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

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Melanie Farrand, the Financial Officer of Shoshone Silver
Mining Company (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) oar 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                        



| | By:    | /s/ Melanie Farrand                            
| | ------ | -----------------------------------------------
| |        |                                                
| | Name:  | Melanie Farrand                                
| | Title: | Treasurer and Principal Financial
      Officer
| | Date:  | May 18, 2007                                   



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
**Exhibit 10.43**

 

**AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT**

 

This AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT is made and effective as of the 21st day of February, 2005, by and between ReliantEnergy, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Houston, Harris County, Texas (the “Company”), and Robert W. Harvey (“Executive”). 

 

WHEREAS, Executive was employed by the Company as the Executive Vice President, Power Generation and Supply; and 

 

WHEREAS, Executive will resign his employment as the Company’sExecutive Vice President, Power Generation and Supply and all of his other positions with the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates, effective as of February 21, 2005; and 

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously entered into that certain Severance Agreement, effective as of May30, 2003 (the “Agreement”); and 

 

WHEREAS, the Companyconsiders it in the best interest of the Company to amend certain provisions of the Agreement; 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Executive have entered into this amendment to the Agreement, effective as of February 21, 2005, as follows: 

 

1. The definition of “Covered Termination” in Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the followingsentence to the end thereof: 

 

“Furthermore,notwithstanding the foregoing, a Covered Termination shall also include Executive’s voluntary resignation of employment effective February 21, 2005, pursuant to his letter of resignation dated that same date.” 

 

2. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Amendment to the Agreementto the contrary, and without duplication of benefits, Executive shall be entitled to the benefits as provided under the terms of the Agreement, and all terms, conditions, and restrictions set forth in the Agreement, including, but not limited to,the Waiver and Release requirement, shall continue in full force and effect and shall apply with respect to this Amendment. 

 

3. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together will constituteone and the same instrument. 

 

1 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed as ofthe date set forth below. 

 
**RELIANT ENERGY, INC.**By: /s/    JOEL V. STAFF          **Joel V. Staff**  **Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**
Signature Date: February 21, 2005
**EXECUTIVE**By: /s/    ROBERT W.HARVEY****          **Robert W. Harvey**
Signature Date: February 21, 2005

 

2
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ- OW-20 10 - 0824 DCN CBM00 6 6 8 THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Exhibit 32(ii)

                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 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dialog Group, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Vincent DeCrescenzo, Sr., the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, 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.

Dated: August 13, 2004

                                                  /s/  Vincent DeCrescenzo
                                               -------------------------------
                                                 Vincent DeCrescenzo, Sr. CFO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAUREEN SADEIK, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4129

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04129-CMR Document 8 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

October 29, 1952

No. 56916.

#### Railway Express Agency *v.*United States,

protest 185933-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Technical Update for DAIMS Validation Rules v2.0.1

July 13, 2020

Change Summary

This single DAIMS document minor maintenance release 1) updates published validation rule 

documentation to address issues discovered while translating the business language of validation rules 

into the coded SQL language of the broker; 2) clarifies rule details; and 3) corrects issues surfaced during 

Broker testing and via agency feedback. 

After finalizing a major release there is an expected period of discovery where the exercise of a standard 

in practice uncovers issues with the documentation. A maintenance release is used to address these 

issues and align DAIMS documentation with Broker implementation. 

This is the only DAIMS document being updated to v2.0.1; the other DAIMS documents remain in force 

in their original 2.0 versions. The minor v2.0.1 validation rule changes were folded into the Broker 

implementation of the broader DAIMS v2.0.

Change Details

Specific changes in the DAIMS Validation Rules documentation in v2.0.1:

• Rule B21 checks to ensure that the TAS/DEFCs reported to GTAS are also reported in File B. 

However, the v2.0 validation rule document incorrectly says that B21 applies to File C as well. 

This update removes the reference to File C. 

• Rule C5 was updated so that it does not trigger when Gross Outlay is the only SGL balance 

reported on a given File C row.

o Explanation: C5 checks to ensure that the SGL and subtotal balances reported properly 

crosscheck against each other. However, since Gross Outlay is the only SGL element 

required per OMB M-20-21 (for COVID supplemental funded awards), agencies can opt 

to leave out the other SGL balances. But if agencies omit these other SGL balances while 

reporting Gross Outlay, they receive numerous C5 warnings. Agencies thus requested 

that we modify this rule to not trigger in the case that Gross Outlay is the only SGL 

balance provided in each row.

• Rules C8, C9, C11, C12, C23 are being modified so that they only apply when a transaction 

obligated amount is provided in File C; the rules now ignore rows where TOA is blank or null. 

This change was made because these rules carry out cross-file validations that compare 

transactional obligations between File C/D; the rules were not intended to compare File C SGL 

balances to anything in File D, since File D does not contain any analog to SGL balances. 

• Rule C17 wording was updated to better describe when a value must be blank.

• Rule C26 checks to ensure that TAS/DEFC/SGL balances in File C cannot exceed that same 

TAS/DEFC/SGL combination in File B (since C must always be a subset of B). However, the v2.0 
document only classifies Rule C26 as a File B rule, when in fact it also applies to File C as well and

should be classified as a “cross-file validation”.

Required Agency Action

Agencies need to use replace the existing DAIMS Validation Rules v2.0 with version 2.0.1 for July 13, 

2020 implementation.
Order entered February 22, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01481-CV

IN RE BCH DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05900-A

ORDER

Before the Court is relator’s December 16, 2016 petition for writ of mandamus. The 

Court requests that the real parties in interest and respondent file their responses to the petition, if 

any, on or before March 8, 2017.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE
Before the Third Division,

January 13, 1945

No. 49944.

