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

 

**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 theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 155 East Tropicana, LLC, a Nevadalimited-liability company and 155 East Tropicana Finance Corp., a Nevadacorporation (collectively, the “Company”) for the three months ended March 31,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Neil G. Kiefer, as President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Neil G. Kiefer                       |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                      |   |
| Neil  G. Kiefer,                          |
| Chief  Executive OfficerMay 14, 2008 |

 

 

The foregoing certificationsare being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and are not being filedas part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Paul Brinkman, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Cooke, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 9, 1968, disqualifying claimant, a driving instructor, from unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employ*588ment without good cause by provoking his discharge. It is undisputed that claimant insisted that his compensation for each .driving test or lesson be raised to 70% of the amount taken in by employer in connection with his work, in effect a substantial increase over the amount then being paid, and thereafter no more work was assigned to him. What constitutes good cause within paragraph (a) of subdivision 1 of section 593 of the Labor Law is a question of fact, the resolution of which is within the province of the board if supported by substantial evidence (Labor Law, § 623; *Matter of D’Arcangelis [Cather-wood],*29 A D 2d 706) and, on the record here, we cannot disturb the board’s determination, as dissatisfaction with the recompense paid does not *ipso facto*constitute good cause *(Matter of Haynes [Catherwood],*30 A D 2d 722; *Matter of Simson [Catherwood],*18 A D 2d 744; *Matter of Sellers [J. W. Mays,*Inc. *Catherwood],*13 A D 2d 204). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Youm Huh, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Youm Huh                         
|Youm Huh                             
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|September 6, 2005                    



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The State ex rel. Mitchell, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel Mitchell v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 399.]

(No. 97-2635

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 21, 1998.)

*Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A,*and *Rachel B. Jaffy,*for appellant

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Cecille Caluya Harris,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*400The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
#### DANIEL, Appellant, v. MANHATTAN LIFE INS. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Walter T. Daniel against *1112the Manhattan Life Insurance Company.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of O2 Secure Wireless, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, to the best of her knowledge, that:





1. 
This Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) of
the Company complies in all material respects 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.





/s/ Keith
A.
Greaves


Keith A.
Greaves, Chief Financial Officer





Date:
August 19, 2009
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL FOLEY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MICHELLE PONT, an individual; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 16774

D.C. No. 2:11

- c v

- 01769

- JCM

VCF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Michael Foley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his civil action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion

. Ghazali v. Moran

, 46 F.3d 52, 53

(9th Cir. 1995). W e affirm.

The district court did not abuse i ts discretion by dismissing Foley’ s action

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

# FILED

MAR 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 16774

for failure to prosecute in accordance with local rules because, after Foley failed to

file documents in the district court for more than 270 days , he failed to respond

timely to the district court’s notice to take action

. See D. Nev. Civ. R. 41

- 1

(permitting dismissal after notice of actions that span 270 days without any

proceeding of record ); Ghazali

, 46 F.3d at 53 (discus sing factors to guide the

court’ s evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules ).

Because we affirm the district court ’ s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we

do not consider Foley’s c hallenges to the district court’ s interlocutory orders. See

Al

- T orki v. Kaempen , 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders,

generally appealable after fi nal judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for

failure to prosecute[.]”).

Appellees AP Express, AP Express Worldwide , LLC, and Jeff e ry Pont ’s

motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9), and Foley’s request for

judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, are granted.

