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

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Beard Energy Transition Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sarah James, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.The Report fully complies 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: February 24, 2022

/s/ Sarah James

Sarah James 

Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
# C_2015381EN.01005701.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/57

---

Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (KIMBO)

(Case T-568/13) (1)

1

(2015/C 381/67)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
EX-4.4.4



 Exhibit 4.4.4 

THIRD AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED 

WESTWOOD HOLDINGS GROUP, INC. 

STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 The
Third Amended and Restated Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended in the following respects, effective March 4, 2015, subject to approval by the stockholders of Westwood Holdings Group, Inc.
no later than March 4, 2016, in accordance with Section 17 of the Plan. If this Amendment is not so approved, it will be considered void. 

The first sentence of Section 4.1 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following sentence: 

“Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4.2, the maximum aggregate number of shares of Stock that may be issued under the Plan
shall be 4,398,100.”
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### African Development Foundation

      ( print page 50162)    
*Time:*                     Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.                

*Place:*                     African Development Foundation, Conference Room, 1400 I Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.                

*Date:*                     Tuesday, October 13, 2009.                

*Status:*

1. Open session, Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.; and

2. Closed session, Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.

                    Due to security requirements and limited seating, all individuals wishing to attend the open session of the meeting must notify Michele M. Rivard at (202) 673-3916 or                     *mrivard@usadf.gov*                     of your request to attend by 5 p.m. on Thursday, October 8, 2009.                

Lloyd O. Pierson,

President.

[FR Doc. E9-23526 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6117-01-P
§ 1022.26 Delivery of opt-out notices. ( a ) *In general.* The opt-out notice must be provided so that each consumer can reasonably be expected to receive actual notice. For opt-out notices provided electronically, the notice may be provided in compliance with either the electronic disclosure provisions in this subpart or the provisions in section 101 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001 *et seq.*
( b ) *Examples of reasonable expectation of actual notice.* A consumer may reasonably be expected to receive actual notice if the affiliate providing the notice: ( 1 ) Hand-delivers a printed copy of the notice to the consumer;
( 2 ) Mails a printed copy of the notice to the last known mailing address of the consumer;
( 3 ) Provides a notice by email to a consumer who has agreed to receive electronic disclosures by email from the affiliate providing the notice; or
( 4 ) Posts the notice on the Web site at which the consumer obtained a product or service electronically and requires the consumer to acknowledge receipt of the notice.
( c ) *Examples of no reasonable expectation of actual notice.* A consumer may *not* reasonably be expected to receive actual notice if the affiliate providing the notice: ( 1 ) Only posts the notice on a sign in a branch or office or generally publishes the notice in a newspaper;
( 2 ) Sends the notice via email to a consumer who has not agreed to receive electronic disclosures by email from the affiliate providing the notice; or
( 3 ) Posts the notice on a Web site without requiring the consumer to acknowledge receipt of the notice.
#### § 4.44 The bones.

The osseous abnormalities incident to trauma or disease, such as malunion with deformity throwing abnormal stress upon, and causing malalignment of joint surfaces, should be depicted from study and observation of all available data, beginning with inception of injury or disease, its nature, degree of prostration, treatment and duration of convalescence, and progress of recovery with development of permanent residuals. With shortening of a long bone, some degree of angulation is to be expected; the extent and direction should be brought out by X-ray and observation. The direction of angulation and extent of deformity should be carefully related to strain on the neighboring joints, especially those connected with weight-bearing.
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 Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
M. Harary, President, CEO, Treasurer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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), as applicable, 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/ Joseph M. Harary
    Joseph M. Harary
    President, CEO Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
Dated: August 7, 2009
SCALE 1:24,000

SHUTESBURY QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE STATE GEOLOGIST

AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-G

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Shutesbury Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by

Janet R. Stone and Mary L. DiGiacomo-Cohen

2010

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1964.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Office of the

Massachusetts State Geologist. Image available online at:

http://www.geo.umass.edu/stategeologist/frame_maps.htm

Map units were reproduced from Stone (1978).

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 12 of 24)

(M

O

U

N

T

TO

B

Y)

(Q

UA

B

BIN

R

E

S

E

R

V

OIR)

(MILLERS FALLS)

(BELCHERTOWN) 72°22'30"W

72°22'30"W

72°30'0"W

72°30'0"W

42°30'0"N

42°30'0"N

42°22'30"N

42°22'30"N

Stone, J.R., and DiGiacomo-Cohen, M.L., compilers, 2010,

Surficial geologic map of the Heath-Northfield-SouthwickHampden 24-quadrangle area in the Connecticut Valley

region, west-central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-G.

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/G.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald GIPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-1407.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Dec. 1, 2005.

Thomas M. Daly (argued), Office of the United States Attorney Criminal Division, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Stephen C. Williams (argued), Office of the Federal Public Defender, East St. Louis, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KANNE, WOOD, SYKES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

A *sua sponte*request for rehearing *en banc*was made by an active member of the court and a vote was called for on October 11, 2005. A majority of the active judges voted to deny rehearing *en banc.*

Judge Ann Claire Williams dissented from the decision not to rehear this case *en banc*and was joined in the dissent by Judge Terence T. Evans. That dissent follows.

The request for rehearing *en banc*is Denied.

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge,

with whom EVANS, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc.

In this case, the panel rejected Gipson’s argument that the disparity between the Guidelines’ recommended sentences for cocaine base and powder is unreasonable. I voted to rehear this case *en banc,*as I think it raises several compelling issues important to our review for “reasonableness” after *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). First, this case raises the issue of the relationship between our prior case law holding that the United States Sentencing Guidelines’ disparity between cocaine base and powder sentences is constitutional and the new *post-Booker*reasonableness standard. Second, this case would allow this court to consider the threshold for rebutting the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to sentences within the Guidelines. Third, the court could consider whether there are any provisions in the Guidelines that are facially unreasonable in the post *Booker*world.

Although I recognize that recalling a mandate is not a matter to be taken lightly, *see Calderon v. Thompson,*523 U.S. *994538, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998), the circumstances of this case (the opinion was converted from an unpublished order to a published opinion after the mandate issued) convince me that these issues are worthy of our full court’s attention.
#### ROBERT C. SPENCER et al., Respondents, v. UNITED RAILWAYS COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Submitted on Briefs January 15, 1913.

Opinion Filed January 16, 1913.

Barrie y. United Railways Company of St. Louis, 138 Mo. App. 556, followed.

Appeal from St. Lonis City Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *W. B.*Homer, Judge.

Affirmed.

*Boyle <& Priest*and *T. M. Pierce*for appellant.

*Seraca N. & S. C. Taylor*for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit to enforce a judgment for $5000 against the appellant here and in favor of respondents, the judgment rendered against the St. Louis Transit Company by the St. Louis Circuit Court on the 18th of January, 1906, in an action to recover damages for the death of an infant daughter of respondents, plaintiffs here and in the former case, the death occurring, as was alleged, through the negligent acts of the employees of the Transit Company while operating one of its cars on the 18th of October, 1904. The St. Louis Transit Company appealing from that judgment to the Supreme Court, the judgment was affirmed July 12, 1909. [See Spencer et al. v. St. Louis Transit Co., 222 Mo. 310, 121 S. W. 108.] The judgment not being paid, this suit was brought to enforce it against the United Railways Company.

At the trial of the present case it was stipulated by counsel that the testimony introduced in the case of Barrie v. United Railways Co., 138 Mo. App. 556, 119 *431S. W. 1020, should be considered as offered and introduced in this case. Other evidence along like lines was also introduced by the parties. Counsel for appellant as well as for respondents claimed and admitted in open court before us that the facts in this case on which liability of the appellant was claimed and the principle involved were identical with those in the Barrie case.' It was also contended by counsel for appellant that the determination by the Supreme Court of the case of Johnson v. United Railways Company, then pending on appeal by the United Railways Company in the Supreme Court, would be decisive of this case. Acceding to that contention, this present case has been continued from term to term, until now.

The Supreme Court by its decision in the Johnson case, 152 S. W. 362 (not yet officially reported but in which a motion for rehearing was overruled December 31, 1912) has approved the decision of this court in the Barrie case, referring to the report of that case both for the facts and the-conclusions of law. It is unnecessary therefore for us, in the present case, to do more than refer to the Barrie case for a statement of the facts on which a right of recovery here is based, and to the conclusions of law there announced. On- the authority of Barrie v. United Railways Company, supra, the judgment of the circuit court in the case at bar is affirmed.

All concur.
Exhibit 4.97


 


 The Guaranty Contract


 


Contract No.: SJZ0910120140044-13


Guarantor : Hebei Xuhua Trading Co.,
Ltd..


Guarantee :
Hua Xia Bank Shijiazhuang Jianhua Branch


 


Signing Date : October 8, 2014


 


Pledge Definition :   To ensure multiple loans Party B
(Guarantee) has lent to Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trading Group Co., Ltd., Party A (Guarantor) is willing to provide guaranty for Party
B.