#### Protest 27576-K of Ying Chong Lung Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
(7/6/2010) Betsy Bicknell - Fw: Extension of deadline for AK Seafoods Page 1

From: <Anderson.Donaldf@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <Guzzo.Lindsay@epamail.epa.gov>, <Cool.Richard@epamail.epa.gov>, <Martic...

CC: Betsy Bicknell <betsy.bicknell@erg.com>, <ann.jones@erg.com>

Date: 5/26/2010 2:31 PM

Subject: Fw: Extension of deadline for AK Seafoods Questionnaire

FYI

----- Forwarded by DonaldF Anderson/DC/USEPA/US on 05/26/2010 02:29 PM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|

 |DonaldF Anderson/DC/USEPA/US 

|

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|

 |paulc@ECPhillipsAlaska.com |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|

 |05/26/2010 12:57 PM |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|

 |Extension of deadline for AK Seafoods Questionnaire 

|

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|

Paul -

I need to let you know that in response to a request from other seafood

processors, EPA has extended the deadline for all recipients to respond

to the questionnaire. The new deadline for responding is October 1,

2010. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions,

Don
(7/6/2010) Betsy Bicknell - Fw: Extension of deadline for AK Seafoods Page 2

Donald F. Anderson

Senior Environmental Engineer

Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T)

Environmental Protection Agency

For regular mail, balance of address is:

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Email: Anderson.DonaldF@EPA.GOV

Ph: (202) 566-1021

FAX: (202) 566-1053

Express / Hand Delivery, balance of address is:

EPA West - Connecting Wing; Rm 6233V

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1052 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1052

  To strengthen the use of patient-experience data within the benefit-
               risk framework for approval of new drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2017

  Mr. Wicker (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To strengthen the use of patient-experience data within the benefit-
               risk framework for approval of new drugs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Better Empowerment Now to Enhance 
Framework and Improve Treatments Act of 2017'' or the ``BENEFIT Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING THE USE PATIENT-EXPERIENCE DATA WITHIN BENEFIT-
              RISK FRAMEWORK.

    Section 569C of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
360bbb-8c) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; and'' and 
                inserting a semicolon;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
                inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) as part of the risk-benefit assessment 
                framework in the new drug approval process described in 
                section 505(d), considering relevant patient-focused 
                drug development data, such as data from patient 
                preference studies (benefit-risk), patient reported 
                outcome data, or patient experience data, developed by 
                the sponsor of an application or another party.''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)(1). by inserting ``, including a 
        description of how such data and information were considered in 
        the risk benefit assessment described in section 505(d)'' 
        before the period.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            W-H ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


            In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey L. Tepera, the Chief Financial
Officer of W-H Energy Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my
knowledge, 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/ Jeffrey L. Tepera
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Name:    Jeffrey L. Tepera
                                    Date:    November 4, 2004


This certification is furnished solely to comply with the requirements of Rule
13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein and shall not be deemed
to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.
#### John C. Kaiser *v.*Nordhem Service Company, Appellant.

*Trespass*— Measure *of damages*— Verdict.

One who paints an advertisement upon the wall of a building belonging to another, without the consent of the owner thereof, .will be held liable for damages to said property.

Under such circumstances, the measure of damages is for the jury, and a verdict, representing the cost of repainting the entire side of the building will not be disturbed.

Argued May 8, 1924.

Appeal, No. 134, April T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1921, No. 886, on verdict for plaintiff, in the case of John C. Kaiser v. Nordhem Service Company.

Before Henderson, Trexler, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for painting advertising sign on plaintiff’s premises. Before Ford, J.

The facts are, stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $200, and judgment was entered thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Errors assigned*were various rulings on evidence, the charge of the court, answers to points and refusal of defendants’ motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

*A. T. Churchill,*and with him *R. T. M. McCready,*for appellant.

*W. W. Stoner,*of *J. M. Stoner & Sons,*for appellee.

*333July 2, 1924:

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff owned a two and a half story frame building at the intersection of two streets in Pittsburgh. The first floor, with a show window in front, was occupied by a small store. Without plaintiff’s consent, defendant painted a large advertising sign, described as “about 15 feet in height and 12 feet in width,” on the side of the building. Plaintiff sued for damages resulting from that trespass, contending that in the circumstances, it became necessary to paint the whole house, properly to remedy the damage resulting from the sign painting. There was evidence that the cost of painting the house would be $308. The jury rendered a' verdict of $200, which, (if the whole cost were $308) judging by a photograph of the house in the record, would seem to represent the cost of painting only the side of the house on which the sign was painted; we cannot say the verdict was excessive. We have examined the assignments of error in the light of defendant’s argument and the record, and are not convinced that reversible error has been shown: Devlin v. Snellenburg, 132 Pa. 186.

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2015245EN.01004001.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/40

---

Action brought on 27 May 2015 — db Technologies Deutschland v OHIM — MIP Metro (Sigma)

(Case T-267/15)

(2015/C 245/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: db Technologies Deutschland GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Zingsheim, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Sigma’ — Application No 10 779 734

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2015 in Case R 1444/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and the decision of OHIM of 28 April 2014 and reject the opponent’s/defendant’s opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and the decision of OHIM of 28 April 2014 and reject the opponent’s/defendant’s opposition;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---