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

**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  of IntelGenx Technologies Corp. (the "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period  ending  December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"), I, Joel Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Joel Cohen-------------------------------Joel Cohen Chief Financial Officer

March 29, 2007

----
C&D ZODIAC CABIN INTERIORS Letter of Exemption no CD002/15 To: Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor ZODIACAEROSPACE IQ Jacarei, August 12th, 2015. Room Wl2-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. From: C&D Brasil LTDA AV. Getulio Domelles Vargas, 3000- C6rrego Seco. ZIP 12305-010- Jacarei- SP- Brazil Accountable Manager: Fabio Vieira e-mail: Fabio. vieira@zodiacaerospace.com phone number: 11-55-12-39540721

Dear FAA, Our company currently is applying for FAA Repair Station certification for foreign repair station. Our current Repair Station Certificate Number is PRE-CERT: 5CZY462P. Weare applying for exemption to14 CRF 145.103(b) which required a certificated repair station with an

airframe rating must provide suitable permanent housing to enclose the largest type and model of aircraft listed on its operations specifications. We require the Airframe Limited rating dueto propose repair interior aircraft parts suchas galley, wardrobe,

stowage, lavatory, passenger service unit, panel assembly, overhead bins, ceiling, seats, finishing covers, shrouds,

linings, finish panels, etc...not located onthe airport. We will work just with interiors components described on ATA 25and ATA 35,donot work with aircrafts. We believe that thereisno needto house to enclose the largest type and model of aircraft listed onits operations specifications because we work only on interiors parts that willbeshiptousby customer. The effect on safety will notbe compromised. Sincerely,Fabio Vieira- Accountable Manager 1
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

AVI STERN,

Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL KORETSKY, ROSEANNE KORETSKY, ALLEN M. SILK, as 

Trustee of the Jamie Koretsky Irrevocable Trust, and ALLEN M. SILK, as 

Trustee of the Rachael Koretsky Irrevocable Trust, JAMIE POSNER, 

CLARE POSNER and THE OAKS AT BOCA RATON PROPERTY 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 

Appellees.

No. 4D18-862

[August 9, 2018]

Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; James Nutt, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502017CA001107XXXXMB.

Cory Carano of Cory S. Carano, P.A., Delray Beach, for appellant.

Anthony S. Adelson of Adelson Law Firm, Hallandale Beach, for 

appellees Michael Koretsky, Roseanne Koretsky, and Allen M. Silk.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
The Honorable Edward L. Filippine, United States District 1

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report

and recommendation of the Honorable Frederick R. Buckles, United

States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

_____________

No. 95-2403

_____________

Roosevelt Holmes, *

*

Petitioner-Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

James A. Gammon, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent-Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: April 10, 1996

 Filed: July 1, 1996

_____________

Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Roosevelt Holmes appeals from a final judgment of the district court1

dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition.

The magistrate judge to whom this case was referred recommended dismissing

the petition on the basis that Holmes' first ground for relief was

successive, that the second and third grounds for relief were abusive, and

that Holmes had failed to establish cause and prejudice or actual innocence

to overcome these procedural deficiencies. The district court adopted the

magistrate judge's opinion in its entirety and dismissed Holmes' petition.
-2-

Although Holmes' court-appointed attorney filed an appellate brief,

Holmes subsequently filed a motion to dismiss his counsel's brief and

submitted a pro se appellate brief. At oral argument, we permitted Holmes'

court-appointed counsel to argue the points outlined in the pro se brief.

We deny Holmes' pro se motion to strike the brief filed by his counsel.

After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district

court properly dismissed Holmes' habeas corpus petition for the reasons set

forth in the magistrate judge's well-reasoned opinion as adopted by the

district court. As no error in fact or law appears, we accordingly, affirm

the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
TERMINATION AGREEMENT DATED 4/30/2001


 

 Exhibit 4(f) 

 TERMINATION AGREEMENT  

           This TERMINATION AGREEMENT (“Termination Agreement”), dated as of April 30, 2001, is entered into by and between Oglebay Norton Company, an Ohio corporation
(“Oglebay Norton”), and National City Bank, as Rights Agent (“NCB”).  

