alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Warning Model  Management,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Rudolph,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company and  Stanley  Tepper,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that, to the
best of the undersigned's 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


                                       /s/  Michael Rudolph
                                       -----------------------------
                                       Michael Rudolph
                                       Chief Executive Officer, President
                                       and Chief Accounting Officer
                                       November 24, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven J. KEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6060.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Steven J. Key, pro se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, WV, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Steven J. Key seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Key,*Nos. CR-95-195; CA-00-102-5 (S.D.W.Va. Dec. 18, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
****

----

Aboutthe Office of Risk Assessment 

StaffDirectory

PrivacyPolicy

----

-  Additions Since Summer 2000 Newsletter
Courses

-  Activities
ComprehensiveReview of The Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis
UpcomingRisk Forums
ORACBARisk Calendar

-  The 2000 ORACBA Newsletters
Summer2000
 
  [AdobePDF format]   [WordPerfectformat]

Spring2000
 
  [AdobePDF format]   [WordPerfectformat]

Winter2000
 
  [AdobePDF format]   [WordPerfectformat]

-  The 1999 ORACBA Newsletters
Winter1999
 
  [AdobePDF format]   [WordPerfectformat]

Spring1999
Summer1999
Fall1999

-  The 1998 ORACBA Newsletters
Fall1998
 
  [AdobePDF format]   [WordPerfectformat]
Summer1998
 
  [AdobePDF format]   [WordPerfectformat]
Spring1998
 
  [AdobePDF format]   [WordPerfectformat]
January-February 1998
 
  [AdobePDF format]   [WordPerfectformat]

-  The 1997 ORACBA Newsletters
November- December 1997   [AdobePDF format]   [WordPerfectformat]
September- October 1997
July- August 1997
May- June 1997
March- April 1997
January- February 1997
OCE home page | USDAhome page***Contact:*(202) 720-8022 or jcallahan@oce.usda.gov****Editor****Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis****Room 5248 South Building****U.S. Department of Agriculture****Washington, D.C. 20250-3800The ORACBA Home Page has been accessed times since July 2, 1996.****Last revised: July 21, 2000****URL: http://www.usda.gov/oce/oracba.htm**
EXHIBIT
32.2 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Getty Realty Corp.(the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such
officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)  the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's position
prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more fully
described in the Report); and





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








Dated:
November 5, 2008





BY: /s/ Thomas J. Stirnweis


(Signature)


THOMAS J.
STIRNWEIS


Vice
President, Treasurer and


Chief
Financial Officer








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





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
Amended LOI

607792 British Columbia Ltd. 

Suite 305-675 West Hastings Street

Vancouver, BC V613 1N2

July 6, 2006




Astron Resources Corporation Suite 

804-750 West Pender Street Vancouver, BC V6C 2T7




Mr. Brian Kirwin 

Mr. Giulio Bonifacio 

Mr. Joe G. Kircher 

Mr. Foster Wilson

Dear Sirs:

Acquisition by Aston Resources Corporation ("Astron") of 100% of the issued shares of 607792 British Columbia Ltd. ("607792") pursuant to a letter of intent dated March 24, 2006, as amended by an amending agreement dated May 3, 2006 (the "Letter of Intent") among Astron, 607792 and the principal shareholders of 607792




1.

Second Amendment of the Letter of Intent




The Letter of Intent is amended as follows:

(a)

All references to the letter of intent and Letter of Intent mean the Letter of Intent among Astron, 607792 and the Principals, as it may be amended and supplemented by this Agreement.

(b)

Initially capitalized terms used in this agreement and not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the letter of intent.

(c)

Subsection 15A(a) shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following new Subsection 15A:




"15A. Closing”




(a)

The Closing shall take place at the offices of Fang Law Corporation, 1925 — 700 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia at 10:00 a.m. local time in Vancouver, B.C. on the Closing Date. In the event that the Acquisition has not closed on or before July 31, 2006, any party may terminate this Agreement by notice in writing to the other parties and it shall be of no further force and effect."




2.

Confirmation Of Letter of Intent. This Agreement is supplemental to the Letter of Intent and shall form one instrument with the Letter of Intent. The Letter of Intent shall be treated as being amended only to the extent provided in this Agreement and all the provisions of the Letter of Intent as herein amended are confirmed and shall continue to be in full force and effect.




Page 2

3.

Further Assurances. The parties shall do such further acts and execute and deliver such further instruments and assurances as may be required to give effect to this Agreement.

4.

Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the Province of British Columbia and the laws of Canada applicable therein.

5.

Enurement. This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding on the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns.

6.

Execution In Counterparts And By Facsimile. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and by facsimile, each of which will be deemed an original agreement and all of which shall be construed together and shall constitute one and the same agreement.
From: "Tim Adamowicz" <Tim.Adamowicz@ormet.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "John Reggi" <John.Reggi@ormet.com>

Date: 12/29/2010 11:47 AM

Subject: RE: Allowable Paste Plant Emission Calculations

It is a batch process.

