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

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First MarbleheadCorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, John A. Hupalo Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officerof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

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

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

| Dated: November 8, 2006 | /s/ John A. Hupalo                                             |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | John A. Hupalo                                                 |
|                         | *Senior Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer* |

 

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

1

----
(Reap. Dec. 10170)

#### Hurricane Import Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 1355.

(Decided February 15, 1962)

*Barnes, Richardson & OoTburn*for the plaintiff.

*William, H. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement for decision upon stipulation as follows:

> 1 — That the merchandise and issues covered by the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *Gitkin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated herein.

> 2 — -That on or about the date of exportation to the United States of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, at prices equal to the entered unit values herein, net packed.

> 3 — -That the above-entitled appeal may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues as stated above, and abandoned in all other respects.

Accepting the foregoing stipulation as establishing the facts therein recited and upon the entire record before me, and following the decision in the cited case, I find that export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the values *556of the merchandise involved herein and that such values were the entered unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 54778.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 152144-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protest.
#### Francis, Appellant, *v.*John A. Brashear Merged School District.

Argued October 9, 1969.

Before Bell, O. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Fred C. Adams,*with him *Goldren and Adams,*for appellant.

*Richard D. Gicchetti,*for appellee.

November 11, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an action in mandamus.

On March 3, 1966, the court below entered judgment for the defendant on the pleadings. On March 17th, a petition for reargument was filed which was granted on April 7th. No stay of the proceedings was requested or directed. On February 6, 1969, the court reaffirmed the judgment entered on March 3, 1966.1
      *590The present appeal was filed on February 26, 1969.

Unfortunately for the appellant, the appeal is untimely and must be quashed. The judgment entered on March 3, 1966, was a final judgment, and the statutory period for appeal began to run immediately. Absent an order staying the proceedings, the granting of reargument did not open the judgment or otherwise result in extending the time for appeal fixed by statute. *Erie v. Piece of Land,*341 Pa. 310, 17 A. 2d 399 (1941).

Appeal quashed.

The delay in disposing of the issues raised by reargument is emphatically condemned. Such procrastination is inexcusable and *590manifests an utter disregard for the rights of the litigants involved.
1

Brown, Kelly

Subject: FW: Ozone comments for planned meeting with Janet McCabe

From: Sasser, Erika 

Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 3:11 PM 

To: Kelly Ferguson 

Cc: Stone, Susan 

Subject: RE: Ozone comments for planned meeting with Janet McCabe 

Hello Kelly— 

Thank you for your comments on the ozone proposal. We were aware of your upcoming meeting with Janet McCabe on 

May 4, and we were planning to participate in that briefing, so there is no need to schedule a separate time. We will be 

glad to hear your thoughts on the proposal. Susan will make sure all the materials are reflected in the docket as well. 

Thanks for reaching out, and we look forward to talking with you on May 4. 

Erika 

_________________ 

Erika N. Sasser, Ph.D. 

Director, Health and Environmental Impacts Division

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. EPA 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, MD C504-02, RTP, NC 27711 

(919) 541-3889 sasser.erika@epa.gov

From: kellferg@gmail.com [mailto:kellferg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Ferguson 

Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:40 PM 

To: Sasser, Erika 

Cc: Stone, Susan 

Subject: Ozone comments for planned meeting with Janet McCabe 

Hi Dr. Sasser--

My name is Kelly Ferguson and I'm a member of the Detroit Reproductive Advocacy Matters (DREAM) team involved in the Reach the 

Decision Makers Program. Our group is interested in advocating for pregnant women residing in sensitive or vulnerable communities who 

are exposed to multiple factors that put them at increased risk of effects of air pollutant exposure. We have recently submitted comments in 

response to the proposed ozone rule (see attached), and are planning a trip to meet with Janet McCabe on May 4 to discuss them. 

We are particularly interested in including pregnant women and communities exposed to multiple risk factors simultaneously in the finalized 

federal register, and because of their omission in the HREA and ISA processes we support the lower range (60-65ppm) of the proposed 

standard. I've attached "one-pagers' summarizing our arguments and the state of the science to support them. 

