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 of BioVeris Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George V. Migausky, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 (1)         the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
| Dated: August 9, 2006 | /s/ George V. Migausky                     |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                  | George V. Migausky                         |
|                  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
No. 54182.

#### The United Import Co. *v.*United States,

protest 126841-K (San Francisco).

*414Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the miniature leather gloves the subject of *United States*v. *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 32, C. A. D. 415), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1




                            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 Texas Pacific Land Trust (the
"Trust") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Joe R.
Clark, Chief Executive Officer of the Trust, certifies, that to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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





                                            TEXAS PACIFIC LAND TRUST
                                        --------------------------------
                                                  (Registrant)



              Date August 14, 2002  By /s/ JOE R. CLARK
                  -----------------   -----------------------------------
                                      Joe R. Clark, Chairman of Trustees,
                                      Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Mahdi Al Mosawi, :

Plaintiff : Civil Action 2:11-cv-01155

v. : Judge Marbley

Director Gary Mohr, et al., : Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendant

:

ORDER

Plaintiff Mahdi Al Mosawi, a state prisoner, brings this action alleging that

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. This matter is

before the Court on Magistrate Judge Abel's January 16, 2013 Report and

Recommendation that defendants' unopposed January 16, 2013 motion for summary

judgment be granted for plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies within

the prison grievance system. In his response to defendants' motion for summary

judgment, plaintiff conceded that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies and

that the motion for summary judgment should be granted on that basis.

Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B),

the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and GRANTS defendants Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") Director Gary Mohr and

Chillicothee Correctional Institution ("CCI") Warden Norm Robinson's September 21,

2012 motion for summary judgment (doc. 29). 

1

Case: 2:11-cv-01155-ALM-MRA Doc #: 33 Filed: 02/25/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter JUDGMENT for defendants Mohr

and Robinson. This action is hereby DISMISSED.

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

Algenon L. Marbley

United States District Judge

2

Case: 2:11-cv-01155-ALM-MRA Doc #: 33 Filed: 02/25/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Alderwood Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2010 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President, Director,
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date: March 29, 2011
1Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-60212

Summary Calendar

KELL S. LYON, JR,

Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

VERSUS

FRED’S INC doing business as Fred’s, ET AL,

Defendants,

FRED’S STORES OF TENNESSEE INC.,

Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(2:96-CV-141-B-B)

March 1, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

We have conducted a de novo review of the record, and the law,

and have carefully considered the written argument of counsel.

This study convinces us that the district court was correct in

concluding that, as a matter of law, probable cause did exist for

an objectively reasonable person to believe that Plaintiff had
2

shoplifted an item of merchandise from the store, and that the

bringing of the charge was without malice. Accordingly, we affirm

the grant of Judgment As A Matter of Law to Defendant. Having so

concluded, we dismiss the Appellee’s cross-appeal as moot.

AFFIRMED, CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.
A90A0196.

#### HASTY v. THE STATE.

(394 SE2d 800)

Decided April 5, 1990

Rehearing denied April 20, 1990.

*B. Clark Jones,*for appellant.

*Patrick H. Head, Solicitor, Cindi L. Teelon, Beverly M. Hartung, Assistant Solicitors,*for appellee.

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Jeremy Hasty, was convicted of underage possession of alcohol. There is no transcript of the trial or stipulation of the evidence, but Hasty asserts that he was arrested after being required to submit to an alcosensor test in a McDonald’s parking lot, even though he had not been driving the car he was in. Hasty represented himself at all stages of the trial proceedings, and filed a motion to suppress the evidence. On appeal, he contends that the trial court failed to address that motion.

In the absence of a transcript, we cannot consider enumerations of error concerning the evidence or proceedings at trial. *Dean v. State,*188 Ga. App. 128 (372 SE2d 286) (1988). Accordingly, we must assume that the motion to suppress received a proper disposition during the trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Beasley, JJ., concur.*
|    |                                                                                                                       |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by this Report. |

|                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                          |  |
| By: /s/ Rheo A. Brouillard                                                               |   |
| Rheo A. Brouillard                                                                       |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                                                    |   |
| April 18, 2013                                                                           |   |
|                                                                                     |   |
|                                                                                     |   |
| By:  /s/ Brian J. Hull                                                         |   |
| Brian J. Hull                                                                            |   |
| Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| April 18, 2013                                                                           |   |
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Rx for flu or chicken pox: kindness

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Rx for flu or chicken pox: kindness 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Food and Drug Administration 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  United States. Food and Drug Administration 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  United States. Food and Drug Administration 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1980-1990 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  HHS publication ; no. (FDA) 85-3149 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  156 × 44 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  018284196.jpg; 018284196.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
A90A0340.

#### EZE v. THE STATE.

(393 SE2d 758)

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellant and a co-defendant were tried before a jury and found guilty of trafficking in cocaine. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence that were entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdict.

1. The cocaine was found in an automobile that the co-defendant was driving and appellant was occupying as the sole passenger. Appellant enumerates the general grounds, urging that the State failed to rebut the presumption that all that is contained within an automobile is presumed to be in the possession of the driver. However, when construed most favorably for the State, the evidence also showed the following: The automobile had been rented by appellant’s wife; appellant gave contradictory statements concerning how the package containing the cocaine came to be in the automobile; and, appellant’s jacket was covering the cocaine.