 


Maximum Amount: RMB150,000,000


 


Pledge Term
: From July19,2015 to July18,2017
NO. 07-00-0279-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	APRIL __24, 2001

	______________________________

	JOE ANGEL CASTILLO,

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 181st DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 36810-B; HON. SAMUEL KISER, PRESIDING

	________________________________

Before Boyd, C.J., and Quinn and Reavis, JJ.

	Joe Angel Castillo appeals from a judgment under which he was convicted of

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.  Through one point of error, appellant argues

that the trial court erred in removing him from community supervision and adjudicating him

guilty since he was not properly admonished prior to pleading true to two allegations in the

State’s motion to adjudicate guilt.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

	Appellant plead guilty to the aforementioned offense.  However, the trial court

deferred adjudicating him guilty of same and, rather, placed him on community supervision.  Thereafter, the state moved to adjudicate him guilty, alleging approximately six grounds

in support of its motion.  A hearing was held at which the appellant, through his counsel,

admitted that two of the grounds were true.  Ultimately, the trial court found that five of the

grounds were substantiated, granted the motion, and adjudicated appellant guilty.  

	Appellant attacks the adjudication because the trial judge did not admonish him of

the effect of his pleading true to two of the allegations contained in the state’s motion to

adjudicate.  This is nothing more than an appeal from the court’s determination to

adjudicate appellant guilty.  Consequently, we have no jurisdiction over the point.  Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1997, no pet.); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001) (stating that “[n]o appeal may be taken from this determination”).

	Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

								Brian Quinn

								   Justice

Do not publish.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 4.2

                 COMPENSATION AGREEMENTS WITH GEORGE G. CHACHAS


                                Wenthur & Chachas
                                Attorneys at Law
                     4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500
                           La Jolla ,California 92037
                                  May 15, 2001

Mr. Gregory J. Chachas
Covingham Capital Corp
174 Dorchester Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84103

Re: Covingham Capital Corp.

Dear Dad:

         Per our discussion through and including the edgarizing and filing of
the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2001, an my bill for legal and
edgarizing services would be $2,500 which I will accept 50,0000 shares of common
stock as full payment.

         If you have any questions ore need additional information please feel
free to call.

                                             Sincerely,

                                             /s/ George G. Chachas
                                             George G. Chachas


                                Wenthur & Chachas
                                Attorneys at Law
                     4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500
                           La Jolla ,California 92037
                                  May 15, 2001

Mr. Gregory J. chachas
Covingham Capital Corp
174 Dorchester Drive
Salt Lake City, Ut 84103

Re: Covingham Capital Corp.

         Through the filing of the filing of the 2002 Form 10-KSB my bill for
legal services is $2,500 which as previously, I will accept 50,000 shares of
common stock as full payment.

         If you have any questions or need additional information please feel
free to call.

                                             Sincerely,

                                             /s/ George G. Chachas
                                             George G. Chachas
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 74 FR 19432, Apr. 29, 2009.

§ 51.58 Requirements and Standards applicable for payment of per diem. A State home must meet the requirements in subpart C and the standards in the applicable subpart to be recognized, certified, and receive per diem for that program of care: ( a ) For nursing home care, subpart D.
( b ) For domiciliary care, subpart E.
( c ) For adult day health care, subpart F.
[83 FR 61276, Nov. 28, 2018]
<PAGE>

                               Exhibit 11.1
 
                               PALFED, Inc.
 
            Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Data
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Three Months      Nine Months
                                                                     Ended            Ended
                                                                 September 30     September 30
                                                                ---------------  ---------------
                                                                         (in thousands)
<S>                                                             <C>              <C>
1997
Weighted average shares outstanding...........................         5,208            5,198
Stock options outstanding.....................................           337              303
Shares assumed repurchased....................................          (180)            (150)
                                                                       -----            -----
Average common and common equivalent shares (1)...............         5,365            5,351
                                                                       -----            -----
                                                                       -----            -----
</TABLE>
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Three Months      Nine Months
                                                                     Ended            Ended
                                                                 September 30     September 30
                                                                ---------------  ---------------
                                                                         (in thousands)
<S>                                                             <C>              <C>
1996
Weighted average shares outstanding...........................         5,136            5,126
Stock options outstanding.....................................           230              230
Shares assumed repurchased....................................          (135)            (136)
                                                                       -----            -----
Average common and common equivalent shares (1)...............         5,231            5,220
                                                                       -----            -----
                                                                       -----            -----
</TABLE>
 
 
(1) Stock options outstanding less shares assumed repurchased are common stock
    equivalents.