alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Serge Beausoleil, President & CEO of Viropro, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Annual Report on 10KSB of the Company for the period ended November 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.











Date: March 10, 2008.



/s/ Serge Beausoleil

_______________________



Serge Beausoleil

President & CEO
40874.

#### DRAWDY v. McVEIGH.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. “A materialman can not recover a general personal judgment against the owner of the land for the material furnished in placing improvements thereon, unless it be shown that he is a party to the contract for the purchase of the material.” *Gignilliat v. West Lumber Co.,*80 Ga. App. 652 (2) (56 SE2d 841); *Stein Steel & Supply Co. v. Goode Constr. Co.,*83 Ga. App. 821 (65 SE2d 183) and cit. A tenant may not order work done upon real estate and thus charge the true owner, unless there is some relation existing between him and his landlord other than that of lessor and lessee. *Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Shiver,*125 Ga. 218, 221 (53 SE 610); *Marshall v. Peacock,*205 Ga. 891, 893 (55 SE2d 354). The fact that a part of the consideration flowing to the landlord under the lease contract is a building to be erected by the tenant does not change the actual relationship between them. *Seckinger v. Silvers,*104 Ga. App. 396, 397 (121 SE2d 922). The acceptance of work by an owner done under a contract between two parties, neither of which is his agent, does not *330amount to an adoption of that contract by the owner nor an assumption of liability for the value of the work done. *Holcombe v. Parker,*99 Ga. App. 616, 619 (109 SE2d 348).

Decided September 23, 1964.

*Ronald F. Adams, Wm. A. Davis, Jr., W. M. Henderson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Blount & Minchew, Clarence D. Blount,,*contra.

2. The action in this case is assumpsit, seeking damages for unjust enrichment against the owner-lessor of real estate on which the plaintiff had constructed a restaurant by contract with the lessee, pursuant to a covenant in the lease contract that the lessee would have such a building constructed on the premises. The prayer was solely for a judgment in personam. It is alleged that the lessee has absconded, his whereabouts unknown to the plaintiff, leaving a balance due which was within the contract price. It is also alleged that the defendant-lessor consented to the improvements, cooperated with the lessee in obtaining a loan conditioned upon the improvements, and is now collecting rent from the use of the building as a restaurant.

3. Under the above-cited authorities, there was no contractual relationship or privity of contract, express or implied, between the plaintiff and the defendant upon which an action for a judgment in personam on the contract could have been based, and the plaintiff was merely the general creditor of the lessee, solely against whom his cause of action would lie for a judgment in personam. The allegations of the defendant-owner’s consent to the contract and use of the completed building on his own property are not, without more, sufficient to show that he adopted the contract or assumed liability for the work done thereunder.

The court did not err in its judgment sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                 AND SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 11
                                                                   ----------

                COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE (Unaudited)


                                              Nine Months Ended            Three Months Ended
                                                   July 31,                        July 31,
                                          2 0 0 1           2 0 0 0        2 0 0 1         2 0 0 0
                                          -------           -------        -------         -------
<S>                                 <C>               <C>            <C>             <C>
Basic earnings:
  Net (loss) income                     $ (252,217)      $  (784,117)    $  222,782      $   45,262

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding     2,559,453         2,397,292      2,559,453       2,559,453
                                        ----------       -----------     ----------      ----------

Basic earnings per common share         $     (.10)      $      (.33)    $      .09      $      .02
                                        ==========       ===========     ==========      ==========

Diluted earnings:
  Net (loss) income                     $ (252,217)      $  (784,117)    $  222,782      $   45,262

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding     2,559,453         2,397,292      2,559,453       2,559,453
  Warrants to consultants                       --                --             --          89,160
  Employee and director stock options           --                --             --           2,098
  Consultant stock options                      --                --             --              --
                                        ----------       -----------     ----------      ----------

Total weighted shares outstanding        2,559,453         2,397,292      2,559,453       2,650,711
                                        ----------       -----------     ----------      ----------

Diluted earnings per common share       $     (.10)      $      (.33)    $      .09      $      .02
                                        ==========       ===========     ==========      ==========

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1086 Effect of Departmental Appeals Board Decision. ( a ) *General rule.* The Board's decision is binding unless— ( 1 ) The affected party has a right to judicial review and timely files a civil action in a United States District Court or, in the case of a civil money penalty, in a United States Court of Appeals; or
( 2 ) The Board reopens and revises its decision in accordance with 422.862.
( b ) *Right to judicial review.* Section 422.1006 specifies the circumstances under which an affected party has a right to seek judicial review.
( c ) *Special Rules:* Civil Money Penalty—Finality of Board's decision. When CMS imposes a civil money penalty, notice of the Board's decision (or denial of review) is the final administrative action that initiates the 60-day period for seeking judicial review.
EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                    ------------

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

1.   The Park Avenue Bank, Valdosta, Georgia(1)

               PAB Holdings, Inc.(2)
               PAB Investments, Inc.(1)

2.   First Community Bank of Southwest Georgia, Bainbridge, Georgia(1)

               FCB Holdings, Inc.(2)
               FCB Investments, Inc.(1)

3.   Eagle Bank and Trust, Statesboro, Georgia(1)

4.   Baxley Federal Savings Bank, Baxley, Georgia(1)

5.   PAB Financial Services, LLC, Valdosta, Georgia(1)

6.   PAB Bankshares Capital Trust I (2)




---------------
(1)   State of incorporation or organization is Georgia.
(2)   State of incorporation or organization is Delaware.


