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 ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas H. Aasen, Vice President and 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 to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                                           
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2010 |  |  |  | /S/ THOMAS H. AASEN                                                                       
|                   |  |  |  | Thomas H. AasenExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Chief Business Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to
the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
# C_2013367EN.01002002.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Isdin, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bial-Portela & Ca SA

(Case C-597/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR - Earlier word mark ZEBINIX - Relative grounds for refusal - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 367/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Isdin, SA (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, abogados)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent), Bial-Portela & Ca, SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

a

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2012 in Case T-366/11 Bial-Portela & Ca
  v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which the General Court annulled Decision R 1212/2009-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 April 2011, dismissing the action brought against the Opposition Division’s decision which rejected the opposition brought by the owner of the Community word mark ‘ZEBENIX’ in respect of goods and services classified in Classes 3, 5 and 42, against the application for registration of the word mark ‘ZEBEXIR’ in respect of goods classified in Classes 3 and 5 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion

Bial-Portela & Ca

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 October 2012 in Case T-366/11 Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 October 2012 in Case T-366/11 Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

1

---
#### § 147A.43 Other sources of ignition; flammable fumigants.

While the space that is fumigated is being sealed or during fumigation, no person may use matches, smoking materials, fires, open flames, or any other source of ignition in any spaces that are not determined to be safe for occupancy under § 147A.11(b)(1)(i).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7145
RUSSELL S. EVERETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; DONALD R. GUILLORY, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-853-AM) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 20, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell S. Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, app eals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Everett v. Angelone , No. CA-96- 853-AM (E.D. Va. June 19, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2345 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide for an exclusion from 

Red Flag Guidelines for health care practices with 20 or fewer employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2009 

Mr. ADLER of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. SIMPSON, and Mr. BROUN of 

Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide for 

an exclusion from Red Flag Guidelines for health care 

practices with 20 or fewer employees. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FOR HEALTH CARE PRACTICES 

4 WITH 20 OR FEWER EMPLOYEES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 615(e) of the Fair Credit 

6 Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m(e)) is amended by add7 ing at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(4) EXCLUSION FOR HEALTH CARE PRACTICES

9 WITH 20 OR FEWER EMPLOYEES.—For purposes of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2345 IH

1 developing guidelines and prescribing regulations 

2 under this subsection, the term ‘creditor’ shall not 

3 include a health care practice with 20 or fewer em4 ployees.’’. 

5 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 180 days after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act, the agencies de7 scribed in section 615(e)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting 

8 Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m(e)(1)) shall update the guidelines 

9 and regulations required under such section to reflect the 

10 amendment made by subsection (a). 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.03-3 Angle of downflooding.

The angle of heel of the vessel at which any opening in the hull not provided with a water tight closure would be immersed.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-132795 and 333-143274 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-159656 and 333-138652 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2012, relating tothe consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Loral Space & Communications Inc. and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Loral Space & Communications Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2011. 

/s/ DELOITTE &TOUCHE LLP 

New York, NY 

February 28, 2012
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-50733

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Leon Johnson, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:21-CR-267-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leon Johnson

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Johnson has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 12, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50733 Document: 00516783263 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
No. 22-50733

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-50733 Document: 00516783263 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-11700

Paul D. Borman

v. United States District Judge

Stephanie Dawkins Davis

United States Magistrate Judge

POINTE PHYSICAL THERAPY, LLC,

et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT ANDREW RUDEN, M.D.’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF NO. 163)

Defendant Andrew Ruden, M.D. has filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 163.) On

November 1, 2016, the Court heard argument from Dr. Ruden on his request and finds that

appointment of pro bono counsel is not appropriate at this stage of the litigation. “The court may

request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S .C. § 1915(e)(1). “The

appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is not a constitutional right and is justified only in

exceptional circumstances.” Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1006 (6th Cir. 2003). See also Lavado

v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6th Cir. 1993) (“Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not

a constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.”). “In

determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, courts have examined the type of case and

the abilities of the plaintiff to represent himself.” Lavado, 992 F.2d at 606 (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). The decision whether to appoint counsel rests within the sound discretion

1

2:14-cv-11700-PDB-SDD Doc # 178 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 6863
of the district court. Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Dep’t, 763 F.2d 757, 760 (6th Cir. 1985). 

