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





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Axion International Holdings, Inc. (the
Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended herein as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gary Anthony, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.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 fully presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations or the
      Company.





Date:
      January 13, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Gary AnthonyGary
      AnthonyChief
      Financial Officer
[No. 149-2.

Division Two.

July 30, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Lenny Paul Wells, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 38563, Bartlett Rummel, J., entered December 2, 1969. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Document

Exhibit 10.12

FOURTH ADDENDUM TO ORITZ BUILDING OFFICE LEASE


All terms and conditions remain unchanged from Original Office Lease signed between Oritz Properties, Inc, a California corporation (“Landlord”) and Kindred Biosciences, Inc. (“Tenant”), except for the following:


Premises:  Suite 200 / rentable area as 6,900 Square feet 
Commencement Date: December 1, 2020
Base Rent:  $3.11 per rentable square foot per month ($21,459.00/month)
Annual increases starting:
December 1, 2021 at $3.20 per sq ft ($22,080.00 per month)
December 1, 2022 at $3.30 per sq ft ($22,770.00 per month)


Termination Date: November 30, 2023
Additional Security deposit: $22,770.00 plus $250


All other terms and conditions of the Original Office Lease remain in full force and effect, and are extended throughout the extended Lease Term set forth above


						
	Landlord:
Oritz Properties, Inc.




By: /s/ Vladimir Grave
Its:
Date: 9/25/2020
	Tenant
Kindred Biosciences, Inc.




By:   /s/ Wendy Wee
Its:  CFO
Date:  9/24/20







ORITZ CORPORATION  1555 Bayshore Highway. Burlingame, CA 94010 · (650) 692-8000 ·FAX (650) 692-8055
www.oritzcorp.com
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 773 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that localities should 

observe Halloween on the last Saturday of October and communicate 

to the public that trick-or-treating and other public observances of the 

holiday will take place on that day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2014 

Mr. ISRAEL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

localities should observe Halloween on the last Saturday 

of October and communicate to the public that trickor-treating and other public observances of the holiday 

will take place on that day. 

Whereas Halloween is not a federally established holiday and 

the observance of the holiday is usually set on the local 

level; 

Whereas when Halloween falls on a weekday children will 

likely trick-or-treat after the sun has set; 

Whereas according to a study from the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, between 2006 and 2010 more people 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 773 IH 

under the age of 21 were killed in car accidents on October 31 than on October 30 or November 1; 

Whereas according to a 2011 survey commissioned by Safe 

Kids Worldwide, only 37 percent of parents send their 

children out trick-or-treating with a flashlight, and only 

18 percent affix reflective tape to their children’s costumes, both of which would make them more visible to 

motorists; 

Whereas observing Halloween on the weekend would allow 

children to trick-or-treat during the daytime; and 

Whereas the last Saturday of October would be the optimal 

time to observe Halloween: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that localities should— 

3 (1) observe Halloween on the weekend; and 

4 (2) communicate to the public that trick-or5 treating and other public observances of the holiday 

6 will take place on that day. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
July 2, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GREEN DIESEL, LLC AN D FUEL STREAMERS, IN C , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 13

- 00017

- CV V.
VICNRG, LLC
, Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the orders in favor of appellee, VicNRG, LLC, signed September 4, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the orders

. We order the orders of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant s , Green Diesel, LLC and Fuel Streamers, Inc, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
259 La. 882

#### Loy W. SCARBOROUGH and Hess Curry, Jr. v. John A. DUKE.

No. 51748.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: John A. Duke applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of LaSalle. 251 So.2d 55.

Application denied; there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 51

Electing certain Members to standing committees of the House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1993

Mr. HOYER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Electing certain Members to standing committees of the

House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members, Resi2 dent Commissioner, and Delegates, be, and they are here3 by, elected as chairmen and members as the case may be,

4 to the following standing committees of the House of Rep5 resentatives:

6 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Ronald V. Del7 lums, California, chairman; Pete Geren, Texas; Elizabeth

8 Furse, Oregon; and [vacancy].

9 COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISH10 ERIES: Gary L. Ackerman, New York.
2

HRES 51 ATH

1 COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE:

2 Greg Laughlin, Texas; Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Georgia;

3 Sherrod Brown, Ohio; and Alcee L. Hastings, Florida.

4 COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:

5 Fortney Pete Stark, California, chairman.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32104-32105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14763]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13102-003]


Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment; Birch 
Power Company

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has 
reviewed the application for original license for the Demopolis Lock 
and Dam Hydroelectric Project on the Tombigbee River and has prepared a 
Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the project.
    The Demopolis Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be located 
at an existing lock and dam owned by

[[Page 32105]]

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Tombigbee River, west of the 
city of Demopolis in Marengo and Sumter Counties, Alabama. The project 
would occupy 23 acres of federal land.
    The FEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential 
environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the 
project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not 
constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the FEA is available for review at the Commission in the 
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at 
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket 
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to 
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#54121106171b3a383d3a31072124243b262014323126377a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82c4c7d0c1cdeceeebece7d1f7f2f2edf0f6c2e4e7f0e1ace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>, (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support.
    For further information, contact Adam Peer at (202) 502-8449.

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14763 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.13

Executive Officer Compensation
​
Base Salary
The following table sets forth the base salary for each named executive officer of Evolve Transition Infrastructure GP LLC, the general partner of Evolve Transition Infrastructure LP (the “Partnership”).  Each person is an employee of SNMP Services Inc. (“Services”) and provides services to the Partnership, with the amounts listed being the portion of the salary allocated to the Partnership, effective as of January 1, 2021.
	3


	


	 
	 

	Sanchez Production Partners LP, Officer
	Base Salary

	Gerald F. Willinger
Chief Executive Officer
	$600,000

	Charles C. Ward
Chief Financial Officer & Secretary
	$375,000



​
Other Benefits
Services does not maintain a defined benefit pension plan for its employees because it believes that such plans primarily reward longevity rather than performance. Services provides a basic benefits package generally to all employees, which includes a 401(k) plan, parking costs, and health, disability and life insurance. In its discretion, Services and/or the board of directors of the Partnership’s general partner may award the named executive officers cash bonuses and/or equity compensation.
#### JOHNSON et ux. *v.*STATE ROADS COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

[No. 329,

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided June 18, 1962.*

*Motion Jor rehearing filed July 18, 1962, denied July 23, 1962.*

The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Hammond, Prescott, Horney and Sybert, JJ.

*Ifinwood D. Clark*and *C. Maurice Weidemeyer,*for appellants.

*William J. McWilliams, Special Attorney,*with whom were *Thomas B. Binan, Attorney General,*and *Joseph D. Buscher, Special Assistant Attorney General,*on the brief, for appellee.

*152P®r Curiam :

This case is the finale to *State Roads Comm. v. Johnson,*222 Md. 493 (1960), in which this Court held, in a suit in equity to quiet title, that the State Roads Commission was vested with fee simple title to the strip of land the ownership of which was therein contested. The losing parties in that case, the Johnsons, then sought to establish, in a suit at law for trespass *q. c. f.,*that they have obtained title to the strip by adverse possession. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the State Roads Commission on the ground of *res judicata.*We think the trial court was right.

Our decision in *State Roads Comm. v. Johnson*established that on June 8, 1960, the Commission was the owner of the strip. The mandate remanded the case “for the passage of a decree declaring that the appellant is vested with fee simple title to the strip in question.” The lower court passed such a decree on December 30, 1960, and no appeal therefrom was taken.

It is well established that a judgment between the same parties as to the same subject matter is *res judicata*not only as to the points actually raised in the former proceeding but also as to those which could have been raised. *Alvey v. Alvey,*225 Md. 386, 390-391 (1961), and *White v. Athey,*229 Md. 28, and cases therein cited. The claim of the Johnsons of adverse possession in the present case is the same claim that they made in the former case, with the same starting point in time. The bill of complaint in the first case included an averment that the Johnsons and their predecessors in title “have been in continuous and peaceable possession of said land and improvements for the statutory period” (beginning in 1937), and the interrogatories and answers filed in the case referred to this claim and the State’s position in regard to it. As it happened, the Johnsons eventually decided in the former case not to rely on adverse possession but to seek relief on other grounds, which the opinion of this Court in that case decided were unsound. It is clear to us that the Johnsons lost the right to claim title by adverse possession when the prior case was decided against them.

*Judgment affirmed, with costs.*
#### Douglas A. DeSOUZA, Appellant, v. LIGHTHOUSE POINT, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-437.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 24, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**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 COMC, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
      for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Janice B. Fuellhart,
      Chairman and 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:





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.





*By:
                /s/ Janice B. Fuellhart*
              *------------------------------------*
              *Janice
                B. Fuellhart*
              *Chairman
                and Chief Executive*
              *Officer*


June
      17,
      2005
MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464

Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) – Second Round

FROM: Scott Mathias

Air Quality Policy Division, EPA OAQPS

SUBJECT: Current Efforts and Future Schedule for EPA to Complete Area Designations for 

the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS

On March 10, 2016, representatives from EPA and the Clean Air Strategy Group of the Edison 

Electric Institute (EEI) discussed via telephone the timeline and milestones for completing area 

designations under the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS. Topics included: the existing nonattainment 

areas which were designated in 2013; the current efforts to complete designations for selected 

areas by July 2, 2016, as required by the final consent decree; and, the schedule by which EPA 

will complete the remainder of area designations by either December 31, 2017, or December 31, 

2020, consistent with the other two deadlines contained in the final consent decree.

The following representatives were present:

Scott Mathias – EPA OAQPS

Rhea Jones – EPA OAQPs

Andy Chang – EPA OAQPS

James Thurman – EPA OAQPS

John Kinsman – EEI Clean Air Strategy Group, Senior Director, Environment
#### Lloyd Gregory CARROLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. FF-339.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 20, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Theodore E. Mack, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Raymond Marky and Michael H. Davidson, Asst. At-tys. Gen., for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

Carroll was charged with five counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence [Section 782.07, Florida Statutes (1975)] and five counts of manslaughter by driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated [Section 860.01, Florida Statutes (1975)]. A jury convicted him of the five counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence but acquitted him of the five counts of manslaughter by driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. He appeals contending the trial court erred in allowing testimony concerning his drinking of intoxicating beverages and his manner of driving an automobile three to five hours before the accident resulting in the offenses charged.

Apparently the testimony adduced by the State that Carroll found objectionable was that between 6:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M., the time of the offense, Carroll had drunk between one and a half and two six-packs of beer, that at 7:00 P.M. he was probably drunk, that he was seen drinking later in the evening, that between 7:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. he drove at a speed of approximately seventy miles per hour while drinking a beer, and that he struck a curb while driving.

Carroll argues that the objectionable evidence was introduced by the State to show the propensity of Carroll to drive recklessly at a later time and this prejudiced the jury against him. Not so. Although Carroll was subsequently convicted of only manslaughter by culpable negligence, at the time of trial he was also charged with manslaughter by driving while intoxicated. The evidence in question was admissible on this latter charge to show intoxication.

Carroll also argues that the evidence was inadmissible under *Williams v. State,*110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). Under the facts in the case before us, the Williams Rule is not applicable.

We affirm the judgment.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
#### Mattie Moore GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeremiah GREEN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13286.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Aug. 29, 1977.

Caddo-Bossier Legal Aid Society by Steven R. Thomas, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Before BOLIN, C. J., and PRICE and MARVIN, JJ.

PRICE, Judge.

In the default judgment awarding plaintiff a separation from defendant, she was awarded the custody of the four minor children together with child support of $90 per month. Plaintiff has appealed asking for an increase in the amount of child support.

The evidence shows she receives $72 per week from unemployment compensation benefits. Defendant’s gross income is shown to be $450 per month. Plaintiff testified she had no knowledge of defendant’s net income. Plaintiff submitted a list of her monthly expenditures totaling $423.20.

The amount fixed by the trial judge when added to the unemployment compensation benefits gives plaintiff an approximate monthly income of $400. Although the amount defendant has been ordered to *986pay is minimal, it is nevertheless substantially in accord with plaintiff’s estimated needs and is within the wide discretion accorded a trial judge in such matters.

The judgment appealed is affirmed.
# C_2022359EN.01006801.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/68

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — TL v Commission

(Case T-438/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew the contract - Vacancy notice - Manifest error of assessment - Duty of care - Psychological harassment - Liability)

(2022/C 359/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TL (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant, TL, seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of 29 October 2020 not to renew her contract of employment and, so far as necessary, of the decision of 20 April 2021 rejecting her complaint brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union against that decision and, secondly, compensation in respect of the damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of those acts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---
#### James W. MANN, Appellant, v. William MARTIN, Appellee.

No. Q-330.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 30, 1972.

Paul R. Stern, of Stern & Bernardini, and Berrien Becks, of Becks & Becks, Day-tona Beach, for appellant.

Lawrence O. Sands, of Sands, Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Michaels v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 129 So.2d 427 (Fla.App.1961).

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Johnny Lee YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-424.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 1, 1971.

Robert P. Miller, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*757PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Avis v. State, 221 So.2d 235 (Fla.App.1969), and Gilmore v. State, 240 So.2d 179 (Fla.App.1970).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### FRYSON *v.*STATE

[No. 22,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided October 17, 1962.*

The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Horney and SybeRT, JJ.

*Morris Lee Kaplan,*with whom was *Michael Lee Kaplan*on the brief, for the appellant.

*Russell R. Reno, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,*with whom were *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Saul A. Harris, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City,*and *Howard G. Reamer, Assistant State’s Attorney,*on the brief, for the appellee.

*486P®r Curiam.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of three armed robberies and of one robbery without the use of a weapon. All of the cases were tried together. He urges that the evidence was insufficient to go to the jury and insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt by the jury. There is no merit to the contentions. Each of the four cab drivers who was robbed picked appellant from a lineup, and identified him at the trial.

Appellant’s claim that the identifications at the lineups were vague and uncertain, attempted to be supported by his testimony and that of two men who had been in the lineup to that effect, was for the jury to weigh and decide, as was the truth of his alibi that on the night when two of the robberies occurred he had been at a party at the High Wide and Social Club. Appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient actually amounts to a challenge to its weight and credibility and these are matters for the trier of fact and not this Court to pass on.

*Judgments affirmed.*