term”).”

 


	 	
      2.
	
      Continued
      Effectiveness of Employment Agreement.
      Except as expressly amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain
      in full force and effect.




 


	 	
      3.
	
      Governing
      Law.
      This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
      laws of the State of Texas.




 

Executed
effective as of the 11th day of May, 2001.

 

TXU
CORP.       EMPLOYEE:

 

By:_/s/
Erle
Nye                        
    /s/  T.
L.
Baker                          

Erle Nye,
Chairman of the Board     T. L.
Baker 

and Chief
Executive
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2240 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow deductions and 

credits relating to expenditures in connection with marijuana sales conducted in compliance with State law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2013 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. POLIS, Mr. SMITH

of Washington, Mr. FARR, Mr. COHEN, Mr. PERLMUTTER, and Ms. LEE

of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow deductions and credits relating to expenditures in connection 

with marijuana sales conducted in compliance with State 

law. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Tax 

5 Equity Act of 2013’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2240 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS RELAT2 ING TO EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION 

3 WITH MARIJUANA SALES CONDUCTED IN 

4 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 280E of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before the pe7 riod at the end the following: ‘‘, unless such trade or busi8 ness consists of marijuana sales conducted in compliance 

9 with State law’’. 

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

11 this section shall apply with respect to taxable years end12 ing after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00272-CR

Christina Marie Perry, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR20958, HONORABLE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In July 2004, appellant Christina Marie Perry pleaded guilty to burglary of a

habitation, was adjudged guilty, and sentenced to ten years in prison. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 30.02 (West 2003). Pursuant to a plea bargain, the district court suspended imposition of sentence

and placed appellant on community supervision. She now appeals from the court’s April 2008

order revoking supervision and imposing sentence.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting

brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684

(Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous
2

v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and

was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief

has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: October 16, 2008

Do Not Publish
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:99CR29 LAC

JEAN CLAUDE JONASSAINT

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MAY 13, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on5/12/08 Doc.# 211

RESPONSES:

BY GOVERNMENT on5/16/08 Doc.# 212

OBJECTION BY DEFT PRO SE on5/30/08 Doc.# 214

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 16

th day of

June, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) At sentencing, the defendant was held accountable for 163.36 kilograms of

cocaine base which resulted in a base offense level of 38. Pursuant to

Amendments 706, 711 and 715 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Drug Quantity Table

at §2D1.1 assigns a base offense level of 38 for 4.5 kilograms or more of cocaine

base. Since the defendant’s base offense level is unchanged, he is not eligible

for any reduction in his sentence of imprisonment pursuant to Amendments 706, 711

and 715. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:99-cr-00029-LC-MD Document 221 Filed 06/16/08 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8071
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY EARL DAVIS, a/k/a Black, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:99-cr-00027-H) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 20, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter A. Schmidlin III, ANDERSON, JONES & GENGO, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* Davis was accorded the benefit of Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988), as September 15, 2005 was the date he certified he gave his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Timothy Earl Davis seeks to appeal his sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court ent ered an amended judgment on December 6, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on September 15, 2005. *Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Davis’ motion to strike counsel’s appellate brief. 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.

DISMISSED
#### § 29.2282 Mixed color or variegated (M).

Distinctly different colors of the type mingled together, or any leaf of which 20 percent or more of its surface is off brown, grayish, mottled, or bleached and does not blend with the normal colors of the type or group. (See Rule 17, § 29.2408.)
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

WILLIE BUD REED, JR,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Motion for Reconsideration by Defendant, regarding

the Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 1306. Mr. Reed apparently disagrees with this

Court denying his Motion for Reconsideration, and asks this Court to re-consider its decision not

to re-consider. Defendant’s arguments have not changed in the intervening two weeks, and

neither have the facts, the analysis, or the conclusion the law compels. Motion DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of December, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
2005-2363.

#### Shay v. Shay.

Fulton App. No. F-05-008, 2005-Ohio-5874. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 1511, 2006-Ohio-1329, 844 N.E.2d 856. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., dissents.
#### § 29.2304 Strips.

The sides of a tobacco leaf from which the stem has been removed or a lot of tobacco composed of strips.

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
PRIVATE LAW 108–2—OCT. 5, 2004

Private Law 108–2

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act to validate additional conveyances of certain lands in the State of California that form part

of the right-of-way granted by the United States to facilitate the construction

of the transcontinental railway, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act of 2004’’.

SEC. 2. VALIDATION OF ADDITIONAL RAILROAD CONVEYANCES, SAN

JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

Section 4 of the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation

Act (Private Law 103–2; 108 Stat. 5061) is amended by adding

at the end the following new paragraphs:

‘‘(9) The conveyance entered into between the Central

Pacific Railway Company and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company and the Bank of America, as trustee of the

last will and testament of Aaron Herschel, recorded September

27, 1945, in volume 942 at page 401 of the official records

of the county of San Joaquin.

‘‘(10) The conveyance entered into between the Central

Pacific Railway Company and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company and the Tri-Valley Packing Association,

recorded November 13, 1957, in volume 2016 at page 149

of the official records of the county of San Joaquin.’’.

Approved October 5, 2004.

Railroad

Right-of-Way

Conveyance

Validation Act

of 2004.

Oct. 5, 2004

[H.R. 1658]