I've spoken with Susan Stone about our meeting with Janet, and just wanted to let you know about it as well since you play such an integral 

role in this process. If you would be interested in talking on the phone to discuss our comments my team would welcome that opportunity. 

Best wishes-- 

Kelly Ferguson 

-- 

Kelly K. Ferguson, PhD 

Research Fellow 

Department of Environmental Health Sciences 
2

University of Michigan School of Public Health
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 16387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6183]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-59,189; TA-W-59,189A]


Photronics, Inc., Austin, TX; Including an Employee of 
Photronics, Inc., Austin, Texas; Located in Chandler, Arizona; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on May 9, 2006, applicable to workers of 
Photronics, Inc., Austin, Texas. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on May 24, 2006 (71 FR 29983).
    At the request of a State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows 
that a worker separation has occurred involving an employee of the 
Austin, Texas facility of Photronics, Inc., located in Chandler, 
Arizona.
    Mr. Karl White provided sales function services for the production 
of photomasks produced by the subject firm.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include employees of the Austin, Texas facility of 
Photronics, Inc. located in Chandler, Arizona.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Photronics, Inc., Austin, Texas who were adversely affected 
by a shift in production to Taiwan, Korea, China and the United 
Kingdom.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-59,189 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Photronics, Inc., Austin, Texas (TA-W-59,189), 
and including an employee located in Chandler, Arizona (TA-W-
59,189A), who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after March 31, 2005, through May 9, 2008, are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974 and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of March 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-6183 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Bruce M.
McWilliams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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, as amended; 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/ Bruce M. McWilliams              
|Bruce M. McWilliams                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|August 11, 2006                      

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael A. Forman, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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, as amended; 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 A. Forman                                     
|Michael A. Forman                                         
|Acting Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance
|                                                          
|August 11, 2006
(Reap. Dec. 8888)

Entry No. 777470.

#### United States *v.*Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc.

(Decided June 25, 1957)

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Eugene R. Pichrell*for the defendant.

*557WilsoN, 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 by and between the attorneys for the respective parties that the above entitled merchandise, l-amino-5Benzoylomino anthraquinone, is a coal tar product and dutiable under paragraph 27 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended and that the correct dutiable value is determined upon the basis of the American selling price, as provided for in the said paragraph 27, *supra.*

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the American selling price of a similar or competitive article manufactured or produced íd the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature at which such article is freely offered for sale for domestic consumption to all purchasers in the principal market of the United States in the ordinary course of trade, and the usual wholesale quantities in such market, is $10.75 per pound, net landed weight.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the issue herein be and the same is hereby submitted to the Court for decision.

On the agreed facts I find the American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as.amended by-section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the l-amino-5-Benzoylomino anthraquinone here involved, and that such value was $10.75 per pound, net landed weight.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Structured Asset Securities Corporation Trust II, Appellant, v Gohr Distributing Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, and Tripifoods, Inc., Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 573]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Erie County Court, D’Amico, J. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—Set Aside Foreclosure Sale.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
Case No. 14,549.

#### UNITED STATES v. BEALE.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 313.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1833.

.Indictment — Using Contemptuous Language to Magistrate — Words Spoken — Time— Judicial Functions.

An indictment for using contemptuous language to a magistrate in the exercise of his office, should set forth the words spoken, and the day and month, and that the magistrate was in the discharge of his judicial functions.

Indictment for using contemptuous and threatening language to the mayor of Alexandria. (who is, ex officio, a justice of the peace.) in the exercise of his official duties, on the-day of-, in the year 1833.

The defendant [John S. H. H. B. Beale] demurred generally, and in proper person stated his objections to the indictment. 1st. That no day or month is mentioned. 2d. That it was not stated that the mayor was in the exercise of his judicial functions.

Mr. Key, U. S. Atty.

