alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Incara Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the Report), I, Clayton I. Duncan, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ RICHARD W. REICHOWRichard W. Reichow Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer February 10, 2004
No. 52372.

protests 878194-G, etc. (New York).

#### H. H. Schmidt Glove Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
July 2, 1958

Reap. Dec. 9181.

#### *Paper Co.*v. *United States.*

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Entered at New Orleans, La. Reap. Dec. 9150. Motion by defendant.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case 

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Christopher Moncrief, JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL

CASE

vs. CASE NUMBER: 2:10-cv-117

Warden, Warren Correctional Judge: Peter C. Economus

Institution

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by

jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its

verdict.

 Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the

Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has

been rendered.

 X Decision by Court. This action came before the Court without

trial or hearing and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The court therefore ADOPTS the [20]

Report and Recommendation. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is

DENIED, this action is hereby DISMISSED. 

JAMES BONINI, CLERK

DATE: July 30, 2012

/s/ Susan Rasoletti 

(By) Susan Rasoletti, Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:10-cv-00117-PCE-MRA Doc #: 31 Filed: 07/30/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30812 Summary Calendar

LARRY A. BROYARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BURL CAIN, Acting Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary; DORA RABALAIS; JANETTA ANTOINE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1654-B

- - - - - - - - - - November 21, 1996 Before REAVLEY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry A. Broyard, Louisiana inmate #96610, appeals the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his pro se and in forma pauperis civil rights complaint. Broyard argues that the penitentiary’s no-smoking policy violates his due process and equal protection rights and his right to be free from ex post facto punishment. We have reviewed the record and Broyard’sbrief and AFFIRM for the reasons adopted by the district court.

Broyard v. Cain , No. 95-1654-B-M2 (M.D. La. July 24, 1996).
No. 42980.

#### Protest 670550-G of Lun Tai & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the record presented the protest was overruled.
<PAGE>   1

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

                                  EXHIBIT 10.45

                                     FORM OF

                            AMENDMENT TO NONQUALIFIED

                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

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



<PAGE>   2



                AMENDMENT TO NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

         This Amendment is entered into on this 12th day of December, 2000, by
and between Community Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") and the undersigned
individual ("Grantee").

         WHEREAS, Grantee and the Company entered in Nonqualified Stock Option
Agreements dated March 29, 1996, March 27, 1997 and March 26, 1998 (the
"Agreements"); and

         WHEREAS, Grantee and the Company desire to amend the Agreement as set
forth below;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises contained
herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree to amend
the Agreement by amending Paragraph 3 in its entirety to read as follows:

         Exercise of Option: The Option shall be exercisable at any time
         after the date of grant prior to its lapse as stated in Paragraph
         2. The Option shall be exercised by written notice to the
         Secretary of the Company at the principal executive offices of the
         Company. Payment of the Option price shall be made in cash or
         Company Common Stock that was acquired at least six (6) months
         prior to the exercise of the Option, or a combination thereof. To
         the extent permitted by applicable law, the Option may be
         exercised and the exercise price paid pursuant to arrangements
         with brokerage firms permitted under Regulation T of the Federal
         Reserve Board or successor regulations or statues. Any federal or
         state tax withholding requirements can be satisfied by shares of
         the Company Common Stock acquired pursuant to the Option exercise.

The Agreements shall remain in full force and effect unmodified except as
provided above.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
day and year first written above.


Grantee:                                     Community Bancshares, Inc.


---------------------------------            By:
                                                -------------------------------

                                             Its:
                                                 ------------------------------
No. 50570.

#### Protests 98590-K, etc., of Conestoga Cream & Cheese Mfg. Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the reliquidation of the entries herein involved is similar in all material respects to that in *Bel Paese Sales Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 7, C. D. 932). In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited, judgment was entered directing the collector to reliquidate the entries herein, refunding the duty established to have been taken in excess, in accordance with decision and judgment in Abstract 45361.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS 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 March 31, 2007 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Jack L. Kopnisky, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief OperatingOfficer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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: May 10, 2007 |   | /s/ JACK  L. KOPNISKY                                             |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Jack L. Kopnisky                                                  |
|                     |   | *Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief  Operating 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.

----
No. 42989.

#### Protest 986050-G of Robert F. Byrnes (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was established that the dog food in question contains a substantial quantity of grains with other feedstuffs prepared ready for use as a feed for dogs and is not a material used in making feeds. The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 730 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q
filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in
that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                   |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ John Q. Shaw, Jr.                
|                   |  |     |  | John Q. Shaw, Jr.                    
|                   |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8666 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.8666

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize holding court for 
          the Central Division of Utah in Moab and Monticello.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
    Section 125 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 
``and St. George'' and inserting ``St. George, Moab, and Monticello.''