<PAGE>
#### THE FLORIDA BAR. Re PETITION TO AMEND FLORIDA BAR INTEGRATION RULE, ARTICLE IX, SECTION 1 (BUDGET COMMITTEE).

No. 59277.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 25, 1980.

Leonard H. Gilbert, President of The Florida Bar, Tampa, N. David Korones, Chairman, Integration Rule and Bylaws Committee, Clearwater, and James P. Holl-away, Deputy Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar has proposed-an amendment to Florida Bar Integration Rule, article IX, Section 1. We grant the Bar’s petition and Florida Bar Integration Rule, article IX, Section 1 is amended to read as follows:

> Article IX

> FISCAL CONTROL

> 1. Budget Committee. The Budget Committee shall consist of nine members having staggered terms. The initial Budget Committee, appointed pursuant to this article, shall have three members appointed for three-year terms, three members appointed for two-year terms, and three members appointed for one-year terms; all appointed by the president-elect with the approval of the Board of Governors. Thereafter, the president-elect, with the approval of the Board of Governors, shall appoint three members to three-year terms and shall name a chairman-elect. The chairman-elect shall become chairman when the president-elect becomes president. The Budget Committee shall prepare a proposed annual budget for The Florida Bar to be submitted to the Board of Governors.

> This amendment is effective immediately.

> It is so ordered.

SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
AMERICANWEST BANCORPORATION



Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Diane L. Kelleher, state and attest that:



(1) I am the Chief Financial Officer of AmericanWest Bancorporation (the
Registrant).



(2) I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the periodic report) containing financial statements fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for the periods
presented.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                                                     
|----- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|      | 
|Name: |  | /s/ Diane L. Kelleher                               
|Title |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Date: |  | November 7, 2005
Motion Granted; Vacated and Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

December 21 , 2021.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00637

- CV

DYNA TORQUE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., D/B/A DYNA TORQUE TECHNOLOGIES AND ANDREW THOMAS SCHERFENBERG , Appellant s
V.
F O RWARD FINANCING. LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1163002

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T he Court today considered the parties ’ agreed motion to vacate the trial

court ’ s judgment and dismis s t he case with prejudice. The motion is granted as fo llows

. Without regard to the merits, the trial court ’ s judgment is vacated and the case is dismissed. T ex

. R. A pp . P. 43 .2(e); see Jester Venture, Ltd. v. Nash , No.2

01

- 06

- 00512

- CV, 2006 WL 2042358, *1 ( T ex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] July 17, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) ; Internet America, Inc. v. Carradine , 106 S.W.3d 906, 907 ( Tex. App.

—

Dallas 2003, no pet.) (vacating the trial court ’ s judgment and dismissing the case based upon the joint agreed motion for d isposition pursuant to settlement agreement and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(e)); Young Materials Corp. v. Smith , 4 S.W.3d 84 (Tex. App.

— Wa co 1999, no pet.) (vacating the trial court ’ s judgment and dismissing the case based upon the parties ’ agr eed motion to dismiss the entire cause and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(e))

. Appellant s shall pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal. Tex. R

. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Po issant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              32
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                       548
<INVENTORY>                                      3,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,578
<PP&E>                                         312,047
<DEPRECIATION>                                 137,669
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          133,906
<BONDS>                                         92,075
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,118
<SALES>                                        219,183
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               219,183
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  217,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,736)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,736)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,736)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Diluted EPS calculation is anti-dilutive
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

Editorial Note on Subpart H of Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart H of part 422 appear at 63 FR 35098, 35099, June 26, 1998.

