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

In connection with the Quarterly report of Capital Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gifford A. Dieterle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


                                       /s/ Gifford A. Dieterle
                                       -----------------------
                                       Gifford A. Dieterle
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       June 24, 2005
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3721

___________________________

Kelly Moberg

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Phillips Electronics North America Corporation Group Welfare Benefit Plan;

Phillips Electronics North America Corporation

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________

 Submitted: August 6, 2014

Filed: August 15, 2014 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Kelly Moberg appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

continued long term disability benefits (LTD) in her action under the Employment

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Upon de novo review, we find that the

district court used the correct standard of review, see Siegel v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins.

Co., 702 F.3d 1044, 1047-48 (8th Cir. 2013); and that the court properly applied that

standard in determining whether to uphold the decision to discontinue Moberg’s LTD

based on a 24-month limitation covering disabilities from neuromusculoskeletal and

soft tissue disorders, see Gerhardt v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 736 F.3d

777, 780 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing de novo district court’s application of abuse-ofdiscretion standard; plan administrator’s decision will be upheld if reasonable, i.e.,

supported by substantial evidence). Specifically, we agree with the district court that

there was no merit to Moberg’s contention that the limitation did not apply to her, or

to her contentions concerning certain exceptions to the limitation.2

 The judgment of

the district court is affirmed. 

 ______________________________

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

2

We decline to consider the new assertions Moberg makes in her reply brief. 

See Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 766 n.5 (8th Cir. 1996). 

-2-
#### Sandra Mutina RUDLOFF v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE AND INDEMNITY CO.

No. 65037.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Sandra Mutina Rudloff applying for writ of certiorari, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Orleans. 372 So.2d 734.

Writ granted.
# C_2006131EN.01001702.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/17

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona) — Matratzen Concord AG v Hukla Germany SA

(Case C-421/04) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 89/104/EEC - Grounds for refusal to register - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Free movement of goods - Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - Justification - Protection of industrial and commercial property - National word mark registered in a Member State - Trade mark consisting of a term borrowed from the language of another Member State in which it is devoid of distinctive character and/or descriptive of the goods in respect of which the trade mark was registered)

(2006/C 131/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Matratzen Concord AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Hukla Germany SA

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Article 30 EC — Protection of industrial and commercial property — Disguised restriction in trade between Member States resulting from a national word mark composed of a word which, in the language of another Member State, is descriptive of the products concerned (‘matratzen’)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks does not preclude the registration in a Member State, as a national trade mark, of a term borrowed from the language of another Member State in which it is devoid of distinctive character or descriptive of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, unless the relevant parties in the Member State in which registration is sought are capable of identifying the meaning of the term.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.

1

---
# C_2006060EN.01002902.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/29

---

Action brought on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-21/06)

(2006/C 60/56)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/103/EC of 7 October 2004 on identity and plant health checks of plants, plant products or other objects, listed in Part B of Annex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC, which may be carried out at a place other than the point of entry into the Community or at a place close by and specifying the conditions related to these checks (1) or, in any event, by not communicating the provisions in question to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/103/EC of 7 October 2004 on identity and plant health checks of plants, plant products or other objects, listed in Part B of Annex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC, which may be carried out at a place other than the point of entry into the Community or at a place close by and specifying the conditions related to these checks (1) or, in any event, by not communicating the provisions in question to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 31 December 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 313 of 12.10.2004, p. 16.

1

---
# C_2005314EN.01000101.xml

| 10.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 December 2005

(2005/C 314/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1785 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,01 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4495 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67320 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4224 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5398 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 75,49 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9270 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9556 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5733 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,038 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 256,07 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6978 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8569 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6344 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,51 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,026 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5988 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5709 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3665 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1384 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6770 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9836 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 218,39 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,5029 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,5182 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3990 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 407,88 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,439 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,985 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,0640 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,674 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1785

JPY

Japanese yen

142,01

DKK

Danish krone

7,4495

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67320

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4224

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5398

ISK

Iceland króna

75,49

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9270

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9556

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5733

CZK

Czech koruna

29,038

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

256,07

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6978

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8569

RON

Romanian leu

3,6344

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,51

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,026

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5988

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5709

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3665

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1384

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6770

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9836

KRW

South Korean won

1 218,39

ZAR

South African rand

7,5029

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,5182

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3990

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 407,88

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,439

PHP

Philippine peso

62,985

RUB

Russian rouble

34,0640

THB

Thai baht

48,674

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Ex parte Smith.