Appellee Bradley’s request for sanctions, set forth in her answering brief, is

denied without prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

w ithout oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Seni or Judge Bumgardner

RONALD BLUEFORD AND CHRISTINE SAMPSON/ HOWARD FUNERAL HOME MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0116-07-1 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 23, 2007 ULYSSES C. WISE, SR.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Richard B. Donaldson, Jr.; Jennifer L. Muse ; Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, P. C., on brief), for appellants. (Jamie L. Karek; Geoffrey R. McDonald & Asso ciates, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Ronald Blueford and Christine Sampson/Howa rd Funeral Home (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) appeal a decision of the Wo rkers’ Compensation Commission finding that Ulysses C. Wise, Sr. proved he sustained a co mpensable injury by accident while working for employer on October 3, 2004. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Wise v. Ronald Blueford and Christine Sampson/Howard

Funeral Home , VWC File No. 223-09-50 (December 12, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument w ould not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2352 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain manufacturing 

equipment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2006 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 

manufacturing equipment. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.84.81 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain manufacturing equipment) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 2352 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2379 

To amend the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 to permit a transitional period of 90 days for completion of requirements for qualified 

registered mortgage loan originators. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2013 

Mr. BACHUS (for himself, Mr. PETERS of Michigan, and Mr. GARY G. MILLER

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

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 

to permit a transitional period of 90 days for completion 

of requirements for qualified registered mortgage loan 

originators. 

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 ‘‘Qualified Mortgage 

5 Loan Originator Transitional Authority Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2379 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFIED BANK 

2 MORTGAGE LOAN ORIGINATORS TO BE EM3 PLOYED BY NON-BANK MORTGAGE LENDERS. 

4 Section 1504 of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act 

5 of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5103) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ‘‘as the 

7 case may be,’’ the following: ‘‘and except as provided 

8 in subsection (c),’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(c) TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding 

11 the requirements of section 1505, an individual who com12 plies with the submission requirements of section 1505(a) 

13 and who, within the preceding 60 days, was a registered 

14 loan originator that met the standard of being qualified 

15 described under section 129B(b)(1)(A) of the Truth in 

16 Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639b(b)(1)(A)), may act as a 

17 loan originator during the 90-day period following such 

18 submission, under the supervision of a State-licensed firm 

19 that engages in loan origination. Upon the end of such 

20 90-day period, the authority to act as a loan originator 

21 conveyed by this subsection shall terminate.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  26  LLC  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ended
June  30,  2009,  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), the  undersigned,
Robert  P.  Johnson, President of AEI Fund Management XXI,  Inc.,
the  Managing Member of the Company, and Patrick W. Keene,  Chief
Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc., each certify,
pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 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.


                          /s/ ROBERT P JOHNSON
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              August 11, 2009



                          /s/ PATRICK W KEENE
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              August 11, 2009
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 8 

Ref: 8P-AR 

Brian Gustafson, Administrator 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

DENVER, CO 80202-1129 

Phone 800-227-8917 

http://www.epa.gov/region08 

FEB 0 4 2013 

Air Quality Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

PMB 2020, Joe Foss Building 

523 East Capitol 

Pierre, South Dakota 57501-3182 

Dear Brian: 

Re: Completeness Determination for 2008 Lead 

(Pb) Infrastructure SIP Submission 

On October 16, 2012, the EPA received your Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (iSTP) 

submission for the 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS. We have determined that the submittal of the South 

Dakota iSlP is administratively and technically complete for the requirements of section 

1 1 O(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) to the extent it refers to enforcement, to permitting programs for 

minor sources, and to permitting programs required by CAA part C title I, (D), (E)-(H), and (1)-

(M). We are now reviewing your submission to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPR) which will evaluate whether the state's submission can be approved. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Kathy Ayala at 

303-312-6142 or ayala.kathy@epa.gov. 

c::J;{J. 

Carl Daly "-"'"0 

Air Program Director 

Printed on 

Recycled 

Paper
No. 47,276

#### Cordia M. Hackler, *Appellant,*v. Waid’s Restaurant, and American Motorists Insurance Company, *Appellees.*

(520 P. 2d 1282)

Opinion filed April 6, 1974.

*John R.*Oliver, of Overland Park, was on the brief for the appellant.

*John J. Alder,*of Alder, Rixner and Zemites, of Shawnee Mission, was on the brief for the appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from an order denying benefits under the workmens compensation act.

