alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.01











CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Currency L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Davis, President of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, 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:




(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 Partnership.



















By:             /s/            Walter Davis





Name:                                Walter Davis


Title:                      President of Demeter Management LLC,


general partner of the registrant





Date:                      March 29, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damon A. Dixon, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 559]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is supported by sufficient evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The contentions of defendant regarding improper jury instructions, improper comments by the prosecutor during summation, evidence of uncharged crimes, limitation of his right to testify, and failure to suppress evidence based upon lack of probable cause are not preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Voliton,*83 NY2d 192, 195-196), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Because defendant has not met his burden to present a clear factual record for review of his contention that County Court violated CPL 310.30 in responding to questions from the jury, his contention may only be pursued by a motion for postjudgment relief pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (f) *(see, People v Larrabee,*201 AD2d 924, *lv denied*83 NY2d 855).

We have reviewed the remaining issues advanced by defendant and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—Criminal Possession Weapon, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Arthur S. Locke III, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Websense, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Websense as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. Websense’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for Websense and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to Websense,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of Websense’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisannual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in Websense’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring Websense’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Websense’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. Websense’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to Websense’s auditors and the audit committee of Websense’s board of directors: 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Websense’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in Websense’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: October 28, 2009
# C_2007176EN.01000701.xml

| 28.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 176/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 176/7

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 415th meeting on 11 September 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (The Netherlands)

(2007/C 176/06)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure sufficient deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure sufficient deterrent effect.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
446 A.2d 689

#### Commonwealth v. Hailstock, Appellant.

Submitted April 16, 1980.

Norman A. Levine, for appellant; Howard C. Klebe, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before PRICE, BROSKY and MONTGOMERY, JJ.

The judgment of sentence is affirmed on the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable John F. Henderson.
Exhibit 10(a)(16)
 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK NEW YORK
   
    
 t | f e general.info@ny.frb.org www.newyorkfed.org




---



##### 



Written Agreement by and betweenPATRIOT NATIONAL BANCORP, INC.
    
    Docket No. 10-085-WA/RB-HCStamford, ConnecticutandFEDERAL RESERVE BANK OFNEW YORK.New York, New York




---



##### 



Source of Strength
  Dividends and Distribution
      3




---



##### 



Debt and Stock Redemption
   Capital Plan
    g
  4




---



##### 



Compliance with Laws and Regulations
 et seq.).
  Progress Reports
   5




---



##### 



Approval and Implementation of Plan
    Communications
  (a)
    
    Anita Awatramani
Senior Bank Examiner
Federal Reserve Bank of New York 33
Maiden Lane
New York, New York 10045(b)
    
    Angelo De Caro
Chairman
Patriot National Bancorp, Inc. 900
Bedford Street
Stamford, Connecticut 06901
 Miscellaneous
     6




---



##### 



PATRIOT NATIONAL BANCORP, INC.
    
    
    
    FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORKBy:
    
    /s/ Angelo De Caro

Angelo De Caro
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Armin Lovi MD
Armin
LoviChairman
    
    
    
    
    
    Examining Officer
  7
#### In the Matter of Alene Dingman, Appellant, v Thomas Purdy, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 682]

—Spain, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Warren County (Austin, J.), entered January 11, 1994, which denied petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for modification of a prior temporary order of custody and awarded sole custody of the parties’ minor child to respondent.

Petitioner and respondent are the parents of a child born on November 6, 1989. The child has been raised by petitioner, with respondent having visitation rights. Following a court determination that petitioner’s mental illness incapacitated her parenting abilities, respondent received temporary custody pursuant to a Family Court order dated July 9, 1993. After a *818hearing on all outstanding issues, Family Court awarded permanent custody to respondent with supervised visitation granted to petitioner. Petitioner appeals.

We affirm. It is petitioner’s contention that she was denied her constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel *(see,*US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6). Parties to a custody proceeding have a right to be represented by counsel (Family Ct Act §§ 261, 262). "Such right would be meaningless unless the assistance of counsel is effective” *(Matter of De Vivo v Burrell,*101 AD2d 607; *see, Matter of Omar B.,*175 AD2d 834, 835). Petitioner urges that counsel’s failure to call certain mental health experts to testify at the custody hearing destroyed a basis for granting her custody upon which Family Court could have relied. However, petitioner’s counsel was able to introduce the favorable doctors’ reports into evidence without subjecting the doctors’ findings to rigorous cross-examination. In our view, counsel exercised her professional judgment in not calling these witnesses *(see, People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709). Further, there is no proof that petitioner "suffered actual prejudice as a result of the claimed deficiencies, which is a necessary prerequisite to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel” *(People v Frascatore,*200 AD2d 860, 861). Petitioner’s counsel made appropriate motions and objections; she also vigorously cross-examined respondent’s witnesses *(see, People v Rollock,*177 AD2d 722, *lv denied*79 NY2d 923). Viewed in its totality, the record reveals that petitioner was provided with meaningful and constitutionally competent legal representation.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 10.21.1

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.

FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

CHARLES MORRIS

ThisFIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT(this "First
Amendment") is entered into effective as of March 2, 2011, by and betweenALLOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.(the
"Company") andCHARLES MORRIS("Executive")
(collectively, the "Parties").

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Employment Agreement on April 26, 2010 (the
"Employment Agreement");

WHEREAS, modifications are needed to bring the Employment Agreement into compliance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, mutual covenants, the above recitals, and the agreements herein set forth, and for other
good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:







1

---





[Signature Page Follows]

2

---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have each duly executed thisFIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENTeffective as of the date and year first written above.

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.By:

/s/ Paul L. BernsName:

Paul L. BernsTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerEXECUTIVE:/s/ Charles Morris CHARLES MORRIS


Signature Page to First Amendment to
Employment Agreement

3

---



QuickLinks
TEST DATA REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

P-11-0107

Post-Focus Draft Revision 1 4/5/2011

ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ BCS \ AH

PV (kg/yr): 

Revision Notes/Assessment Overview:

SUBMITTER:

USE: Emulsifier and anti-stripping agent for asphalt. 

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes LABEL: No

Gen Eqpt: Eye: face shield, chemical goggles // Skin: chemical resistant gloves and clothing // Eng Controls: local 

mechanical ventilation

Respirator: Where airborne exposure is likely or airborne exposure limits are exceeded (if| applicable, see above), 

use NIOSH approved respiratory protection equipment appropriate to the material and/or its components. Full 

facepiece equipment is recommended.

Health Effects: Causes Eye and Skin Burns. // May cause blindness. // Causes respiratory tract irritation. // May 

cause allegic skin reaction.

TLV/PEL: - none established

CRSS: (12/20/2010):

Chemical Name: 

S-H2O: Dispersible g/L @ 

VP: 1.0E-6 torr @ 

MW: 

Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:

Neat: Liquid Mfg: NK - Imported

 

Consumer Use:

SAT (concerns): (12/21/2010):

Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Analogs

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 4
PBT rating: P2 B1 T1 .

Health: 2-3, Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 3, Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1B

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

P2 REC:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

1) # of workers exposed: 33 >1000? 

2) >100 workers with > 10 mg/day inhalation exposure: 

3) (a) >100 workers w/1-10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100 days/yr: 

 (b) Routine Dermal Cont: > 250 workers & > 100 days/yr: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 4
P-11-0107

PROC: 

Number of Sites/Location: 

 

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources 

to the same medium. 

High End: 

to:

from: 

basis: 

RELEASE TOTAL

kg/yr - 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 

Basis:

Dermal:

Exposure to 

High End: 

Number of workers (all sites) with Dermal exposure:

Basis: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 4
P-11-0107

USE: 

Number of Sites/Location: 

 

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources 

to the same medium

Output 2: 

to: 

from: 

basis:

RELEASE TOTAL

kg/yr -

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 

Basis: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 4
No. 51445.

#### Protests 992042-G, etc., of L. Batlin & Son, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADDED BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr., Treasurer****and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by §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.               To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 
| Date:  March 6, 2009 | By:    | /s/ SALVATORE R. DEFRANCESCO, JR.      |
|-------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Salvatore R.  DeFrancesco, Jr.    |
|                                |   | Treasurer and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

94

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT EDWARD PATTERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:04-cr-00049-BO-1; 5:07-cv-00385-BO)

Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 22, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Edward Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Steve 

R. Matheney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Edward Patterson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying him relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2010) motion and treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 

motion as a successive § 2255 motion, and denying it on that 

basis. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th 

Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard 

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Patterson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 
3

Patterson’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the 

appeal.

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
Before the Third Division,

March 30, 1945

No. 50090.

#### Protests 114536-K, etc., of Danish Consulate General-Greenland Section et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-, court dismissed the protests.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

          - [CBP Dec. 07-07] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of re-approval of Inspectorate America Corporation of Penuelas, Puerto Rico, as a commercial gauger and laboratory. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, Bo. Encarnacion 127 KM 19.1, Tallaboa-Penuelas, Puerto Rico 00624, has been re-approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils, and to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analysis or gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific tests or gauger services this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                        *http://www.cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​ scientific_svcs/org_and_operations.xml*.                     

# DATES:

The re-approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as a commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on September 6, 2006. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene J. Bondoc, Ph.D, or Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. 

Dated: March 15, 2007. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

 [FR Doc. E7-5104 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P