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 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) of TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT CAPITAL CORP. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, PATRICK F. CONROY, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of 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, as amended; and

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



/S/    PATRICK F.
CONROYName: Patrick F. Conroy Date: May 9, 2006
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LUMENTUM OPTICS INC.,

Appellant

v.

OYSTER OPTICS, LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2019-1820

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

01881.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

JOEL SAYRES, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, 

Denver, CO, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

NICHOLAS POLI CHAN, East Palo Alto, CA; LAUREN MARIE 

WILLIAMS STEINHAEUSER, Minneapolis, MN. 

 WAYNE MICHAEL HELGE, Davidson Berquist Jackson & 

Gowdey, LLP, McLean, VA, argued for appellee. Also represented by JAMES THOMAS WILSON, ALDO NOTO.

 ______________________

Case: 19-1820 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 08/04/2020
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (WALLACH, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

August 4, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-1820 Document: 71 Page: 2 Filed: 08/04/2020
#### MINNIE L. BARTO RESPONDENT, v. JOHN BENKER, APPELLANT.

Submitted July 8, 1918

Decided October 11, 1918.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following *per curiam*was filed :

“This is an action to recover money paid on account of a rescinded contract for non-performance by appellant.

“The facts found by the District Court judge are, that the plaintiff agreed to purchase the business of the defendant, which included a license for the sale of liquors, the consideration being $1,000, upon which $550 was paid in cash and the balance in promissory notes; that a bill of sale was made by the defendant to the plaintiff and also a power of attorney permitting the plaintiff to carry on the business in defendant’s name and to run and manage the saloon as fully as he could; that the plaintiff entered into possession; that prior to that time the defendant had executed a power of attorney to the Union Brewing Company, which refused to consent to the sale, or to transfer the license, whereupon the plaintiff rescinded the agreement and demanded the return of the cash payment, and this being refused, she brought her suit for the amount paid, waiving the excess over $500 and recovered a judgment, from which the defendant appeals, the only ground being a refusal to nonsuit.

“According to the state of the ease settled by the trial court, no testimony appearing in the record, the plaintiff had a cause of action and a motion for a nonsuit was properly refused.

“The judgment should be affirmed.”

Eor the respondent, *Day, Day, Smith & Slingerland.*

Por the appellant. *Albert C. Pedrick.*

*502Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance•*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
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 Annual Report of Cardigant Medical Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jerett A. Creed, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

            

(a)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 

            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            

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

 

Dated: April 07, 2014

 

/s/ Jerett A. Creed           

Jerett A. Creed

 

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason
Kulas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the
period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-1 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed
by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

September 20, 2013
No. 64246.

protests 79932-K and 84168-K (Boston).

#### Price Bros. Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
The CIA Web site is sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration and  administered by the University of South Florida.Copyright � 2000
### SERVE D JANUAR Y31 , 201 1 -^'iSPORWlO N ^-: : OPERATiON S

^ ! M h ^ 

### j'J i 3 1 P 2

^ 3 8

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I N TH EMATTERO F FLIGHTSTA RAIRCRAF T SERVICES , INC . FA A DOCKE T No . CP10GL001 2 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S No . FAA-2010-107 6 

### ORDE R O F DISMISSA L O n Octobe r

26 , 2010 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafte r referre dt o a s "Complainant" ) file daComplaint . O n Octobe r 6 , 2010 , Flightstar

Aircraf t Services , Inc . (hereinafte r

referre dt o a s "Respondent" ) file dit s Answer . O n Januar y 26 , 2011 , Responden t

withdre w it s reques t

for ahearing , citin g settlement . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 5 states : "A t an y tim e befor e o r

durin g ahearing , an agenc y attorne y may withdra w acomplain t o r part y ma y withdra w areques t for ahearin g withou t th e consen t

of th e administrativ e la w judge . If an agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complain t

o r apart y withdraw s th e reques t for ahearin g an dth e answer , th e administrativ e law judg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s unde r thi s subpart withprejudice. " WHEREFORE , Respondent' s Withdrawa l o f Reques t fo r Hearin g havin g bee n rea dan dconsidered , i t

i s ORDERE D a s follows : 1 . Respondent' s Withdrawa l o f it s Reques t

for Hearin g b e an di s hereb y granted ; an d

### 2 . Thi s proceeding b e an di s hereb y dismisse dwit

hprejudice . S O ORDERED .

f.fRlchar d C
. Goodwi n Administrativ e LawJudg e Attachmen t - Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t Nos . CPlOGLOOl 1 , CP10GL0012 , CPlOGLOOl 3 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Gregory S . Winton , Respondent' s Counse l Th e Aviatio n La w Firm On e Researc hCourt, Suit e 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 TEL : 301-294-855 0 FAX : 301-294-2525 Glen n L . Brown , Complainant' s Counse l Senio r Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Great Lake s Region , AGL- 7 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e DesPlaines,I L6001 8 TEL : 847-294-706 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Building , Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430.
# City of Harrison

P.O. Box 1715 

### Jeff Crock **ett** Harrison, AR 72602 May or Office 870 - 741 - 2777 Mayor@CityofHarrison.com Fax 870 - 741 - 0021 September 22 , 201 1 Ref: Docket DOT - OST - 1997 - 2935 To: Dennis DeVan y EAS & Domestic Analy sis Division Office of Aviation Analy sis, X - 53 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 1200 New Jersey

Avenue S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. DeVan y, With regard to th e recent proposals concerning the Essential Air Service for Harrison, AR, the City of Harrison supports SeaPort Airlines as our selection to provide air service. SeaPort Airlines have increased boarding’s b y 77% in one year as we continue to work together in order to establish air service in our community after an 18 month period with no service. In providing Harrison with flights to Memphis and Kansas City we accomm odate both our business travel to Memphis and leisure travelers with low cost connections in Kansas City . Sincerel y, Jeff Crockett M ay or
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
J AMES LAMBETH , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-2160 (UNA) ) DONALD J. TRUMP et al ., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
T his matter , brought pro se , is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s Complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)( 3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting). Plaintiff has sued President Donald Trump, his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Vice President Mike Pence, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mn uchin, and Senator Mitch McConnell, in their official capacities , with regard to proposed legislation. In relevant part, p laintiff alleges:
A portion of the reported text of the HEALS Act bill includes $1.75 billion for the d esign and construction of an FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. When reporters questioned Mitch McConnell on the text, he deferred to the White House and the Trump Administration. Plaintiff knew his constitutional rights were being violated once Mitch McConnell co nfirmed to reporters that the legislation text was “ insisted ” by “ the administration ” since no person in the Executive branch has legislative powers under the Constitution of the United States of America that he has lived with his entire life. 8 /1 9/20202 Compl. ¶¶ 3

- 4. Plaintiff has brought this action “ to enforce his elected offic i als to protect the Constitution of the United States of America and to hold all persons accountable that broke their oath of office. ” Id . ¶ 5.

“ Federal courts are courts of limited juri sdiction. They possess only that power

a

uthoriz ed by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am ., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). Apart from the fact that the HEALS Act is proposed legislation, not law conferring rights , see https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy

- papers/update

- on - the

- coronavirus

- response - heals

act (last visited Aug. 18, 2020), p laintiff’s complaint is at most “a gene ralized grievance ,” which “normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction

. ” Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)

. Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

___________s/_______________ COLLEE N KOLLAR

- KOTELLY United States District Judge
Date: August 19 , 2020
No. 52698.

protests 527918-G, etc. (New York).

#### B. Altman & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed December 15 , 2015

. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01323

- CV

JAMES L. ROSS , Appellant

V.

JAMES S. BELL , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 15

- 02418

- C



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang, and Justice Brown Opinion by Justice Brown

Stating that all matters in controversy between the parties have been settled, appellant has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the

motion to the extent we dismiss the appeal. See id. , 43.2(f).

151323F.P05 /Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JAMES L. ROSS, Appellant

No. 05

- 15

- 01323

- CV V.

JAMES S. BELL, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 15

- 02418

- C. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Subject to any agreement between the parties, we ORDER appellee James S. Bell recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant James L. Ross.

