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



Statement of Chief Financial Officer 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Knight Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John B. Howard, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



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



/s/    JOHN B. HOWARDName: John B. Howard Title:   Chief
Financial Officer Date:   March 14, 2006




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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 Tower Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Sawyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





/s/ Richard R. SawyerRichard R. SawyerChief Financial OfficerNovember 5, 2010
**Exhibit          32.1**

| /s/                      David L.                      Cheek                                                                                                             David                      L. CheekPresident                      and Chief Executive OfficerMarch                      28,2007 | /s/                      Bert E. Downing,                      Jr.                                                                                                  Bert                      E. Downing, Jr.Vice                      President, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate                      Controller and TreasurerMarch                      28, 2007 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
EXHIBIT 32.1






Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The undersigned, Daniel Dror, CEO and Chairman of American International Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly
Report of Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009.






The undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International Industries, Inc. and results of its operations.






Date:  November 13, 2009


Daniel Dror


Chairman


/s/ Daniel Dror
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17 -0283V
Filed: October 27, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

MARLA KRAMER

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ; Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Causation

- In

- Fact; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Hepatitis A (Hep A) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Mallori Brown e Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On February 28, 2017

, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered right shoulder injuries and neuralgia of the right upper extremity caused by the influenza ( “ flu ” ) and Hepatitis A ( “ Hep A ” ) vaccinations she received on February 2, 2016. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 14. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccinations in the United States, suffered the residual effects of her injuries for more than six months, and neither she nor any other party has filed any action or received any compensation for petitioner ’ s injuries alleged

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

e ase of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 14

- 16. The case was assigned to the Special Processing

Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 27, 2017

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent “ believes that petitioner ’ s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) and that it was caused- in

fact by the Hepatitis A vaccine she received on February 2, 2016. ” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “ based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. ” Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
#### Smalley *v.*Bank of Albertville.

Detinue.

(Decided January 30, 1917.

73 South. 995.)

Parties; Amendment. — Where the original complaint styled plaintiff as the Bank of Arab, a corporation, and during the trial it is shown that there was no such corporation, but that plaintiff’s true, corporate name was the Bank of Albertville, and that it owned the branch at Arab, the court properly permitted the complaint to be amended by substituting the word “Albertville” for “Arab.”

Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson.

Detinue by the Bank of Albertville against J. E. Smalley. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

The amendment sufficiently appears. The complaint was further amended by adding the counts in assumpsit. The pleas were payment, and the suggestion that the detinue suit was founded upon the mortgage, with the request that the amount due thereon be ascertained. The note contained the mortgage clause conveying certain personal property, together with the crops. It appeared that the bank of Arab was a branch of the Bank of Albertville; that there were no stockholders in the Bank of Arab, but the stockholders of the Bank of Albertville owned it and all the profits were distributed to the stockholders through the Bank of Albertville.

John A. Lusk & Son, for appellant.

Street & Bradford, for appellee.

BROWN, J.

In the complaint as originally filed, the plaintiff was styled, the “Bank of Arab, a corporation.” During the progress of the trial it was shown that there was no süch corporation as the “Bank of Arab;” that the plaintiff’s true corporate name was the Bank of Albertville; and that its branch bank at Arab was styled, the “Bank of Arab.” On this showing the court properly allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint by substituting the word “Albertville” for *“Arab.”*— McDonough *v. Commercial State Bank, infra,*73 South. 754. The allowance *497of the amendment cured the errors in the previous rulings of the court in the admission of the evidence. The court properly-refused the affirmative charge requested by the defendant.

Affirmed.
[No. 28081-7-II.

Division Two.

November 1, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael G. Newman, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 00-1-04422-6, Vicki L. Hogan, J., entered November 1, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Houghton and Armstrong, JJ.
#### § 1912.6 Conflict of interest.

No members of any advisory committee other than members representing employers or employees shall have an economic interest in any proposed rule.
#### Taylor *v.*The State.

Crime.

(Decided February 3, 1916.

70 South. 949.)

Appeal and Error; Review; Charges; Bill of Exceptions. — In the absence of a bill of exceptions giving to the reviewing court evidence or data from which to determine whether charges are proper, this court cannot review the charges even if the law requires them to appear of record and requires the court to review them as a part of the record.

Appeal from Houston Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

Sterling Taylor was convicted of crime, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

The appeal is on the record proper, without a bill of exceptions, and shows regular proceedings and judgment of conviction finding the defendant guilty of seduction, following a verdict of the jury. The record also shows a sentence imposed upon the defendant in due form, sentencing him to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 6 years. The certificate of the clerk shows that more than 90 days have elapsed *14since the judgment of conviction and notation of appeal by defendant, and that no bill of exceptions has been presented. There being no bill of exceptions, this court cannot review and pass upon the charges set out in the record as refused to the defendant.

We find nothing in the record authorizing a reversal of the judgment from which the appeal is prosecuted.

