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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations
Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dale E. Messick, 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 my knowledge:

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

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ DALE E. MESSICK    
|Dale E. Messick        
|Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2009
Before the First Division,

December 15, 1955

No. 59549.

protest 257132-K (New York).

#### Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the drawback which was granted, $516.19, should amount to $658.86, when the liquidated duty for jewels is taken into consideration, the collector was directed to reliquidate the drawback entry accordingly.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Paul Douglas Loutzenhiser,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1937 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Alvaro C. Traquina, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoApril 21, 2005, defendants Traquina, Webster and Cervantes 

requested an extension of time to oppose summary judgment. Good

cause appearing, defendant’s request is granted and time is

extended until May 23, 2005. No further extensions will be

granted absent a showing of manifest injustice.

So ordered.

Dated: April 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01937-LKK -PAN Document 36 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR ANDERSON, )

 )

Petitioner, ) No. CIV-04-1172 GEB GGH P 

 ) Eastern California 

v. ) (Sacramento)

 )

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON ) ORDER EXTENDING TIME

TERMS, et al., ) TO FILE AMENDED 

 ) HABEAS PETITION TILL

Respondents. ) FURTHER ORDER

____________________________________)

 

For good cause shown, the time for Petitioner to file his Amended

Habeas Petition in the above-entitled case is extended from May 16,

2005 until further order of this court. 

DATED: 5/16/05

 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 ___________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 United States Magistrate Judge

ande1172.eot05

Case 2:04-cv-01172-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 1
lps4010
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in (i) Registration Statements on Form S-16, File Nos. 2-51894,
2-55664, 2-63470 and 2-75654; (ii) Registration Statements on Form S-8, File
Nos. 2-77752, 33-10747, 33-24934, 33-33018, 33-54403, 33-54443, 33-54555,
333-08059, 333-08087 and 333-60839; and (iii) Registration Statements on Form
S-3, File Nos. 2-84910, 33-26314, 33-23880, 33-42698, 33-44871, 33-45091,
33-46999, 33-54317, 33-69432, 333-04385, 333-40869, 333-44421, 333-55921 and
333-68257 of our report dated February 2, 1999, on the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of K N Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended
December 31, 1998 included in this Form 10-K.


                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 9, 1999
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN HUBBS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2256 GEB DAD P

vs.

STEVEN MAYBERG,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On September 1, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter requesting judicial notice of the

parties’ settlement negotiations. The letter is addressed to the Clerk of the Court and does not

include a proof of service. On September 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a second letter addressed to the

Clerk of the Court. In this letter, plaintiff asks the Clerk to ask the magistrate judge to address

plaintiff’s motion regarding property or, in the alternative, to appoint counsel for plaintiff. The

second letter does not include a proof of service.

Plaintiff is informed that any request for a court order must be submitted in the

form of a motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) (“An application to the court for an order shall be by

motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with

particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.”). A motion must

be titled so that it conveys the nature of the motion, must include a memorandum of points and

Case 2:04-cv-02256-GEB-DAD Document 35 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 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

2

authorities or legal brief that provides legal authority for the relief or order sought, and must

include or be accompanied by declarations and any evidence required to support the motion. See

Local Rule 78-230(b) and (m). Additional requirements apply to motions for injunctive relief. 

See Local Rule 65-231. 

Plaintiff is also informed that every document he submits to the court for

consideration must be served on defendant’s counsel and must include proof of such service. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Local Rule 5-135. A proof of service must be signed under penalty of perjury

and must state the name of the document served, the date on which a complete and accurate copy

of the document was mailed, and the name and complete address of the person to whom the

document was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

The docket reflects that the court has addressed all motions filed by plaintiff to

date. The informal requests filed on September 1, 2005, and September 9, 2005, will be denied. 

All subsequent requests for court action must be presented in the form of a motion or application

that complies with the applicable rules. Every document subsequently filed in this case must

include a proper proof of service.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 1, 2005 request for judicial notice is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s September 9, 2005 request for court orders is denied.

DATED: September 14, 2005.

DAD:13:kf

hubb2256.35b

Case 2:04-cv-02256-GEB-DAD Document 35 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

December 22, 1939

No. 42896.