Judgment entered this 15th day of December, 2015.
EPA-420-R-10-007

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared for EPA by

ICF International

and

T&B Systems

EPA Contract No. EP-C-06-094

Work Assignment No. 3-6

Development and Evaluation of an Air 

Quality Modeling Approach for Lead 

Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft 

Operating on Leaded Aviation Gasoline

Appendix C

Winter 2009 Model-to-Monitor Results

NOTICE

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or 

positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data 

that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to 

facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of 

technical developments.
ii 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Clarkson - March 14 Lead Concentration by Source

0

50

100150200250300350

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time of Day

Lead Concentration (ng/m3)

S S AS S S S M M M M M M M H H H H H LPOHB

Figure C-1. Clarkson site – March 14 lead concentration by source. 

C-1 
East Tarmac - March 14 Lead Concentrations (ng/m3)

0

50

100150200250

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time of Day

Lead Concentration (ng/m3)

S AS S S S S POM M M M M M M LH H H H H HB

Figure C-2. East Tarmac site – March 14 lead concentrations (ng/m3). 

C-2 
Clarkson - March 28 Lead Concentrations by Source (ng/m3)

0

100200300400500600

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time of Day

Lead Concentration (ng/m3)

S AS S S S S POM M M M M M M LHH H H H H B

Figure C-3. Clarkson site – March 28 lead concentrations by source (ng/m3). 

C-3 
East Tarmac - March 28 Lead Concentrations (ng/m3)

0

50

100150200250300350

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time of Day

Lead Concentration (ng/m3)

S AS S S S S POM A M M M M M LH H H H H HB

Figure C-4. East Tarmac site – March 28 lead concentrations (ng/m3). 

C-4 
Clarkson - March 29 Lead Concentrations by Source (ng/m3)

0

50

100150200250300350400

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time of Day

Lead Concentration (ng/m3)

S AS S S S S POM M M M M M M LHH H H H H B

Figure C-5. Clarkson site – March 29 lead concentrations by source (ng/m3). 

C-5 
East Tarmac - March 29 Lead Concentrations (ng/m3)

0

50

100150200250300350400450500

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time of Day

Lead Concentration (ng/m3)

S AS S S S S POM M M M M M M LH H H H H HB

Figure C-6. East Tarmac site – March 29 lead concentrations (ng/m3). 

C-6 
Figure C-7. All sources – March 14–15, 2009. 

C-7 
Figure C-8. All sources – March 28–29, 2009. 

C-8 
Figure C-9. All sources – March 29–30, 2009. 

C-9 
C-10 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
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 on Form 10-Q of The Medicines Company (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald R. Peck, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of 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:



|Dated: November 14, 2003 | /s/DONALD R. PECKDonald R. Peck
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First
Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
Before the Third Division,

May 20, 1954

No. 58121.

protests 175657-K, etc. (New York).

#### Atlantic Spice Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00602-CV

138 Jeddo, Ltd.

v.

Caldwell County Appraisal District, et al.

On Appeal from the

22nd District Court of Caldwell County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-T-8858

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 6, 2014
#### United States *v.*Cosmos Shipping Co.

No. 7301.

Invoice dated Port-au-Prince, Haiti, February 1946.

Certified February 27, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 12, 1946.

Entry No. 752242.

(Decided June 19, 1947)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*James W. Bevans*for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, as follows:

> $1.95 U. S. currency per pair, plus cases and wrapping.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $1.95 United States currency per pair, plus cases and wrapping.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# Carbon Market Research RGGI, you’ve broken through the Cost Containment Reserve price! Now what? 17 Mar 2014 21:20 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s 23rd auction o n March 5 saw a run on allowances that cleared at a record high $4/st, a level when the Cost Containment Reser ve allowances are released for sale. Compliance buy ers scooped up all 18.4 million allowances offered for sale, and the additional five million Cost Containm ent Reserve allowances allocated for 2014. This will likely mak e the market more responsive to fundamentals for th e remainder of the year. Do you want to read more? 

### No access Read more... Page 1 of 1 RGGI, you ’ ve broken through the Cost Containment Reserve price! Now what? - Overvie ...

5/29/2014 http://www.pointcarbon.com/research/promo/research/1.4523252?&ref=searchlist