Dr. Ruden stated to the Court at the status conference on November 1, 2016, that he

continues to practice as a physician and is earning income. Dr. Ruden has not demonstrated his

financial inability to obtain counsel. In addition, Dr. Ruden is a well spoken, well educated

individual who appears to the Court to comprehend the nature of the proceedings in this matter,

which he attends regularly, and to understand the nature of the claims against him. See United States

S.E.C. v. Onyx Capital Advisors, LLC, No. 10-11633, 2012 WL 1018913, at *3 (E.D. Mich. March

26, 2012) (denying defendant’s motion to appoint counsel where defendant failed to demonstrate

indigence and had argued on his own behalf and appeared to understand the facts at issue). 

The Court finds that Dr. Ruden has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that

would justify the Court’s appointment of pro bono counsel to assist him in his defense at this stage

of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court will DENY the motion to appoint counsel WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 2, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party

of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on November 2, 2016.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-11700-PDB-SDD Doc # 178 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 6864
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

#### § 2.95-10 Equipment or material required to be approved.

(a) The manufacturer of any equipment or material, which must also be approved by or found satisfactory for use by the Commandant, shall keep the required drawings, plans, blueprints, specifications, production models (if any), qualification tests, and related correspondence containing evidence that the Coast Guard has found such equipment or material satisfactory, during the period of time the approval or listing is valid. Most of the specifications containing detailed descriptions of records required to be retained by the public are in parts 160 to 164, inclusive in subchapter Q (Specifications) of this chapter.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

John T. Sawyer, CERTIFICATION

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 Penhall International Corp.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, John T. Sawyer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ John T. Sawyer
John T. Sawyer
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2003

The foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 D0 15 4

. STACEY J

. GOLDRI NG v

. SHELENA M AUREN SPENCER et a l

.

St acey J

. Go l d ri n g fi l ed th i s ap pl i cat io n fo r d i scret i o nary ap p eal fro m t h e s t at e

co u rt ’ s o rd er d is m i ss in g h er ci v i l co m p l ai n t

. A p art y m ay ap p eal d i rect ly fro m “ [a] l l

fi nal ju d g m en t s

, t h at i s t o s ay

, wh ere t h e cas e i s n o l o n g er p en di n g i n th e co u rt b el o w,

ex cep t as p ro v id ed in Co d e Sect i o n 5 -6 -3 5 .” OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a) (1 ). Th e o rd er t h at

Go l dri n g wi s hes t o ap p eal is a fi n al ju d g m en t

, an d n o p ro v i s i o n o f O CGA § 5 -6 -3 5,

t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap peal s t at u t e, ap p ears t o ap pl y h ere. Th u s

, G o l d ri n g h ad a ri g ht o f

d i rect ap p eal

.

W e w i ll gran t a t i m el y ap p l i cat i on fo r d is cret i o nary ap peal i f th e l o w er co urt ’ s

o rd er i s s u b

j e c t t o di rect ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Acco rd i n g l y

, t h i s

ap p li cat io n i s h ereb y GRANTED, an d Go l dri n g s h al l h av e t en d ay s fro m t h e d at e o f

t h i s o rd er t o fi l e a n ot i ce o f ap p eal wi t h th e t ri al co u rt

. If s h e h as al read y fi l ed a

n o t i ce o f ap p eal i n t h e t ri al co u rt

, s h e n eed n o t fi l e a s eco n d n o ti ce. Th e cl erk o f t h e

t ri al co u rt i s DIRECTED t o i n cl u d e a co p y of t h i s o rd er i n t h e reco rd t ran s m i t t ed to

t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 12/09/2014 December 09, 2014
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.933 Chemical protective clothing. When table 1 refers to this section, the following apply: ( a ) The master shall ensure that the following chemical protective clothing constructed of materials resistant to permeation by the cargo being handled is worn by all personnel engaged in an operation listed in paragraph (b) of this section: ( 1 ) Splash protective eyewear.
( 2 ) Long-sleeved gloves.
( 3 ) Boots or shoe covers.
( 4 ) Coveralls or lab aprons. Note:
“Guidelines for the Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing”, Third Edition, 1987, available from the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240-1634, provides information on the proper clothing for the cargo being handled.
( b ) This section applies during the following operations: ( 1 ) Sampling cargo.
( 2 ) Transferring cargo.
( 3 ) Making or breaking cargo hose connections.
( 4 ) Gauging a cargo tank, unless gauging is by closed system.
( 5 ) Opening cargo tanks.
( c ) Coveralls or lab aprons may be replaced by splash suits or aprons constructed of light weight or disposable materials if, in the judgment of the master— ( 1 ) Contact with the cargo being handled is likely to occur only infrequently and accidentally; and
( 2 ) The splash suit or apron is disposed of immediately after contamination.
( d ) Splash protective eyewear must be tight-fitting chemical-splash goggles, face shields, or similar items intended specifically for eye protection from chemical splashing or spraying.
( e ) The master shall ensure that each person in the vicinity of an operation listed in paragraph (b) of this section or in the vicinity of tanks, piping, or pumps being used to transfer the cargo wears splash protective eyewear under paragraph (d) of this section.
[CGD 88-100, 54 FR 40042, Sept. 29, 1989, as amended by USCG-1999-6216, 64 FR 53227, Oct. 1, 1999]
## en. 133 