*Habeas Corpus.*

(Decided Aug. 9, 1911.

56 South. 247.)

*Habeas Corpus; Ground for Relief.*— Where the court exceeded its power in rendering judgment and sentence only by the imposition of imprisonment for the payment of costs at the rate of 40 cents per'day instead of seventy-five cents per day, the prisoner was not entitled to be discharged on habeas corpus unless he had at the time of the hearing of his petition served the time required to pay the costs at the rate of 75 cents per day.

• Appeal from. Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe.

Application for habeas corpus by L. M. Smith, for the benefit of George Lee. From an order denying the petition, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

L. M. Smith, for appellant.

The court exceeded its jurisdiction in sentencing the prisoner for a time to pay costs at the rate of 40 cents per day, and the entire sentence of costs was therefore *void.*— Ex *parte*Long, 87 Ala. 46;. *Ex parte*Montgomery, 79 Ala. 275; *Ex parte*MoKivett, 55 Ala. 236; *Ex parte Page,*49 Mo. 219; *Ex parte*Cox, 37 Pac. 197; *Miller v.*Snider, 6 Ind. 1.

Bankhead & Bankhead, for appellee.

The sentence for costs was not void, but merely *irregular.*— Bray *v. The*State, 140 Ala. 172; *Ex parte Merlett,*71 Ala. 371; *Driggers v. Cassidy,*71 Ala. 532; *Ex parte Robinson,*123 Ala. 104; *Ex parte Summons,*62 Ala. 416; *Kirby v. The State,*62 Ala. 55. On these authorities it must be held that habeas corpus is not the remedy to correct the irregularity as such irregularities do not affect the validity of the *judgment.*— White *v. Simpson,*124 Ala. *536240. Counsel discuss other matters not necessary to be here set out.

PER CURIAM.

No question is made as to the power of the court to impose that part of the sentence which was by way of punishment for the offense of which the defendant was convicted. As to the part of the sentence which imposed hard labor for the costs of the suit, it appears that at the time the petition for the writ of habeas corpus was sued out and heard the convict had not served for the period required to pay the costs at the rate of 75 cents per day. This being true, under the ruling made in the case of *Ex parte L. J. Haley, Jr., for the benefit of Sherry McWilliams,*Infra, 56 South. 245, he was not entitled to be discharged.

Affirmed.
# C_2006091EN.01003602.xml

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/36

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4172 — Barclays/Tuja)

(2006/C 91/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 March 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4172. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4172. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement No. 333-113417 on Form SB-2 and the Registration Statements No.
33-42457, 33-50332 and 333-111386 on Forms S-8 of RegeneRx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc. of our report dated February 1, 2004, appearing in the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB as of and for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.

                          /s/ Reznick Fedder & Silverman

Bethesda, Maryland
March 30, 2004
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA study of the sonic-boom characteristics of a blunt body at a Mach number of 6An experimental and analytical study of the sonic boom static pressure signatures generated by a blunt body at mach 6 has shown that finite difference computer programs can be used to give reasonable estimates of the signatures. The calculated near field static pressure signature was extrapolated to the far field by a program using the method of characteristics. A comparison of this extrapolated signature with the signature predicted by far field sonic boom theory (linearized) shows that peak overpressures are about the same, at least up to mach, but the far field theory overestimates the length of the signature.Document ID19810005404Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsAshby, G. C., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1980Subject CategoryAeronautics (General)Report/Patent NumberL-14017NASA-TP-1787Accession Number81N13915Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-51-13-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810005404.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### JOHN JAY ESTHETIC SALON, INC. v. Frances WOODS and Neubie Culver.

No. 80-C-2842.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re Frances Woods and Neubie Culver, applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. No. 12123.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., recused.
#### Claybourne MOBLEY, Petitioner, v. Melvin COLEMAN, Sheriff, Orange County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-994.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 14, 1974.

Habeas Corpus denied.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.210 Assurances to CMS. ( a ) Assurances to CMS. Each organization will provide assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that the requirements of § 422.208 are met.
( b ) Disclosure to Medicare Beneficiaries. Each MA organization must provide the following information to any Medicare beneficiary who requests it: ( 1 ) Whether the MA organization uses a physician incentive plan that affects the use of referral services.
( 2 ) The type of incentive arrangement.
( 3 ) Whether stop-loss protection is provided.
[70 FR 52026, Sept. 1, 2005]
#### Jack NAPOLI, Jr., a Deceased minor, by and through his parent and legal guardian, Jack Napoli, Sr., Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corp. authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-889.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 6, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1978.