#### Protest 349019-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record established that certain items consist of Normandy laces similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40) and lace window curtains similar to those the subject of *Billwiller*v. *United States*(T. D. 44911). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
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 Demco Industries, Inc.
(the "Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Hines, Chief Financial Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 907 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.

Dated: April 8, 2005

                               /s/ Paul Hines
                               -----------------------------------
                               Paul Hines, Chief Financial Officer
                               Demco Industries, Inc.



<PAGE>
r.1AHY FALUN GARY L. SHERRER GOVERNOR SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

OFFICE OF THE 


SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT 


www.environment.ok.gov 


May 4, 201 2 

Mr. Sam Coleman 

Acting Regional Administrator 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI (6-RA) 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dall as, Texas 75202-2733 

Subject: 	 Proposal for inclusion of the Wilcox Refinery (OKOOOIOI09 17), Bristow, Creek County, 

Oklahoma on the National Priorities List (NPL) 

Dear Mr. Coleman : 

This letter is in response to the U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency's (EPA) request for concurrence 

from the State of Oklahoma for the proposal to include the Wilcox Refinery Site on the NPL. I am 

writing you as Governor Fallin 's designee regarding environmental issues. 

The Site Remediation Section of the Land Protection Division, Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality (DEQ), has been acti vely involved with the in vestigation of the Wilcox Refinery site since it was 

identified in 1994. Former refineries are of great concern to the State due to the large amount of wastes 

produced by these fac ilities, the levels of heavy metals and organic chemicals associated with the wastes, 

and the threat that these contaminants pose to human health and the environment. 

The State of Oklahoma believes that the site is eligible for inclusion on the NPL, as indicated by the 

DEQ in vestigations and preliminary modeling. Use of Superfund is the most viable mechanism available 

to pay for the remediation. A church with a playground and six residences are located on the former 

refinery. The potentially responsible party (PRP) has turned down DEQ's request to clean up the site 

voluntaril y. 

The State of Oklahoma supports the inclusion of the Wilcox Refinery Site on the NPL and requests 

assistance in addressing the contamination because current state resources will not facilitate a timely 

response. 

Sincerely, 

JJ. ~ ~~ 

secre:a r~"Qn lr me t 

cc: 	 Honorable Mary Fallin, Governor, State of Oklahoma 

Ste ve Thompson, Exec uti ve Director, Oklahoma DEQ 

Pamela Phillips, Acting Director, Superfund Division, EPA Region 6 

3800 N. CLASSEN BOULEVARD . OKLAHOMA CITY. OKLAHOMA 73118 

TELEPHONE (405) 530-8995 • FAX (4 05) 530-8999 '0 Printed on Recycled Paper
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

James Robert Hruby,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2254 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

California Department

of Corrections,

Respondents.

-oOoPetitioner has notified the court he has not received

correspondence from this court since January 19, 2005, and

requests a hearing on the matter but petitioner’s correspondence

bears no return address.

This court’s records show that February 9, 2005, the U. S.

Postal Service returned mail directed to petitioner with the

notation petitioner had been released to parole. Respondent

served the February 18, 2005, answer on petitioner through the

Costa Mesa/Golden Parole Unit. March 17, 2005, the Postal

Case 2:04-cv-02254-DFL-PAN Document 22 Filed 04/20/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Service again returned mail directed to petitioner with the

notation petitioner had been released to parole.

A party appearing pro se must inform the court of any

address change and if he does not do so within 60 days of the

date the U.S. Postal Service returns mail directed to him, the

court may dismiss the action. L. R. 83-182(d), 83-183(b).

More than 60 days have passed since the U.S. Postal service

returned mail directed to petitioner and petitioner has not

notified the court of his current address.

Accordingly, petitioner has 20 days from the date of this

order to notify the court of his current address. Failure to

comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

So ordered.

Dated: April 19, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02254-DFL-PAN Document 22 Filed 04/20/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10431)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., a/c Uni Importing Corp. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 25526; 39641.

(Decided January 16, 1963)

*Lawrence £ Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph L. G-uilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeals for reappraisement upon stipulation, reading as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A” annexed consists of rubber goods exported from Japan during 1960 manufactured by Kohkoku Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.

