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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPALFINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with EMRISECorporation’s (the “Company”) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge:

 

1.             the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.             the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 16, 2010 | By: /s/ D. JOHN DONOVAN                                |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | D. John Donovan                                        |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial  Officer) |

 

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

 

----
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo80932 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
# C_2014361EN.01001902.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/19

---

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-599/14)

2014/C 361/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

| — | in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.

Makhlouf

Council

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18046]



[[Page 37736]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,390]


Springs Global US, Inc., Sardis, MS; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on May 21, 
2009 by a company official on behalf of workers of Springs Global US, 
Inc., Sardis, Mississippi.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition is withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of July 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-18046 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS

CERTIFICATION UNDER

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles A. Rowland, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ViroPharma Incorporated; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ CHARLES A. ROWLAND, JR.
|Charles A. Rowland, Jr.    
|Chief Financial Officer    

December 3, 2010
# C_2015381EN.01005804.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/58

---

Order of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

(Case T-252/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 381/73)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

1

---
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption
"Experts-Independent Auditors" and to the use of our report dated April 1,
2003 in the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (File No. 333-103982)
and related Prospectus of Claymore Securities Defined Portfolios, Series 146.

                                                      /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
                                                          GRANT THORNTON LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 1, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1405 Immunoreactive insulin test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An immunoreactive insulin test system is a device intended to measure immunoreactive insulin in serum and plasma. Immunoreactive insulin measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of various carbohydrate metabolism disorders, including diabetes mellitus, and hypoglycemia.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2306, Jan. 14, 2000]
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- 'J.o iS'- 0 Z 39 Directorate Identifier: ·-AB- d-O l :I" - C C- OC G A 0 

Add the work hours, pm·ts cost, and number of U.S. registered products to the table below. When you are 

finished, click on the "Update Fields" bull on to automatically fill in the totals. 

Update Fields I 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance) (e.g., Inspection, 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do not include on- (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

X-Ray Inspection 8 180 555 I 

Eddy Current 

Inspection I 0 555 

Prepare Airplane for 

the Inspections 3 0 555 

Visual Inspection 1 <' I_ 0 555 i 

I 

II I ' 

' 

; I 

\ ' ,l I l 

I 

;_I I 

,. 

c I 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $714,700 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0 

On-Condition Costs: G 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/bour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

8 
We have no way of 

knowing the extent 

of cracks that may 

be found during the 

required 

inspections. 

Therefore, we have 

no way of 

determining the 

cost of the 

corrective action. 

i! 

.. ' I) 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? G 

YES* D NO D 

*Explanation: This will be an Immediate Adopted Rule (IAR) that is significant regulatory action because 

the possibility exists that an airplane may lose an engine without these mandatory inspections. These 

inspections are looking for cracks under structure that cannot be detected visually without dismantling 

structure that covers up areas where cracks have been found to exist. 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? G 

YES* D NO D 

*Explanation: The AD is significant because cracks are being found in locations where AD 97-26-16 

inspections are not required. Cracks have been found on engine mount beams in high usage airplanes where 

the structure prevents visual detection until the cracks have grown such that the structural integrity is no 

longer maintained. The inspections are looking for cracks that cannot be detected visually without 

dismantling structure that covers up areas where cracks have been found to exist. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YES D NO D 

Explanation: Cape Air has 84 ofthe 167 Cessna 402C airplanes in the FAA register. These inspections will 

have a significant economic impact because of the cost of these inspections and the loss of revenue due to 

the downtime required for the inspections. 

9
# C_2015007EN.01005201.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/52

---

Action brought on 6 October 2014 — ZZ v OHIM

(Case F-103/14)