David R. Howland of Ress, Gomez, Rosenberg, Berke & Howland, P. A., North Miami, for appellant.

Peggy J. Tribbett of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered after a directed verdict was granted to the insurance company on a question of coverage.

In this action for declaratory relief the question is whether Jack Napoli, Jr. was a “named insured” on a policy which carried death benefits only for those persons who were listed in Item 1 of the policy as “Named Insured and Address.” It is undisputed the name Jack Napoli, Jr. does not appear on the policy but both the parents of this decedent testified they intended for him to be carried as a named insured and there is an endorsement of record which says “add Jack Napoli, Jr.” and his date of birth.

While the testimony of the parents and the insurance company’s endorsement do not conclusively prove Jack Napoli, Jr. was *879a named insured for death benefits coverage this evidence is sufficient prima facie to support the allegations in the count charging reformation of contract. The standard of proof in reformation of contracts cases is “clear and convincing” as was held in *Allstate Insurance Company v. Vanater,*297 So.2d 293 (Fla.1974). However this is not the standard which must be met for purposes of a directed verdict. If a party presents evidence in support of its allegations that evidence is presumed to be true and every favorable conclusion or inference which can be reasonably and logically drawn from the evidence should be given to that party. All questions and inferences must be resolved against the party moving for a directed verdict and for the other party. *Memorial Park, Inc. v. Spinelli,*342 So.2d 829 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). When the parents testified they called the company to add their son as a named insured and the company executed a change endorsement to “add son Jack Napoli, Jr. 2-2-54” it is logical and reasonable to conclude or infer Jack Napoli, Jr. was added as a named insured. Of course this might be proved otherwise by the evidence later presented but it is sufficient to prevent a directed verdict. The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.01

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF  THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Richard S. Fuld, Jr., certify that:

|Date: April 14, 2003 |  |                                                                                 
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | /s/RICHARD S. FULD, JR.Richard S. Fuld, Jr. Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lehman Brothers Inc. and will be retained by Lehman Brothers Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
40474.

#### POPE et al. v. LEDBETTER et al.

Decided January 22, 1964.

*870*O’Kelley, Hopkins & Van Gerpen, William C. O’Kelley,*for plaintiffs in error.

*John K. Calhoun,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

Initially we consider whether the demurrers raising the statute of limitation *(Code*§§ 3-1002, 3-1003) should have been sustained. It is well settled that demurrers raising this issue are good only if the petition shows on its face that the statute has run. Georgia Procedure & Practice 785, § 29-23 (1).

*871Measured by this yardstick, how stands the petition? Count 2 alleges specifically that the first time plaintiffs saw the writing which defendant allegedly misrepresented as a valid insurance binder was “about June 12, 1958.” It is also alleged that plaintiffs requested defendants to send the binder to them immediately after the claim was denied in January, 1958, but that defendants did not and “had no intention of mailing petitioners a copy of said alleged binder.” It is further alleged that, despite plaintiffs’ requests, defendants intentionally withheld the binder until June, 1958. The latter date is within the four year statutory period of limitation and the action on count 2 is not barred.

Count 1 presents a slightly different situation. There no dates are alleged as to any event between the denial of the claim (January, 1958) and the adverse judgment in Federal court (February, 1960). Therefore, we conclude that the necessary dates not appearing on the face of the petition, it does not show the action to be barred. A defendant is not without remedy in this situation, as any relevant date can be elicited by special demurrer. *Warren if. Powell,*122 Ga. 4 (49 SE 730). Then, if the bar of the statute applies, the material amendment to the petition opens it to demurrer on that ground, or a plea of the statute of limitation may be filed.

As to the general grounds of the demurrers, the petition alleges sufficiently the necessary elements of fraud and deceit. As we view it, the misrepresentations as to the issuance of a binder were misrepresentations of *fact*until the plaintiffs received a copy. Only then could they evaluate the effectiveness of the “binder,” this being a question of *law.*The facts here are quite similar to those presented in *Clark v. Kelly,*217 Ga. 449 (122 SE2d 731), in which it was held that the petition stated a cause of action for fraud and deceit. Assuming the validity of the defendants’ contention that an insurance binder must have been in writing in 1957, the misrepresentation alleged is that the binder had been in fact issued when it had not, and not that an oral binder was made.

All of the general demurrers were properly overruled.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*