> 2. That the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Frank P. Low Co., Inc., For Account Uni Importuno Co. et al.*v. *United States,*R.D. 10260, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 3. That the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after February 27, 1958, and is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

> 4. On or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for *374exportation to the United States, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, such prices including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values.

> 5. The above-entitled appeals may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the rubber goods described in paragraph 1 of the stipulation and that such values are the invoice unit values.

As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed, and judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 52992.

#### F. A. MacCluer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63352-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.(c)


FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT
OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF
SAUL SUBSIDARY II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


    
THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF SAUL SUBSIDIARY II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (this “Fifth Amendment”) is made as of January 1, 2016.


WHEREAS, Saul Subsidiary II Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) was formed as a Maryland limited partnership pursuant to that certain Certificate of Limited Partnership dated June 16, 1993 and filed on June 16, 1993 among the partnership records of the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation, and that certain Agreement of Limited Partnership dated June 16, 1993 (the “Original Agreement”); 


WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended and restated in its entirety by that certain First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of the Partnership dated as of August 26, 1993 (as amended, the “Agreement”); 


WHEREAS, the General Partner has determined it is in the best interests of all of the Partners to terminate the Guaranteed Payment made pursuant to Article 5 of the Agreement; and 


WHEREAS, the Limited Partner agrees to such termination; 


WHEREAS, the General Partner and the Limited Partner desire to amend the Agreement to accomplish the same;


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending legally to be bound, hereby agree as follows: 


		
	1.
	Section 5.2, Section 13.2 (A)(3) and the phrase “(other than the Guaranteed Payment)” in Section 13.2 (A)(2) in the Agreement and all defined terms related thereto are deleted from the Agreement in their entirety.




		
	2.
	Except as the context may otherwise require, any terms use in this Fifth Amendment which are defined in the Agreement shall have the same meaning for purposes of this Fifth Amendment as in the Agreement.




		
	3.
	Except as herein amended, the Agreement is hereby ratified, confirmed and reaffirmed for all purposes and in all respects.




		
	4.
	This Fifth Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2016.















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the General Partner and the Limited Partner have executed this Fifth Amendment effective for all purposes as of the date first above written.
 




GENERAL PARTNER:


SAUL CENTERS, INC.




By:    /s/ J. Page Lansdale                               
Name:   J. Page Lansdale                                
Title:   President and Chief Operating Officer




LIMITED PARTNER:


SAUL HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:  Saul Centers, Inc., its general partner




By:   /s/ Scott V. Schneider                               
Name:   Scott V. Schneider                               
Title:   Senior Vice President
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOSEPH D. HIGGINBOTHAM, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 73, 41 CMR 73

No. 22,326

November 14, 1969

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent,*and *Captain Thomas R. Maher*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain Larry S. Seuferer*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

The accused pleaded guilty before a general court-martial, convened in the Federal Republic of Germany, to one specification of unpremeditated murder, in violation of Article 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 918. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, confinement at hard labor for twenty-three years, and reduction. The convening authority affirmed the findings of guilty but reduced the confinement portion of the sentence to ten years at hard labor in order to conform with the terms of the pretrial agreement. The board of review affirmed the findings and sentence, as reduced, without opinion. We granted review to determine the validity of the accused’s conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969).

Authority for trial by court-martial in the Federal Republic of Germany is *74contained in the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. Since the victim in this case was a German national and the offense occurred in a civilian establishment in Murnau, Germany, a waiver of jurisdiction was obtained from the German authorities at Munich, Germany.

In United States v Keaton, 19 USCMA 64, 41 CMR 64, we held that all offenses coming within the purview of the Uniform Code of Military Justice committed in a foreign country were triable by court-martial in that county. See also United States v Easter, 19 USCMA 68, 41 CMR 68; United States v Stevenson, 19 USCMA 69, 41 CMR 69. For the reasons stated in those opinions, equally applicable here, the constitutional limitations on court-martial jurisdiction referred to in O’Callahan v Parker, supra, do not deprive a court-martial of jurisdiction when trial is held in a foreign country.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Judge Darden concurs in the result.
No. 51701.

#### Protest 114833-K of Siegfried Loewenthal Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of barrels numbered 23, 54, 55, 58, and 63, was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an *194allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as- verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.