(2015/C 007/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Heinrich Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action for annulment of the defendant’s decision to apply to the competitions OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 the clause contained in the applicant’s contract of employment, which provides for the termination of the applicant’s contract of employment in the event that she is not included in the reserve list of the next open competition organised by EPSO for her function group with the specialisation ‘industrial property’, and claim for compensation in respect of the non-material damage caused to her.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul OHIM’s decision, of which the applicant was informed by OHIM’s letter of 28 November 2003, to apply to competitions OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13, the notices for which were published on 31 October 2013, the clause contained in Article 5 of the applicant’s contract of employment, which provides for the termination of the applicant’s contract of employment in the event that she is not included in the reserve list of the next open competition organised by EPSO for her function group with the specialisation ‘industrial property’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul OHIM’s decision, of which the applicant was informed by OHIM’s letter of 28 November 2003, to apply to competitions OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13, the notices for which were published on 31 October 2013, the clause contained in Article 5 of the applicant’s contract of employment, which provides for the termination of the applicant’s contract of employment in the event that she is not included in the reserve list of the next open competition organised by EPSO for her function group with the specialisation ‘industrial property’;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation of an appropriate amount, to be left to the discretion of the Court, in respect of the non-material damage caused to her by the decision of OHIM referred to in the first head of claim, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation of an appropriate amount, to be left to the discretion of the Court, in respect of the non-material damage caused to her by the decision of OHIM referred to in the first head of claim, and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

---
39190.

#### MUTUAL FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. CAMPBELL COAL COMPANY.

Bell, Judge.

It is regrettable when the appeal of a case fails because of technical rules of appellate procedure which preclude consideration and determination of the cause upon its merits.

The defendant in error has moved to dismiss the writ of error on the ground that the bill of exceptions does not except to the final judgment, but excepts only to antecedent rulings rendered more than 30 days prior to the final judgment dismissing the motion for new trial and more than 30 days prior to the presentment of the bill of exceptions.

The Supreme Court, in the case of *Rabhan v. Rabhan,*185 Ga. 355 (1) (195 SE 193), has stated that, “Where a final judgment is complained of as erroneous because of alleged errors in antecedent rulings which are properly assigned as error, a general exception to the final judgment is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court and to authorize a decision in regard to the antecedent rulings; but if there is no assignment of error whatever on the final judgment in such case, the bill of exceptions is fatally defective, and can not be amended by the addition of assignments of error on the final judgment.” See also *Todd v. Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp.,*98 Ga. App. 673 (106 SE2d.357).

*186Decided January 8, 1962.

*Henry ■& Matthews, J. L. Jordan,*for plaintiff in, error.

*R. R. McCauley, Turner Paschal,*contra.

The plaintiff in error admits the existence of the rule enunciated in the *Rabhan*case, but contends that it is an antiquated anomaly, quaint, irresponsible, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, wanton, fantastic, violates the Federal and State Constitutions, and is discriminatory.

However, it is apparent that without rules there would be no predictability in the law, no way to determine when a particular. decision became final, and there would be judicial chaos. All courts, both federal and state, are compelled to have them. By Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VIII of the Constitution of this State it is provided, inter alia, that “The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind the Court of Appeals as precedents.” *Code Ann.*§ 2-3708. The *Rabhan*case compels the grant of the motion to dismiss the writ of error. The motion is granted, and the writ of error is

*Dismissed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
### ATTACHMENT D-2 

# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HEARINGCERTIFICATION This certifies in accordance with the provisions ofTitle 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 .102 that the following actions were taken regarding the adoption of R .C.S.A. section 22a-174- 43 and the amendment of R .C.S .A. section 22a-174-30: 1) The public hearing was held on December 19, 2003 as announced in the notice of hearing (copy attached) ; 2) In accordance with the notice, materials were available for review in each Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) in Connecticut; 3) Copies ofthe notice were mailed to the directors ofthe air pollution control agencies in New

York, New

Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts along with a copy to the Director of the Air Management Division of Region I of the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency; and 4) The notice of hearing was published in newspapers as follows: NewMaper AQCR Date Connecticut Law

Journal November 18, 2003 Connecticut Post (Bridgeport) 43 November 18, 2003 Hartford Courant 42 November 18, 2003 New London Day 41 November 18, 2003 The Register Citizen (Torrington) 44 November 18, 2003
September23, 2004 Date /s/ Merrily A . Gere Bureau ofAir Management

(Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 Elm Street " Hartford, CT 06106 - 5127

http://dep.state.et .us An Equal Opportunity Employer
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1245 Dehydroepiandrosterone (free and sulfate) test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A dehydroepiandrosterone (free and sulfate) test system is a device intended to measure dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and its sulfate in urine, serum, plasma, and amniotic fluid. Dehydroepiandrosterone measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of DHEA-secreting adrenal carcinomas.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2306, Jan. 14, 2000]
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SKULL SHAVER, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORP.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1457