§ 422.372 Basis for waiver of State licensure. ( a ) *General rule.* Subject to this section and to paragraphs (a) and (e) of § 422.374, CMS may waive the State licensure requirement if the organization has applied (except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section) for the most closely appropriate State license or authority to conduct business as an MA plan.
( b ) *Basis for waiver of State licensure.* Any of the following may constitute a basis for CMS's waiver of State licensure. ( 1 ) *Failure to act timely on application.* The State failed to complete action on the licensing application within 90 days of the date the State received a substantially complete application.
( 2 ) *Denial of application based on discriminatory treatment.* The State has— ( i ) Denied the license application on the basis of material requirements, procedures, or standards (other than solvency requirements) not generally applied by the State to other entities engaged in a substantially similar business; or
( ii ) Required, as a condition of licensure that the organization offer any product or plan other than an MA plan.
( 3 ) *Denial of application based on different solvency requirements.* ( i ) The State has denied the application, in whole or in part, on the basis of the organization's failure to meet solvency requirements that are different from those set forth in §§ 422.380 through 422.390; or
( ii ) CMS determines that the State has imposed, as a condition of licensure, any documentation or information requirements relating to solvency or other material requirements, procedures, or standards relating to solvency that are different from the requirements, procedures, or standards set forth by CMS to implement, monitor, and enforce §§ 422.380 through 422.390.
( 4 ) *State declines to accept licensure application.* The appropriate State licensing authority has given the organization written notice that it will not accept its licensure application.
[63 FR 35098, June 26, 1998]
Exhibit 23.1 Consent of Ernst & Young LLP  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Omega Financial Corporation of our reports dated March 9, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Omega Financial Corporation, Omega Financial Corporation managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Omega Financial Corporation, included in the 2006 Annual Report to Shareholders of Omega Financial Corporation.  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:  1.
        Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-15780) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1986 Stock Option Plan,
 2.
        Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-82214) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1986 Stock Option Plan and the 1994 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors,
 3.
        Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-100931) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors,
 4.
        Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-113849) pertaining to the (1986) Stock Option Plan, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, the 1996 Stock Option Plan and the 2004 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors,
 5.
        Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-124596) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 2004 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors of Omega Financial Corporation, and
 6.
        Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-135668) pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan,
  of our reports dated March 9, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Omega Financial Corporation, Omega Financial Corporation managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Omega Financial Corporation, incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania March 13, 2007     53
### List of Attendees via Phone/In Person

**Update of NIOSH Carcinogen Classification and Target Risk Level Policy for**

**Chemical Hazards in the Workplace Surface Transportation Board**  **Hearing Room Patriots Plaza One, 395 E Street SW., 1**  **st** 

### Floor, Room 120

**Washington, DC December 16, 2013** 

**Name Affiliation**  **Presenter** 1. Linda Wilson NYS Office of the Attorney General 2. Darius Sivin International Union, UAW Presenter 3. Larry

Halprin Keller and Heckman, LLP 4. Kimberly

Wise American Chemistry Council 5. Joseph Coble US OSHA 6. Val Schaeffer US OSHA 7. Anna Mazzucco National Research Center for Women & Families Presenter

8. Iv anna Yang American Association for Justice 9. Randy

Rabinowitz American Association for Justice 10. John Schweitzer American Composites Manufacturers Association 11. Jim Platner CPWR 12. Jeannie Jeong

- Im US Food and Drug Administration 13. Dana Loomis IARC/WHO 14. Phil Yeager US Food and Drug Administration 15. Brian Erkkila US Food and Drug Administration 16. John Vandenberg Environmental Protection Agency 17. Michele Sullivan Self

- employed, independent consultant 18. Peter de la Cruz Keller and Heckman
, LLP 19. Brian Blazicko Department of Energy 20. Mark Ellis National Industrial Sand Association 21. James Melius NYS Laborers Health and Safety Trust Fund Presenter

22. James Holler CDC/ATSDR 23. David Kriebel University of Massachusetts Lowell 24. Robert Herrick Harvard School of Public Health 25. Molly

Jacobs University of Massachusetts Lowell 26. Lee Anderson BlueGreen Alliance Presenter 27. Earl Arp Asphalt Institute 28. Stephen Schayer OSHA 29. Ruth Lunn NIH/NIEHS 30. Howard Marks National Asphalt Pavement Association Presenter31. Robert Iafolla Reporter/Bloomberg BNA

32. Tucker Helmes Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates 33. Frank Mirer Hunter College 34. Pat Casano General Electric Company 3 5

. John Howard CDC/ NIOSH 3 6

. Frank Hearl CDC/ NIOSH 3 7

. John Piacentino CDC/ NIOSH 3 8

. Roger Rosa CDC/ NIOSH 3 9

. Christy

Springs CDC/ NIOSH 40

. Janice Scott

- Blanton CDC/ NIOSH 41

. Nura Sadeghpour CDC/ NIOSH 4 2

. Leslie Nickels CDC/ NIOSH 4 3

. Paul Schulte CDC/ NIOSH Presenter 4 4

. Laural ynn McKernan CDC/ NIOSH 4 5

. Thomas Lentz CDC/ NIOSH 4 6

. Chris Sofge CDC/ NIOSH 4 7

. Faye Rice CDC/ NIOSH 4 8

. Kathleen MacMahon CDC/ NIOSH 49. Mary

Schubauer

- Berigan CDC/NIOSH 50. Avima Ruder CDC/NIOSH 51. Ralph Zumwalde CDC/NIOSH 52. Paul Middendorf CDC/NIOSH 53. Teresa Schnorr CDC/NIOSH 54. Doug Trout CDC/NIOSH 55. John Decker CDC/NIOSH