Appellant, while working as a waitress for appellee Waid’s on August 2, 1969, allegedly slipped and fell. She continued working despite pain in her back and leg for about one and one-half hours when she reported the incident to Waid’s manager and went home. She attempted to work the next day but worked only about one and one-half hours. Thereafter she consulted a chiropractor who treated her, his last treatment being given September 21, 1970. The chiropractor also prescribed home treatment consisting of hot baths which claimant later administered to herself. Claim for compensation was not filed until January 11, 1972.

The examiner, director and trial court all ruled that the claim was not timely filed. Whether a claim has been filed within the time fixed by statute (K. S. A. 44-520a) is primarily a question of fact *(Riedel v. Gage Plumbing & Heating Co.,*202 Kan. 538, 449 P. 2d 521). Here, among other things, it was disputed factually whether appellees had ever directed appellant to the chiropractor in the first place or had paid any compensation by way of medical treatment furnished her after September 21, 1970, so as to render her claim timely filed. The evidence sufficiently supported the trial court’s negative finding against appellant and its judgment is affirmed.
#### In re WASSERMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

In the matter of the application of Frank Wasserman for admission to the bar.

No opinion. Application for admission to the bar granted.
#### § 3418.3 Applicability.

To obtain formula funds after September 30, 1999, each recipient institution shall establish and implement a process for obtaining stakeholder input on the uses of formula funds in accordance with this part.
§ 3560.151 General. ( a ) *Applicability.* This subpart contains borrower and tenant requirements and Agency responsibilities related to occupancy of Agency-financed multi-family housing (MFH) projects. Occupancy eligibility requirements apply to the following: ( 1 ) Family housing projects, including farm labor housing;
( 2 ) Elderly housing projects; and
( 3 ) Congregate housing or group homes for persons with special needs.
( b ) *Civil rights requirements.* All occupancy policies must meet applicable civil rights requirements, as stated in § 3560.2.
3.101-3 Agency regulations.

(a) Agencies are required by Executive Order 11222 of May 8,1965, and 5 CFR 735 to prescribe

"Standards of Conduct." These agency standards contain-

(1) Agency-authorized exceptions to 3.101-2; and

(2) Disciplinary measures for persons violating the standards of conduct.

(b) Requirements for employee financial disclosure and restrictions on private employment for

former Government employees are in Office of Personnel Management and agency regulations

implementing Public Law 95-521, which amended 18 U.S.C.207.

Parent topic: 3.101 Standards of conduct.
Exhibit 10.88


 


COMPENSATION
ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


 


Directors who are neither employees of nor consultants
to InterMune, Inc. (each, a “non-employee director”) receive an annual
retention fee of $30,000 (except for Chairman Ringo, who receives an annual
retention fee of $60,000), paid on a quarterly basis. In addition, each
committee member receives a fee of $1,000 per committee meeting attended (except
for Chairman Ringo, who receives $2,000 per committee meeting he attends) and
the chairman of each committee receives an additional $500 per committee
meeting attended.


 


All other compensation arrangements between InterMune
and each of its non-employee directors are referenced in the Exhibit Index
to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

t1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145806-7

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145806-7

COA: 303917, 304204 

Wayne CC: 10-010643-FC

WILLIAM SHANTE JENKINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2012 

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.
2005-0766.

#### Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 03-2144-EL-ATA. Reported at 109 Ohio St.3d 328, 2006-Ohio-2110, 847 N.E.2d 1184. On motion for reconsideration of FirstEnergy Corporation. Motion denied.

O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.

On motion to strike motion for reconsideration. Motion denied as moot.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

December 6, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00736

- CR

Porucha Denise PHILLIPS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial Distric t Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR9223A The Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 25.2(a)(2). This court must dismiss this appeal “ if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

We ORDER A ppellant to cause an amended trial court certification to be filed in this court within THIRTY days of the date of this order showing A ppellant has the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d)

, 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State

, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). I f no amended trial court certification is filed as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d)

. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court

.________________________________ _ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of December, 2017

.

_________________________ __________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court