Affirmed.
§ 1978.107 Hearings. ( a ) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at subpart A of part 18 of this title.
( b ) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly assign the case to an ALJ who will notify the parties of the day, time, and place of hearing. The hearing is to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted de novo on the record. Administrative law judges have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing.
( c ) If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted.
( d ) Formal rules of evidence will not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence will be applied. The ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.
[77 FR 44134, July 27, 2012, as amended at 86 FR 1788, Jan. 11, 2021]
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.43


BY FAX


                                 July 13, 2001

Mr. Roger L. Eggena
65 Warren Street
Charleston, SC 29403

Dear Roger:

     This letter is to serve as a formal supplement to Kewaunee's employment
offer letter to you dated July 14, 1997.

     Immediately with the start of your employment with Kewaunee, you will be
entitled to three weeks of vacation.  Additional time beyond the agreed upon
three weeks will be in accordance with Kewaunee's fringe benefits available for
exempt employees.

     In regard to job security, if you are terminated from employment from
Kewaunee, other than for cause, the Company will pay separation pay equal to
your base salary, at its then current rate, for up to ten (10) months.  If you
should obtain other employment within the ten month separation pay period, any
salary or benefit from Kewaunee will reduce in like amount.  While you are
receiving the separation pay, you would be permitted to participate in the group
insurance and medical care programs in effect at the time.  After any
termination of employment, the separation payments will not continue the
employment relation and, as such, you will not be eligible to accrue further
pension vesting or to continue to participate in the 401K and 401+ plans.

     During your first year of employment, the Company will guarantee the bonus
amount as outlined in our offer letter to you of July 14.  In addition, if you
are promoted into a position with the Company that qualifies for a greater bonus
percentage, the Company will pay you the greater of the bonus portion for the
time spent in that position.

     If Ron Popiel, the Vice President of Manufacturing, should decide to leave
the Company, you will be the logical internal candidate for that position.  But,
the Company cannot make any commitments or guarantees of this position to you.

     I believe this fully represents our telephone conversation today.
<PAGE>

     Should you have any other questions, please let me know.  We look forward
to your acceptance of this position on Monday, July 21, 1997.  Please sign the
original offer letter to you dated July 14, 1997, and return via fax (704-873-
1275) and mail the hard copy to Jim Rossi.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 /s/ William A. Shumaker
                                 ----------------------------
                                 William A. Shumaker
                                 Vice President and General Manager

Copies to  Eli Manchester, Jr.
           Jim Rossi
# EUR-Lex - 32000R0354 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R0354

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 354/2000 of 16 February 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 1547/1999 concerning the control procedures to apply to shipments of certain types of waste to China (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 045 , 17/02/2000 P. 0021 - 0022 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 354/2000

of 16 February 2000

amending Regulation (EC) No 1547/1999 concerning the control procedures to apply to shipments of certain types of waste to China

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out, of the European Community(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 99/816/EC(2), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 7 December 1999 China made an official request to be allowed to import certain waste listed in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 without any control procedures, instead of applying the control procedure applicable to waste listed in Annex IV to that Regulation.

(2) In accordance with Article 17(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93, the committee instituted by Article 18 of Council Directive 75/442 of 15 July 1975 on waste(3), as last amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC(4), was notified of the official request on 13 December 1999.

(3) In order to take account of China's new situation, it is necessary to amend Commission Regulation (EC) No 1547/1999 of 12 July 1999 determining the control procedures to apply, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93, to shipments of certain types of waste to certain countries to which OECD Decision C(92)39 final does not apply(5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 334/2000(6),

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex D to Regulation (EC) No 1547/1999 is amended by adding the following types of waste to the Chapter "CHINA":

1. All types included in section GH (Solid plastic waste).

2. In section GJ (Textile wastes):

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 February 2000.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 45.

(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(4) OJ L 135, 6.6.1996, p. 32.

(5) OJ L 185, 17.7.1999, p. 1.

(6) OJ L 41, 15.2.2000, p. 8.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. IAN RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 318 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 29th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
§ 1979.102 Obligations and prohibited acts. ( a ) No air carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee, or any person acting pursuant to the employee's request, engaged in any of the activities specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
( b ) It is a violation of the Act for any air carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier to intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has: ( 1 ) Provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be provided to the air carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier or the Federal Government, information relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order, regulation, or standard of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating to air carrier safety under subtitle VII of title 49 of the United States Code or under any other law of the United States;
( 2 ) Filed, caused to be filed, or is about to file (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be filed a proceeding relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order, regulation, or standard of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating to air carrier safety under subtitle VII of title 49 of the United States Code, or under any other law of the United States;
( 3 ) Testified or is about to testify in such a proceeding; or
( 4 ) Assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in such a proceeding.
( c ) This part shall have no application to any employee of an air carrier, contractor, or subcontractor who, acting without direction from an air carrier, contractor, or subcontractor (or such person's agent) deliberately causes a violation of any requirement relating to air carrier safety under Subtitle VII Aviation Programs of Title 49 of the United States Code or any other law of the United States.
[No. 25180-9-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Sharon K. Freigang, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 99-1-01067-0, William J. Kamps, J., entered October 12, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., concurred in by Houghton, J.; Morgan, J. concurs separately. Now published at 115 Wn. App. 496.