          WHEREAS, Oglebay Norton, previously known as ON Minerals Company, Inc. (“ON Minerals”), is the surviving corporation of a merger,
effective as of the date hereof, between ON Minerals and Oglebay Norton Company, a Delaware corporation (“Oglebay Delaware”), the purpose of which was to reincorporate Oglebay Delaware as an Ohio corporation (the
“Reincorporation”); 

           WHEREAS, pursuant to the merger, Oglebay Norton assumed all rights, obligations, debts, liabilities and duties of Oglebay Delaware,
including such rights and obligations pursuant to an Amended and Restated Rights Agreement, originally dated February 22, 1989, as subsequently amended, between Oglebay Delaware and NCB (as successor Rights Agent to KeyBank National Association)
(the “Rights Agreement”); 

           WHEREAS, Oglebay Norton’s Board of Directors finds it in the best interest of Oglebay Norton and its shareholders to terminate the
Rights Agreement;  

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements and promises set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as
follows:  

          Termination and Release. As of the date hereof, the Rights Agreement shall be terminated and of no further
force or effect whatsoever. Oglebay Norton and NCB do hereby, for themselves and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, release and discharge the other and the other’s affiliates, officers, directors and agents of and from any and all
actions, suits, debts, covenants, agreements, judgements, costs, liens and demands, and any and all liability of any type or description, in law or in equity, known or unknown, that Oglebay Norton or NCB, and their
respective heirs, successors and assigns, had, now have or may have against the other, for or by reason of any cause arising under the Rights Agreement. 

           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Termination Agreement as of the date written above.  

	OGLEBAY NORTON COMPANY,	NATIONAL CITY BANK,
	an Ohio corporation	as Rights Agent
	 	 
	/s/ Rochelle F. Walk	 /s/ Marlayna Jeanclerc


	
	

	By: Rochelle F. Walk	By: Marlayna Jeanclerc
	Title: Vice President and Secretary	Title: Vice President


 5
#### Abercrombie & Fitch Co. *v.*United States

No. 7343.

Invoices dated Walsall, England, October 18, 1945, etc.

Certified October 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 19, 1945, etc.

Entry Nos. 728682; 741584.

(Decided July 16, 1947)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp., 33*C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be •incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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 Quarterly Report of Bainbridge Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Tracy A. Dixon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donna H. Kelley, Chief Financial Officer and acting chief financial
and accounting officer of the Company, do hereby 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 our knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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/ Tracy A. Dixon                   
|Tracy A. Dixon                       
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|August 13, 2004                      
|                                     
|/s/ Donna H. Kelley                  
|Donna H. Kelley                      
|Chief Financial Officer              
|August 13, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTIAGO CRUZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

C. BETANCOURT, Correctional Officer, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-16392 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00152-WHA 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 19, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,** District Judge.

This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer C. 

Betancourt on Santiago Cruz’s claims for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 

for a violation of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District 

Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

As the district court held, Cruz did not present sufficient evidence to establish 

a genuine issue of material fact as to two elements of his retaliation claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983: (1) that Betancourt’s search of Cruz’s cell and seizure of property, 

or the alleged orchestration of a fight between Cruz and another inmate, occurred

“because of” a grievance Cruz had filed against another correctional officer; and (2) 

that Betancourt’s conduct in searching Cruz’s cell and seizing property did not 

reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 

1269 (9th Cir. 2009).

Cruz did not show that Betancourt had knowledge of a grievance Cruz had 

previously filed with prison officials against another correctional officer, and 

therefore did not show that Betancourt’s alleged conduct occurred “because of” the 

grievance. Moreover, Cruz fails to demonstrate that Betancourt's actions did not 

advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th 

Cir. 1994). Betancourt's search of Cruz's cell uncovered a television, which Cruz was 

prohibited from having because he was on "C-Status."