From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:47 AM

To: John Reggi; Tim Adamowicz

Subject: Allowable Paste Plant Emission Calculations

In our calculations for allowable paste plant emissions we were going to use the l imit for batch mixers but

I figured I would just check to see if you have a continuous or batch paste plant production process so

that we can have an accurate allowable calculation?

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243

- 02

Ph: (919) 541

- 1390 Fax: (919) 541

- 3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO VASQUEZ-DE LA MORA

and MARIA DE LA DEFENSA

FIGUEROA-RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70978

Agency Nos. A076-610-952

 A076-610-953

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Fernando Vasquez-De La Mora and Maria De La Defensa FigueroaRodriguez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration

FILED

MAY 04 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70978

judge’s decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

a motion to reopen and de novo due process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400

F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen because the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s final

order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish

that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling available

“when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as

long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). Petitioners’ due process claim

therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring

error for a due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in theevent that publications are no longer available from the original publishingagency site. (Historical purposes)

**Title:** BBRB newsletter 

 
Spring2001; Fall2001; Spring2002; Fall2002; Spring2003; Winter2003; Winter2004

 
SuDOC Number: HE 20.3161/5:

Item Number: 0507-G-69 (online)

CGP system Number:000555638
Case No. 14,444.

#### UNITED STATES v. The AMPHITRITE.

[See Case No. 10,585.]
krys-20201231ex1019_nort






1  THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT   THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into this 14th day of  December, 2020, by and between NORTHFIELD I, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company (“Landlord”), and  KRYSTAL BIOTECH, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Tenant”).  WITNESSETH:  WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Lease Agreement dated as of December 26, 2019  and amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease dated as of January 17, 2020 and that certain Second  Amendment to Lease dated as of August 12, 2020 (“Lease”) relating to approximately 100,000 rentable square feet  in an industrial building to be constructed on International Drive, Coraopolis, Findlay Township, Allegheny County,  Pennsylvania (“Building”);  WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant have agreed to further amend and modify the Lease as set forth herein;  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and  valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as  follows:  1. Amendment to Section 1.9(d)(2). Section 1.9(d)(2) of the Lease shall be amended to revise the Estimated Substantial Completion Date to January 8, 2021. The remainder of Section 1.9, as previously modified, shall remain unchanged. 2. Amendment to Section 25(b). Section 25(b) of the Lease shall be amended to extend the deadline for Landlord and Tenant to enter into a purchase and sale agreement to January 8, 2021. 3. Authority to Execute.  Landlord and Tenant each represent and warrant to the other party that the individual executing this Amendment on its behalf is duly authorized and has legal capacity to execute and deliver this Amendment on behalf of such party. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution and delivery of this Amendment and the performance of such party’s obligations hereunder have been duly authorized and that this Amendment is a valid and legal agreement binding on such party and enforceable in  accordance with its terms. 4. Defined Terms.  All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed  thereto in the Lease. 5. Entirety of Agreement. To the extent not modified by this Amendment, all provisions and terms of the Lease  shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE  Exhibit 10.19 





 






    2    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this Third Amendment to Lease Agreement  as of the day and year first above written.        LANDLORD:           NORTHFIELD I, LLC,          an Ohio limited liability company    By: Al. Neyer, LLC,   an Ohio limited liability company,   its Manager     By:        Name: Robert D. Fessler    Title: Executive Vice President         TENANT:    KRYSTAL BIOTECH, INC.,  a Delaware corporation      By:        Name: Kathryn Romano            Title: Chief Accounting Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131334 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131334 COA: 259608 St. Clair CC: 02-001152-FH RICHARD LOUIS SWEET, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

l0918 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 26, 2006

Clerk
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
1 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RICHARD E. NOSKY, JR., City Attorney 

State Bar No. 130726 

SHELLEY L. GREEN, Deputy City Attorney 

State Bar No. 161521 

425 N. El Dorado Street, Second Floor 

Stockton, California 95202 

Telephone: (209) 937-8333 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Jeffrey Thornhill, ) No. CIV-S-04-0947 MCE/GGH 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

 ) EXTEND FINAL DATES FOR 

 v. ) DISCOVERY, EXPERT EXCHANGE, 

 ) AND MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE 

Officer S. Perry ) 

individually, and in his ) 

capacity as a Stockton ) 

Police Officer, Officer Paul ) 

Bonnet individually and in his) 

capacity as a Stockton Police ) 

Officer, SGT. Meadors ) 

individually, and in his ) 

capacity as a Sergeant of the ) 

Stockton Police Department, ) 

Edward Chavez individually, ) 

and in his capacity as ) 

Stockton Chief of Police, ) 

Does 1-50, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

Due to the parties experiencing calendaring and scheduling 

conflicts, particularly in connection with the scheduling of 

depositions, the parties respectfully request the Court’s 

permission to extend some of the Court-ordered cut-off dates. 