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey in No. 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME, 

Judge Evelyn Padin.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

AHMED M. SOLIMAN, Soliman & Associates, PC, Cherry 

Hill, NJ, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

 MICHAEL J. ZINNA, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by VINCENT FERRARO. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 23-1457 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 04/03/2024
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE, Circuit 

Judge, and ALBRIGHT, District Judge1).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 3, 2024

Date

1

 Honorable Alan Albright, District Judge, United 

States District Court for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

Case: 23-1457 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 04/03/2024
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.4150 Extracorporeal system for carbon dioxide removal. ( a ) *Identification.* An extracorporeal system for carbon dioxide removal is a system of devices and accessories that provides assisted extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal from the patient's blood in patients with acute respiratory failure, where other available treatment options have failed, and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent. The main devices and accessories of the system include, but are not limited to, the console (hardware), software, and disposables, including, but not limited to, a gas exchanger, blood pump, cannulae, tubing, filters, and other accessories (*e.g.,* monitors, detectors, sensors, connectors).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) In vivo evaluation, which may include animal testing and clinical data, of the devices and accessories in the circuit must demonstrate their performance over the intended duration of use, including a detailed summary of the in vivo evaluation pertinent to the use of the devices and accessories to demonstrate their effectiveness.
( 2 ) The technological characteristics of the device must ensure that the geometry and design parameters are consistent with the intended use, and that the devices and accessories in the circuit are compatible.
( 3 ) Non-clinical performance testing of the devices and accessories in the circuit must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested: ( i ) Mechanical integrity;
( ii ) Durability; and
( iii ) Reliability.
( 4 ) All patient contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 5 ) Performance testing must demonstrate the electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) of any electrical components.
( 6 ) Software validation, verification, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( 7 ) Performance testing must demonstrate the sterility of all patient-contacting components.
( 8 ) Performance testing must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility and device functionality over the identified shelf life.
( 9 ) Labeling must include the following: ( i ) A detailed summary of the non-clinical and in vivo evaluations pertinent to use of the device and accessories in the circuit;
( ii ) Adequate instructions with respect to circuit setup, performance characteristics with respect to compatibility among different devices and accessories in the circuit, and maintenance during a procedure; and
( iii ) A shelf life.
[87 FR 80039, Dec. 29, 2022]
From: Janis Hudson

To: Wiley, Adina

Cc: Michael Wilhoit ; Mike Wilson
Subject: Flexible Permit Amendment Applications

Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:24:51 PM

You asked that TCEQ provide EPA with data regarding how many flexible permit amendment applications were subject to public notice requirements, and how many of those were applications concerned agricultural facilities.

The table below provides the information that the TCEQ’s Air Permits Division has tracked with regard to the number of flexible permit amendment applications received over three specific time periods, and how many of those were subject to notice. These time periods were chosen to represent:

1. The initial time period for flexible permits (rules adopted in 1994, and first permits issued in 1995), which were under the notice requirements in effect prior to the
adoption and interpretive rulemaking for HB 2518 (77 th Legislature, 2001).

2. The span of FY02 – FY10 is the approximate time period for initial applicability of HB 2518 and the rule interpreting it (30 Tex. Admin. Code § 39.402). The rule became effective November 13, 2001.

3. The span of FY11 – FY13 represents the approximate time period for which the amended rule, which segregated the flexible permit amendment applications in the rule (30 Tex. Admin. Code § 39.402(a)(5)), has been in effect (beginning June 24, 2010). This rule was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision in July 2010.

Fiscal Year* Time

Periods Number of Amendment Applications Number of Amendment Applications that Went to

Public Notice

FY94 – FY01 87 0

FY02 – FY10 277 121

FY11 – FY13 49 14

*FY is September 1 – August 31.

A review of the records regarding the holders of flexible permits revealed that only one was considered to be an agricultural facility, and it was issued in 2006. No permit amendment applications were filed for that permit, which has subsequently been

deflexed.