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Dyno Nobel Unit 3 (the only Unit DN identified as expected to be subject to NSPS)
– All values

Year No. of 30 day

avgs meet 0.50 No. of 30 day

avgs don’t meet 0.50 Avg 30 day

avgs Max 30 day

avg Avg hr readings
2008* 121 14 0.25 1.08 0.32 2009 159 174 3.87 7.05 3.91 2010 22 301 3.61 14.9 3.36 2011 102 229 2.49 19.6 2.35 2012 17 295 1.37 4.3 1.39 2013 * 43 106 0.94 2.24 0.82 Total 464 1119
Dyno Nobel Unit 3 – Excluding very high hourly values (>500 ppm) Year No. of 30 day

avgs meet 0.50 No. of 30 day

avgs don’t meet 0.50 Avg 30 day

avgs Max 30 day

avg Avg hr readings
2008* 135 0 0.089 0.17 0.09 2009 333 0 0.24 0.43 0.24 2010 58 264 1.06 2.17 1.06 2011 177 154 0.54 1.27 0.58 2012 64 248 0.92 1.78 0.89 2013 * 103 46 0.43 0.81 0.40 Total 857 725
*
- Partial years
– 2008 – from 7/1 on; 2013 up to 6/30.Dyno Nobel Unit 4 – All values

Year No. of 30 day

avgs meet 0.50 No. of 30 day

avgs don’t meet 0.50 Avg 30 day

avgs Max 30 day

avg Avg hr readings
2009 31 271 1.43 4.28 1.41 2010 0 334 1.18 1.92 1.19 2011 166 163 0.74 2.10 0.78 2012 24 301 0.86 1.17 0.86 2013* 0 150 0.80 0.99 0.79 Total 221 1219 Dyno Nobel Unit 4
– Excluding very high hourly values (> 500 ppm) Year No. of 30 day

avgs meet 0.50 No. of 30 day

avgs don’t meet 0.50 Avg 30 day

avgs Max 30 day

avg Avg hr readings
2009 69 243 1.11 2.56 1.10 2010 0 334 1.18 1.84 1.17 2011 182 147 0. 69 2. 10 0.75 2012 35 289 0.87 1.38 0.87 2013* 0 150 0.76 0.96 0.75 Total 286 1163
*
- Partial year
- up to 6/30.
No. 44119.

#### Protest 985800-G of Rheinwein Imports, Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

An examination of the record failed to disclose anything which would warrant disturbing the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
Before the Third Division,

August 19, 1942

No. 47458.

#### Protest 33240-K of C. S. Emery & Co. (St. Albans, Vt.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

A consideration of the papers revealed nothing sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the action of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GERALD E. GROTE, Staff Sergeant, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

21 USCMA 519, 45 CMR 293

No. 24,969

July 7, 1972*

*520
      *Commander Maitland G. Freed,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Also decided and reversed this date on the principle of law set forth herein is United States v Thompson, No. 25,086.

Opinion of the Court

Duncan, Judge:

In the ease before us, the request for trial by military judge alone (Article 16, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 816).did not contain the name of the military judge when it was submitted by the accused. The request was submitted in blank.

In United States v Brown, 21 USCMA 516, 45 CMR 290 (1972), we held this omission to be a jurisdictional defect (United States v Dean, 20 USCMA 212, 43 CMR 52 (1970); United States v Rountree, 21 USCMA 62, 44 CMR 116 (1971)), and the proceedings null and void. McClaughry v Deming, 186 US 49, 46 L Ed 1049, 22 S Ct 786 (1902). We so hold in this case.

The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Another trial may be ordered.

Chief Judge Darden concurs.

Judge Quinn dissents.
No. 56025.

protests 157673-K, etc. (New York).

#### W. R. Grace & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
February 28, 1962

Reap. Dec. 10187.

#### Trans-World Shipping Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

reappraisement 296567-A, etc.

Reappraisements abandoned January 31, 1962. Entered at New York, N.Y. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiffs.
No. 55347.

#### Wessel, Duval & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 160771-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, William Strauss, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Provide Commerce, Inc.; 

 

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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 10, 2004
#### Lenart Import, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6313.

Entry No. 702019, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, May 15, 1942, etc.

Certified May 19, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 31, 1942, etc.

*277(Decided July 29, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have 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 the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule .are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in- the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

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

On tbe agreed facts I find the export vahie, 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 earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the'importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Agreement to Amend the Marketing
                         and Network Services Agreement

This agreement is to amend the Marketing and Network Services  Agreement between
Innofone.Com Inc. ("Innofone") and ePhone Telecom Inc. ("EPhone").

WHEREAS  Innofone and ePhone have entered into a Marketing  and Network  Service
Agreement dated January 8, 2001 (the "Agreement").

AND WHEREAS at clause 9 of the Agreement,  Innofone is required to repay the set
up fee to ePhone  within  90 days from  January  19,  2001 and  should it not be
repaid,  ePhone has the right to convert its fee into shares within 90 days from
January 19, 2001 (the "Time Period"):

AND WHEREAS Innofone and ePhone have determined that it is mutually advantageous
to extend the "Time Period".

NOW AND THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the payment
of $10.00 Canadian funds and other good and valuable  consideration (the receipt
and  efficiency  of which is hereby  acknowledged)  by ePhone to  Innofone,  the
parties hereby agree as follows:

*        the Agreement is hereby  amended to allow  Innofone to repay the set-up
         fee to ePhone within 270 days from January 19, 2001; and

*        the parties agree that in all other respects the Agreement shall remain
         in full force and effect  and is  capable of being  enforced  by either
         party.

AGREED at Toronto this 28th day of March, 2001.

Innofone.com Inc.                       ePHONE Telecom, Inc.

/s/ Larry Hunt                          /s/ Robert Clark
-------------                           ----------------
Larry Hunt                              Robert Clark
President & CEO                         Chairman and CEO