After a joint conference to discuss scheduling conflicts 

among the parties: 

Case 2:04-cv-00947-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 3
2 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, 

through their respective counsel, to extend the final dates for 

discovery, expert exchange, and motion hearing schedule as set 

out in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, filed October 26, 

2004, as follows: 

Discovery Cut-off From June 15, 2005 to 

November 15, 2005 

 

Expert Exchange From August 15, 2005 to 

December 15, 2005 

Motion Hearing Schedule From November 14, 2005 

to January 23, 2006 

All the remaining dates, including the trial date, will 

remain unchanged. 

Dated: June 23, 2005 /s/ Gregory R. Davenport 

 GREGORY R. DAVENPORT 

Attorney at Law 

 

Dated: June 23, 2005 /s/ Mark Thiel 

MARK THIEL 

 Attorney at Law 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-00947-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 3
3 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: June 23, 2005 RICHARD E. NOSKY, JR. 

 CITY ATTORNEY 

 BY /s/ Shelley L. Green

 SHELLEY L. GREEN 

 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 

 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 15, 2005 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00947-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MADELINE CRUZ

02-4372

District Court Docket Number

vs.

PENNRIDGE REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT

Notice of Appeal Filed 12/23/03

Court Reporter(s)/ESR Operator(s) ESR

Filing Fee:

 Notice of Appeal X Paid Not Paid Seaman

 Docket Fee X Paid Not Paid USA/VI

CJA Appointment (Attach Copy of Order)

 Private Attorney

 Defender Association or Federal Public Defender

 Motion Pending

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis status, if applicable: (Attach copy of the Order)

 Motion Granted

 Motion Denied

 Motion pending before district judge

Certificate of probable cause (state habeas corpus): (Attach copy of the Order)

 Granted

 Denied

 Pending

CC: Hon. Robert F. Kelly

 Appeals Clerk

 U.S.C.A.

 

Defendant's Address (for criminal appeals)

Prepared by : 

 Christine Demnianyk, Deputy Clerk 

PLEASE APPEND TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND FORWARD TO

THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

notapp.frm

Case 2:02-cv-04372-RK Document 32 Filed 12/23/2003 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

NICKEY JARMAIN TRAYLOR,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00222

- CR

Appeal from

291st District Court

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC # F

- 1371826

- U)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the judgment of the trial

court should be modified to reflect that Appellant entered a plea of not true to the motion to

revoke. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below as modified. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/31/2023 1

Accommodating a Disabled Voter 

Mooneyhan v. Husted 

(Walter H. Rice, S.D. Ohio 3:12-cv-379) 

When a hospitalized voter’s absentee ballot did not arrive in time, 

she asked election officials to deliver it by hand to her, but they refused. Ten days following a federal complaint filed shortly after the 

polls closed on election day, the district judge ordered that the absentee ballot be counted as a remedy for election officials’ failing to 

accommodate the voter’s disability. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

attorney fees; provisional ballots; laches. 

At 7:38 p.m. on the day of the November 6, 2012, general election, soon after 

the polls had closed in Ohio, a voter filed a federal complaint in the Southern 

District of Ohio against election officials for Ohio and Darke County seeking 

relief from the refusal of election officials to accommodate the voter’s disability to enable her to vote.1

 With her complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for a 

temporary restraining order allowing her to receive and submit an absentee 

ballot.2

The plaintiff was hospitalized in psychiatric care on October 30, and she 

requested an absentee ballot on October 31.3 Election day arrived, but an absentee ballot did not, and election officials refused to hand-deliver one.4

 The 

plaintiff’s absentee ballot arrived in the mail on the day after election day.5 At 

a conference call held that day, Judge Walter H. Rice ordered the county election official to receive the cast ballot from the plaintiff as a provisional ballot 

pending further court rulings.6 On November 16, Judge Rice ordered that the 

ballot be counted as a remedy for election officials’ refusal to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s disability.7

On March 29 and June 11, 2013, Judge Rice awarded the plaintiff a total of 

$29,910.50 in attorney fees and costs.8

1. Complaint, Mooneyhan v. Husted, No. 3:12-cv-379 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2012), D.E. 1. 

2. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Nov. 6, 2012), D.E. 2. 

3. Injunction Opinion at 2, id. (Nov. 16, 2012), D.E. 12, 2012 WL 5834232. 

4. Id. at 2–3. 

5. Id. at 3; Minutes, id. (Nov. 9, 2012, filed Nov. 13, 2012), D.E. 8. 

6. Minutes, supra note 5. 

7. Injunction Opinion, supra note 3. 

8. Fee Order, Mooneyhan, No. 3:12-cv-379 (S.D. Ohio June 11, 2013), D.E. 24; Fee Opinion, id. (Mar. 29, 2013), D.E. 22, 2013 WL 1326506.
No. 47827.

#### Protests 535526-G, etc., of Monga Mills, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the merchandise in question, consisting of 8-bu. paper hats, known as harvest hats, valued at less than $3 per dozen, is similar to that involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), the claim at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.