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
Amended Quarterly Report of Vail Banks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Raymond E. Verlinde, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief
Administrative Officer (principal financial and 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) 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/ Raymond E.
Verlinde
Raymond E.
VerlindeSenior Executive Vice President and Chief
Administrative OfficerOctober 25,
2004
Exhibit 4.6


 


GUARANTOR
JOINDER AGREEMENT


 


This GUARANTOR
JOINDER AGREEMENT (this “Guarantor
Joinder Agreement”) is entered into effective as of January 23,
2004, by the persons set forth on the signature page attached hereto.


 


RECITALS


 


A.            Pursuant
to Section 12 of the Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of December 3,
2003 (the “Registration
Rights Agreement”), among Poster Financial Group, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”),
the Guarantors (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement) from time to
time party thereto and Lehman Brothers Inc. (the “Initial Purchaser”), the Company agreed to
cause GNLV, CORP., a Nevada corporation (“GNLV”), GNL, CORP., a Nevada corporation (“GNL”), and Golden
Nugget Experience, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“GNE”), to become
parties to the Registration Rights Agreement as Guarantors upon the Acquisition
Date (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement) by executing and
delivering to the Company a Guarantor Joinder Agreement; and


 


B.            GNLV, GNL and GNE
have each agreed to execute this Guarantor Joinder Agreement to become parties
to, and Guarantors under, the Registration Rights Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, each of the undersigned agrees as follows:


 


1.                                     Registration
Rights Agreement.  By executing this
Guarantor Joinder Agreement, each of the undersigned does hereby acknowledge
the terms of, and agrees to become a party to, and a Guarantor under, the
Registration Rights Agreement with the same force and effect as if originally
named therein as a Guarantor and, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, hereby expressly assumes all obligations and liabilities of a
Guarantor thereunder.


 


2.                                     GOVERNING LAW.  THIS
GUARANTOR JOINDER AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND
INTERPRETED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CHOICE OF LAW THEREOF.


 


[signature page follows]


 

















 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Guarantor Joinder Agreement
as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph hereof.


 


 


	
   

  	
  GNLV, CORP.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
    /s/ Timothy N. Poster

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   Name:  Timothy Poster

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   Title: Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  GNL, CORP.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
    /s/ Timothy N. Poster

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   Name:  Timothy Poster

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   Title: Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  GOLDEN NUGGET EXPERIENCE, LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: GNLV, CORP., as Sole Member

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
    /s/ Timothy N. Poster

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   Name: Timothy Poster

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   Title: Chief Executive Officer

  



 


2
#### James B. Lockwood and others, Appellants, v. William T. Brantley and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Pratt, J.; Dykman, J., not sitting.
Exhibit









Exhibit 10.2(r)





Amendment to 
Performance Stock Unit Award Agreement
This Amendment, effective March 9, 2016 to the Performance Stock Unit Award Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of March 2, 2015 is made between Anthem, Inc. (the “Company”) and the Participant set forth in the accompanying Grant Notice to the Agreement.  This Amendment is included in and made part of the Agreement.  
1.A new Section 3(f) is added to read as follows, existing Section 3(f) is renumbered as Section 3(g) and all cross-references are updated accordingly:
(f)    Termination Without Cause or for Good Reason - Cigna Corporation Acquisition.  Unless section 3(e) is applicable, and notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, this Section shall apply for the period beginning on the date that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger among Anthem, Anthem Merger Sub Corp., and Cigna Corporation dated as of July 23, 2015 (the “Merger Agreement”) is approved under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 in accordance with Section 3.1(c)(iii)(A) of the Merger Agreement (the “HSR Approval Date”) and ending on the earlier of (1) the third anniversary of the “Closing Date” as defined in the Merger Agreement or (2) the date the acquisition of Cigna Corporation is terminated (the “Cigna Integration Period”).  The Performance Period shall immediately lapse, causing any restrictions which would otherwise remain on the Performance Stock Units to immediately lapse, and the Shares covered by the award shall be immediately delivered if the Participant does not otherwise meet the requirements of Retirement as set forth in Section 3(a) above at Termination and, during the Cigna Integration Period, the Participation’s Termination is either (A) by the Company or an Affiliate without Cause or (B) by the Participant for Good Reason (as defined in the Executive Agreement Plan), provided that for clause (B), the Participant participates in the Executive Agreement Plan as of the HSR Approval Date.  The total number of Performance Stock Units that are determined to have vested and the number of Shares determined to be delivered pursuant the preceding sentence shall be calculated based on the achievement of the performance measures described in the attached Grant Notice as of the December 31 that immediately precedes the Participant’s Termination.  
2.    Effect on Agreement.  This Amendment has no effect on the other terms of the Agreement and the Agreement shall otherwise continue in effect.  
	