1. On general demurrer. the defendant cannot take advantage of the omission of the day and month. 2. The obstruction of the official functions of a town-officer, in the discharge of his official duty, is an indictable offence. It is not necessary to state that it was to the obstruction of justice, or of the judicial functions of the mayor.

THE COURT

(MORSELL, Circuit Judge, absent.)

stopped the defendant, in reply, and said that the indictment was bad. because the words were not set forth; because the day and month were not mentioned; and because it does not state that the mayor was in the discharge of his judicial functions.

Judgment for the defendant on the demurrer.
For reasons of economy, this document is pr inted in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to mee tings and not to request additional copies.

I:\MEPC\59\2-8-Corr-1.doc

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO 

# E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

COMMITTEE

59th session Agenda item 2 MEPC 59/2/8/Corr.1

29 June 2009

ENGLISH/SPANISH ONLY

HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANI SMS IN BALLAST WATER

Application for Basic Approval of the AquaTriComb TM Ballast Water Treatment System

Corrigendum

In page 9 of the annex to document MEPC 59/2/8, the first paragraph of

section “ 2.2.1.2 The cavitation bubble” is replaced by the following:

“Sound is a form of energy. Sound is generate d by the vibration of molecules in media (air, water, solid matter) and is travelling as a wave. The wavelength is defined as:

λ

= c/f (2)

where c is the speed of sound and f is th e frequency. Acoustic sound frequency range is 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Above a frequency of 20 kHz up to 500 MHz (for liquids and solids) sound becomes inaudible and is referred to as ultrasound (US).”

___________
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Anthony D.J. Ker, Chief Executive Officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Gryphon Gold Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The small business issuer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)) for the small business issuer 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 the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal controls over financial reporting.



Date:

February 12, 2008



By:  /s/ Anthony D.J. Ker

Anthony D. J. Ker

Chief Executive Officer



---
No. 58616.

protests 232547-K, etc. (New York).

#### Manhattan Novelty Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited case, the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. §2636 (d)).
ex4-19.htm


 

Exhibit 4.19

 

 PROMISSORY NOTE

 

$XXXXXX 

December XX, 2014

Santa Ana, California


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, BioLargo, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) promises to pay to XXXXX (“Holder”), or order, the principal sum of $XXXXX (the “Principal Amount”), plus an origination fee equal to $XXXX, bringing the total due to $XXXXX with interest from the date of this Note on the unpaid balance owing at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum until fully paid. The Principal Amount plus all accrued and unpaid interest on such Principal Amount shall be due and payable December XX, 2015 (“Maturity Date”). 

 

Maker shall make all payments in lawful money of the United States of America and in immediately available funds. Computations of interest shall be based on a year of 360 days but shall be calculated for the actual number of days in the period for which interest is charged.

 

This Note may be prepaid in whole or in part, without penalty, at the option of Maker and without the consent of Holder. All payments under this Note shall be paid to Holder XXXX, or at such other address as Holder shall direct Maker in writing.

 

Maker shall issue to Holder a warrant to purchase XXX shares of common stock of the Maker, at an exercise price of $0.30 per share, which warrant shall expire December XX, 2019.

 

This Note shall be governed by the laws of the State of California excluding its conflict of laws rules. The exclusive jurisdiction and venue of any legal action instituted by any party to this Note shall be Orange County, California.

 

Maker shall pay all costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred (i) in collecting payment on this Note, (ii) in connection with any dispute that arises as to its enforcement, validity, or interpretation, whether or not legal action is instituted or prosecuted to judgment, or (iii) in enforcing any judgment obtained in any related legal proceeding.

 

Any of the terms and conditions of this Note may be waived by Holder, but no such waiver shall affect or impair the rights of Holder to require observance, performance, or satisfaction, either of that term or condition as it applies on a subsequent occasion or of any other term or condition of this Note.

 

Maker hereby agrees to allow Holder, in his sole discretion, to convert this Note and any unpaid interest which may be due, into any offering of securities which may be offered by the Maker while this Promissory Note is outstanding. 

 

BioLargo, Inc.

 

/s/

By: _________________________ 

Dennis P. Calvert, President