## cs. 161 Ch. 183 

## cs. 192 Ch. 459 

## ce, 468 

## en, 484 Ch. 756 Ch. 761 Ch. 767 

### HB 2145 SB 138 

### TABLEOF CONTmTS

STATUTES (ORS)

# -'''0lu '(V\. e, 

### 2
Search and Seizure Offenses Against Persons and Property Administrative Procedure Public and Private Recorda Solid WaSte Control PollutionControl Traffic Offenses, Traffic Safety PUC, General Rail Carriers Motor Carriers OregonLaw 1985, 

### C. 735 OregonLaw 1985, 

### C. 670

'

# •.

, 

### /9; ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (OAR) •**'5.e..~** Vo l 0 

### \



## en, 340, Div. 12 Civil Penalties

- Ch. 340, Div. 100 to 110 Hazardous Waste Management 

## en. 860, 

## mv. 46 Rail Transport Ch. 860, Div. 66 Motor Vehicle Transport

ZB4956 (8/30/85)

# e--, Ch. 133 Ch. 161 Ch. 183 Ch. 192 Ch. 459 Ch. 468 Ch. 484 Ch. 756 

## en, 761 Ch. 767 HB 2238 SECTION E STATUTES AND RULES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATUTES (ORS)

Search and Seizure Offenses Against Persons and Property Administrative Procedure Public and Private Records SolidWaste Control Pollution Control Traffic Offenses, Traffic Safety PUC, General Rail Carriers Motor Carriers Oregon Law 1983, Ch. 703

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (OAR)-

Ch. 340, Div. 12 Civil Penalties Ch. 340, Div. 100 to 110 Proposed Hazardous Waste Management Ch. 860, Div. 46 Rail Transport 

## cs. 860, Div. 66 Motor Vehicle Transport

Revised 8/1/84
#### John Farr, Assignee of White Mountain Bank, *v.*Jared I. Williams & al., Adm’rs of Estate of Geo. C. Williams.

Proceedings on an appeal by a creditor of an insolvent estate from the allowance of the claim of another creditor, (whose demand is much larger than the appellant’s,) will be stayed to await the determination of an appeal taken by the administrators from the allowance of the claim of the appealing creditor.

Appeal by Hezekiah Parsons from allowance of plaintiff’s claim against said estate, entered in the Southern Judicial District of Coos.

It is admitted by the parties, that the commissioner on said Geo. C. Williams’ estate, allowed to Hezekiah Parsons a claim against said estate for §500, from which allowance the administrators appealed to this court, which was duly entered here November Term, 1866, and by the act of the legislature dividing the county into two judicial districts, that appeal will be entered in the Northern Judicial District. After the appeal taken by the administrators aforesaid, from the allowance of said Parsons’ claim, said Parsons made his petition, claiming to be a creditor of said George C. Williams’ estate, and as such, took an appeal from the allowance by the commissioner of $46,500, to the said John Farr, as assignee of said White Mountain Bank. And now the said John Farr asks that this action be continued until the appeal of the administrators, as aforesaid, is decided, and the fact is established whether said Hezekiah Parsons is a creditor to said George C. Williams’ estate, or otherwise.

Ordered, that the questions of law arising on this case, including all matters within the discretion of the court at the trial term, be reserved and assigned to the law term.

Smith, J.

The application for a stay of proceedings should be granted. Unless Parsons is a creditor, he has no right to appeal, Comp. *561Stats, ch. 132, sec. 4; and the question whether he is a creditor, is not yet determined, an appeal haring been taken by the administrators from the allowance of Parsons’ claim; see *Mathes*v. Bennett, 21 N. H. 188. One claimant ought not to be allowed to put another claimant, whose demand is ninety-three times as large as his own, to the trouble and expense of proving the latter demand, until the fact is established that the first claimant has an interest in the question whether the second claim is valid.