				
	 
	ANTHEM, INC.

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Printed:
	 
	Jose Thomas

	 
	Its:
	 
	EVP & Chief Human Resources Officer

	 
	 
	 
	Anthem, Inc.








Amendment - Performance Stock Unit Award Agreement - 2015
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549








FORM 8-K/A


(Amendment No. 1)





CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the


Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of report (Date of earliest event reported):    February 20, 2019





Commission File NumberExact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter; State of Incorporation;Address and Telephone NumberIRS EmployerIdentification Number1-8962Pinnacle West Capital Corporation(an Arizona corporation)400 North Fifth Street, P.O. Box 53999Phoenix, AZ 85072-3999(602) 250-100086-0512431





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





 ̈ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





 ̈ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





 ̈ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





 ̈ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter). Emerging growth company  ̈





If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ̈











---







Explanatory Note


This Current Report on Form 8-K/A (the “Amendment”) amends the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 20, 2018 (the “Original 8-K”).  This Amendment supplements the Original Form 8-K with the information set forth below. All other information set forth in the Original Form 8-K is otherwise unchanged and is incorporated herein by reference.


Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.





On December 20, 2018, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (the “Company”) filed a Form 8-K announcing the election of James E. Trevathan, Jr. to the Board of Directors of the Company effective December 19, 2018 and stating that committee assignments would be designated at a future meeting.  On February 20, 2019, the Board of Directors of the Company appointed Mr. Trevathan to its Human Resources Committee and Nuclear and Operating Committee.














---










SIGNATURES








Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.











PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION(Registrant)Dated: February 26, 2019By: /s/ James R. HatfieldJames R. HatfieldExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32(a)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of PACCAR Financial Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. section 1350), that to the best of our knowledge and belief:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |    |  |                                                                   
|---------------------- |  | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date February 26, 2010 |  | By |  | /s/ Mark C. Pigott                                                
|                       |  |    |  | Mark C. Pigott                                                    
|                       |  |    |  | Chairman PACCAR Financial
Corp. (Principal Executive Officer)     
|                       |  |   
|                       |  | By |  | /s/ Ronald E. Armstrong                                           
|                       |  |    |  | Ronald E. Armstrong                                               
|                       |  |    |  | Vice Chairman PACCAR
Financial Corp. (Principal Financial Officer)

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1337

JEAN CLAUDE NANA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: September 21, 2017 Decided: October 12, 2017

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Godwill C. Tachi, THE TACHI LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. 

Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Juria L. Jones, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jean Claude Nana, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the 

record, including the transcript of Nana’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We 

conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the 

administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s decision, see INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 

(1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 

In re Nana, (B.I.A. Feb. 17, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Table of Contents

REV HOLDINGSLLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of REV Holdings LLC(the ‘‘Company’’) for the period endedMarch  31,  2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’),I, Paul G. Savas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof 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 ofoperations of the Company.

|                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|
| /s/ Paul G.Savas                         |
| PaulG. SavasChief Financial OfficerMay  12,2006                                                                                                                  |
|                                                                                                                                                                  |

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 7189

ELIJAH E. PACHECO , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HEATHER WARREN , Magistrate, Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Martin K. Reidinger , Chief District Judge. ( 5:23

- cv - 00153

- MR )

Submitted : April 1 8 , 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Elijah E. Pacheco, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7189 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Elijah E. Pacheco , a state pretrial detainee , seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a con stitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatabl e and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pacheco has not made the requisite showing. Pacheco does not challenge on appeal th e district court’s dispositive determination that he failed to exhaust state remedies, and we find that Pacheco ha s not engaged in one complete round of North Carolina’s appellate review process. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-7189 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
From: Tim Mullen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 3:00:19 PM

I join with the American Aociation of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for "religious employers." These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that "religious refusal" exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people

of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM's

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
From: Mary Iorio

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:58:24 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Mary Iorio

18924 Devonshire St

Beverly Hills, MI 48025
Exhibit 32.2**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**     I, Stanley J. Talbi, certify that (i) MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Annual Reporton Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) theinformation contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut.Date:     March 26, 2008         /s/ StanleyJ. Talbi  Stanley J. Talbi                                                                         *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toMetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and will be retained by MetLife Insurance Company ofConnecticut and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Berenice Pliskin

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: New health Care law

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:52:04 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking

you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for 3religious employers.2 These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better

access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that 3religious refusal2 exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste

for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make

exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they

work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM1s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal

exemption provisions.

Berenice Pliskin