Cruz's Eighth Amendment claim also fails. Because Cruz's grievance did not 

allege that Betancourt had orchestrated a fight between Cruz and another inmate, Cruz 

did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Cruz also failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies because he did not timely file his grievance. Even if prison 

officials accepted the late-filed grievance, as Cruz argues, he fails to show that they 
3 

addressed on the merits his allegation that Betancourt orchestrated a fight between Cruz 

and another inmate. See Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTIAGO CRUZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

C. BETANCOURT, Correctional Officer,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 16392

D.C. No. 3:16

- cv

- 00152

- WHA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 19, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, ** District Judge.

This is an appeal from a grant o f summary judgment in favor of Officer C.

Betancourt on Santiago Cruz’s claims for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

, and

for a violation of the Eig hth Amendment

. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District

Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

As the district court held, Cruz did not present sufficient evidence to establish

a genuine issue of material fact as to two elements of his retaliation claim under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 : (1) that Betancourt ’s search of Cruz ’s cell and seizure of property

,

or the alleged orchestration of a f ight between Cruz and another inmate, occurred

“because of” a grievance Cruz had filed against an other correctional officer; and (2)

that Betancourt ’s conduct in searching Cruz ’s cell and seizing property did not

reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Brodheim v. Cry , 584 F.3d 1262,

1269 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

Cruz did not show that Betancourt had knowledge of a grievance Cruz had

previously filed with prison officials against an other correctional officer

, and

therefore did not show that Betancourt ’s alleged conduct occurred “because of” the

grievance

. Moreover, Cruz fails to demonstrate that Betancourt's actions did not

advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Barnett v. Centoni , 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th

Cir. 1994). Betancourt's search of Cruz's cell uncovered a television, which Cruz was

prohibited from having because he was on "C

- Status."

Cruz's Eighth Amendment claim also fails. Because Cruz's grievance did not

allege th at Betancourt had orchestrated a fight between Cruz and another inmate, Cruz

did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Cruz also failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies because he did not timely file his grievance. Even if prison

officials accep ted the late

- filed grievance, as Cruz argues, he fails to show that they3

addressed on the merits his allegation that Betancourt orchestrated a fight between Cruz

and another inmate. See Reyes v. Smith , 810 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2016)

.

AFFIRMED

.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES MORGAN, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Naval Reserve, Appellant

14 USCMA 364, 34 CMR 144

*365No. 17,200

January 17, 1964

*Lieutenant Colonel John R. DeBarr,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Daniel F. McConnell,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Among other offenses, accused pleaded not guilty to an allegation that he stole an undershirt and a separate count of stealing a pea coat, both offenses being in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921. With respect to the latter, however, he pleaded guilty to wrongfully appropriating the coat. Before us, he stands convicted — concerning these two counts — only of wrongful appropriation. The findings of guilty regarding the first must be set aside.

The accused testified concerning his possession of the undershirt and declared he was unaware it was in his locker, stating that it apparently had been returned with his clean laundry. Without amplification, the president instructed the court members a withholding “ ‘may arise either as a result of a failure to return, account for or deliver property to its owner when a return, accounting, or delivery is due or as a result of devoting property to a use not authorized by its owner, and this is so even though the owner had made no demand for the property and even though initially the property had come lawfully into the hands of the person thus withholding it.’ ” In addition, he advised the court regarding the “presumption” arising from the possession of recently stolen property. Under the circumstances of this case, the instructions were prejudicially erroneous. United States v Troutt, 8 USCMA 436, 24 CMR 246; United States v Roberson, 12 USCMA 719, 31 CMR 305.

As to the pea coat, we have carefully examined accused’s testimony and conclude that his plea of guilty was providently entered. Cf. United States v Thomas, 14 USCMA 223, 34 CMR 3. As the findings before us accord with that plea, no error exists with respect thereto.

The findings of guilty of specification 1 of Charge III and the sentence are set aside. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The board of review may reassess the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty or direct a rehearing on the specification and the penalty.
No. 57373.

protest 191114-K (Philadelphia).

#### Walter Hart, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: July 7, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Amy Zimpfer, EPA R9

SUBJECT: June 10, 2014 Telephone Call Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan

SUMMARY

A telephone discussion was held on June 10, 2014 with Edie Chang, CARB Deputy EO, 

regarding scheduling a meeting to discuss EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan with California 

officials. No materials were provided or received. 

ATTENDEES

Amy Zimpfer, EPA (by phone)

Edie Chang, ARB (by phone)
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8782 

To extend the obligation deadline of funds made available to recipients under 

the American Rescue Plan Act for the purposes of supporting homeless 

children and youth. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Ms. JACOBS (for herself and Mr. BACON) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To extend the obligation deadline of funds made available 

to recipients under the American Rescue Plan Act for 

the purposes of supporting homeless children and youth. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SUPPORTING HOMELESS CHILDREN AND 

4 YOUTH. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 

6 made available to entities under section 2001(b)(1) of 

7 Public Law 117–2 shall remain available to those entities 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8782 IH

1 for purposes authorized under such section through Sep2 tember 30, 2025. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00250-CV

LENNON II FAMILY LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, Appellant

V.

GREGORY GIDEO, SOUTHERN 

UNDERGROUND, LLC, AGL

CONSTRUCTORS JOINT VENTURE,

ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS,

LLC, GRANITE CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY, AND THE LANE 

CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, 

Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 442nd District 

Court

of Denton County (15-09569-442)

August 29, 2019

Opinion by Justice Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Lennon II Family Limited Partnership shall pay all of 

the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
##### 



Exhibit 10.53
 NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 UNDER THE
NEUSTAR, INC. 1999 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
  W I T N E S S E T H
   Grant
of Option
 Limitations on Exercise of Options
 Termination of Service




---



##### 



Non -Transferable.
 Adjustments and Corporate Reorganizations; Changes in Organization.




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



Rights
as Common Stockholder
 Company Participant
  Requirements of Law




---



##### 



Notices
 Disposition of Common Stock
 Binding
Effect
 Plan.




---



##### 



Governing
Law
 Counterparts
 No
Right to Continued Service
 Entire
Agreement
   NEUSTAR, INC.By:

/s/
Jeffrey GanekName:
    Jeffrey GanekTitle:
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  /s/ John Spirtos

John Spirtos




---



##### 



NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
 Amendment
 WITNESSETH:
    NOW, THEREFORE,
 Amendment to Section 5 of the Option Agreement




---



##### 



(i)
    
    A substantial diminution or material adverse change in the Participants
status, title, position, authority, duties or responsibilities (including reporting
responsibilities) as in effect immediately prior to a Corporate Transaction, except in
connection with the Participants termination of
 2




---



##### 



Service with the Company for Cause, disability, death or by the
Participant other than for Good Reason.(ii)
    
    A reduction in the Participants annual base salary.(iii)
    
    The Successor Corporations failure to cover the Participant under
employee benefit plans, programs and practices that, in the aggregate, provide
substantially comparable benefits (From an economic perspective) to the
Participant relative to the benefits and total costs under the material
employee benefit plans, programs and practices in which the Participant (and/or
his family or dependents) is participating immediately preceding the Corporate
Transaction.(iv)
    
    The Successor Corporations requiring the Participant to be
based at any office location that is more than fifty (50) miles further from the
Participants office location immediately prior to a Corporate Transaction; except
for reasonable required travel for the Successor Corporations business that is
not materially greater than such travel requirements prior to such Corporate
Transaction.(v)
    
    A material breach by the Successor Corporation of its
obligations to the Participant under the Plan.
 Entire Agreement.
 Full Force and Effect of Agreement.
 Counterparts.
 Governing
Law
 3




---



##### 



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF,
 NEUSTAR, INC.By:
    /s/ Jeffrey E. GanekName:
    Jeffrey E. GanekTitle:
    Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerOPTIONEE:John Spirtos/s/ John Spirtos 4