“Since there was some evidence offered in an attempt to rebut the presumption . . . , there was a question of fact for the jury to resolve.” *Reed v. State,*186 Ga. App. 539, 540 (367 SE2d 809) (1988). The evidence was sufficient for a rational trior of fact to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant was in knowing possession of the cocaine, either individually or jointly, and thus that he was guilty of the crime charged. *Owens v. State,*193 Ga. App. 661 (2) (388 SE2d 712) (1989). See also *Allen v. State,*193 Ga. App. 16 (2) (387 SE2d 11) (1989).

2. At the call of the case for trial, appellant moved for a continuance based upon the absence of two defense witnesses. The motion was denied and this ruling is enumerated as error.

“ ‘ “Each of (the) requirements (set forth in OCGA § 17-8-25) must be met before an appellate court may review a trial judge’s discretion in denying a motion for continuance based upon the absence of a witness.” (Cit.)’ [Cit.]” *Curry v. State,*177 Ga. App. 609 (1) (340 SE2d 250) (1986). Appellant concedes that these requirements were not met, but urges that the denial of his motion was nevertheless erroneous because the State had been previously granted five continuances. However, each motion for a continuance must stand or fall on its own merits, and the mere fact that the State had met *its*burden on five previous occasions does not require a ruling that appellant was relieved of *his*burden on this occasion. Thus, “there is no basis for holding the denial of the motion was an abuse of the trial court’s dis*504cretion. [Cits.]” *Curry v. State,*supra at 609 (1).

Decided May 2, 1990.

*John W. Sherrer, Jr.,*for appellant.

*John C. Pridgen, District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*
Follow - up Perkins, Rick to

: Ly nn Dail
Mr. Dail, I haven’t yet heard back from my test/maintenance contractor. Unfortunately the tester on site last week wasn’t able to help me. Stay tuned. 

### Rick Perkins Maine DEP, Bureau of Air Quality 312 Canco Road Portland, Maine 04103 (207) 822

- 6355 (p) (207) 822

- 6303 (f) rick.perkins@maine.gov
# C_2007297EN.01003801.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007 — AMS v OHIM — American Medical Systems (AMS Advanced Medical Services)

(Case T-425/03) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community trade mark AMS Advanced Medical Services - Earlier national word mark AMS - Absolute ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Request for proof of genuine use made for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2007/C 297/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: G. Lindhofer initially, and subsequently by G. Lindhofer and S. Schäffler, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: American Medical Systems, Inc. (Minnetonka, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2003 (Case R 671/2002-4) relating to the opposition proceedings between AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH and American Medical Systems, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.

1

---
No. 55401.

#### Barnet Bros. Leather Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 156804-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
A90A0047.

#### FOWLER v. THE STATE.

(393 SE2d 517)

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdicts and from the denial of his motion for new trial.

1. Appellant enumerates the general grounds. Contrary to appel*372lant’s contention, the victim’s “[a]wareness is not an essential element of the crime of aggravated assault. [Cit.]” *Sutton v. State,*245 Ga. 192, 193 (1) (264 SE2d 184) (1980). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal on that ground. *Stevens v. State,*176 Ga. App. 583, 584 (1) (336 SE2d 846) (1985). A rational trior of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant’s guilt of aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); *Sutton v. State,*supra at 193 (3).

Decided April 16, 1990.

*William D. Hentz,*for appellant.

*Stephen F. Lanier, District Attorney,*for appellee.

2. Appellant enumerates as error the failure of the trial court to give a timely written request to charge on the use of force in defense of habitation.

The evidence is in conflict as to who first displayed a weapon. However, it is undisputed that appellant shot the victims while they were seated in a truck approximately 100 feet from the porch of his mother’s home. The trial court charged the jury on the defense of justification and on the use of force to prevent a violent felony. As there is no evidence that either of the victims was attempting an unlawful entry into the home in a violent or tumultuous manner, the trial court did not err in refusing to give the additional instruction on defense of habitation. *Harvard v. State,*162 Ga. App. 218, 219 (3) (290 SE2d 202) (1982). Compare *Fannin v. State,*165 Ga. App. 24 (299 SE2d 72) (1983).

*Judgments affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*
Order entered April 15 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00095 - CV CHELSEA L. DAVIS, Appellant V. MCKOOL SMITH, P.C., Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC13 - 14215 

### O RDER Upon review of the record in the above c aptioned appeal, Cause No. 05 - 14 - 00095 - CV, a nd the appeal in Cause No. 05 - 13 - 01747 - CV, Davis v. McKool Smith P.C. , the Court concludes that there is substantial overlap among the issues presented by the cases. Accordingly, on its own motion the Court CONSOLIDATES Cause No. 05 - 14 - 00095 - CV into Cause No. 05 - 13 - 01747. The Court ORDERS that all future pleadings be filed in Cause No. 05 - 13 - 01747 - CV . Appellant shall file her brief on or bef ore May 7, 2014. /s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE