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 Annual Report of Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James R. Buscemi, as Chief Financial 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:



|(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/ James R. Buscemi   
|-----------------------
|James R. Buscemi       
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|March 5, 2009
Exhibit 11

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|----------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | ----------------- | ----
|                                          |  | Year EndedDecember 31, 2006
|                                          |  | (Shares in Thousands)      
|                                          |  | Shares                      |  | EarningsPer Share
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 17,222                      |  | $                 | 1.36
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|Diluted                                   |  |                             |  |                   |     
|Average Shares Outstanding                |  | 17,222                      |  |                   |     
|Common Stock Equivalents                  |  | 343                         |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|                                          |  | 17,565                      |  | $                 | 1.33
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|                                          | 
|                                          |  | Year EndedDecember 31, 2005
|                                          |  | (Shares in Thousands)      
|                                          |  | Shares                      |  | EarningsPer Share
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 12,394                      |  | $                 | 1.31
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|Diluted                                   |  |                             |  |                   |     
|Average Shares Outstanding                |  | 12,394                      |  |                   |     
|Common Stock Equivalents                  |  | 342                         |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|                                          |  | 12,736                      |  | $                 | 1.27
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             344
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  365,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               596,051
<PP&E>                                         539,235
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,409,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,233,623
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,607,592
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,409,140
<SALES>                                      2,310,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,310,002
<CGS>                                        1,294,889
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,085,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               325,317
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             357,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,395,781)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,395,781)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.82)


</TABLE>
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 on Form 10-Q of Monroe Capital Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Theodore L. Koenig, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Aaron D. Peck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 12, 2013



/s/ Theodore L. KoenigTheodore L. Koenig
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)Monroe Capital Corporation/s/ Aaron D. PeckAaron D. Peck
Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer,
Chief Compliance Officer, and Director
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Monroe Capital Corporation
Constantinos Loukeris/R5/ 

USEPA/US To: Karen Rackley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 cc: Joseph Wilwerding/NEIC/USEPA/US@EPA 

11/28/2006 11:07 AM Subject: OEL Analysis 

Here is 6 companies that we monitored plugs/caps at in Region 5, hope this helps 

(See attached file: OEL Analysis Region 5.xls) 

Constantinos Loukeris, Environmental Engineer 

U.S. EPA Region 5 

Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Section (MI/WI) 

Phone: (312) 353-6198 

Fax: (312) 353-8289 

Protecting the environment is everyone’s responsibility. Help EPA fight pollution by reporting possible 

harmful environmental activity. To do so, visit EPA’s website at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/complaints/index.html
OEL Analysis in Region 5

# of Caps/Plugs Monitored Leaks Above 500 ppm % Leaking

Company A 78 8 10.26

Company B 119 7 5.88

Company C 116 9 7.76

Company D 35 5 14.29

Company E 30 3 10.00

Company F 44 12 27.27
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.12 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.63 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Exhibit 10.2

 

February 12, 2016

 

Ramesh Kumar, Ph.D.

 

Re:          Voluntary Salary Reduction

 

Dear Dr. Kumar:

 

This letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) confirms the recent agreement between you and Onconova Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) regarding your compensation from the Company.

 

You and the Company have agreed that for purposes of Sections 3(a) and 4(d)(1), effective as of January 1, 2016, your “Base Salary,” as defined in the Employment Agreement between you and the Company, effective July 1, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”), shall be reduced from $543,375 to $407,531 (the “Salary Reduction”).  Notwithstanding the Salary Reduction, for purposes of Sections 3(b), 3(c) and 4(d)(3) of the Employment Agreement, your “Base Salary” shall continue to be considered $543,375.  You acknowledge and agree that the Salary Reduction does not constitute Good Reason as such term is defined in the Employment Agreement.  Except to the extent modified by this Letter Agreement, the terms of the Employment Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and effect.

 

This Letter Agreement does not confer upon you any right to continue in service with the Company or otherwise interfere with the right of the Company to terminate your service at any time for any reason.  This Letter Agreement will be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  This Letter Agreement contains our entire agreement relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, discussions and understandings regarding this topic.  This Letter Agreement may only be changed by an agreement in writing signed by you and the Company.

 

Your signature below constitutes your written consent to the Salary Reduction.

 

	
 
    	
Very truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ Michael Hoffman
    
	
 
    	
Michael Hoffman
    
	
 
    	
Chairman of the Board
    


 

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:

 

 

	
/s/ Ramesh Kumar, Ph.D.
    	
 
    
	
Ramesh Kumar, Ph.D.
    	
 
    


 

Date: February 12, 2016

 

1
Second Amendment to the Consulting Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 10th day of February, 2016, by and between TapImmune Inc. (the
“Company”) and Dr. John Bonfiglio (“Consultant”), and amends that certain Consulting Agreement between the Company and Consultant, dated February 10, 2015, as amended by the Amendment to the Consulting Agreement dated
June 12, 2015 (together the “Consulting Agreement”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant desire to extend the term
of the Consulting Agreement which currently expires on February 10, 2016 by for an additional one hundred and eighty (180) days in order to continue to receive the services of Consultant; 

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Paragraph 3 of the Consulting Agreement is hereby amended to
delete the reference to “February 10, 2016” and replace it with “August 10, 2016”. 
 2. Except as specifically modified
by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and the same are hereby ratified and confirmed. 

3. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts (including by electronic means), each counterpart is deemed an original, and all
counterparts collectively constitute one and the same document. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on
the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	CONSULTANT:	 		 		 	COMPANY:
				
		 		 		 	TapImmune, Inc.
	 /s/ John Bonfiglio
	 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Glynn Wilson

	Dr. John Bonfiglio	 		 		 	Dr. Glynn Wilson, Chief Executive Officer
#### Saul Birnbaum, Appellant, v Ilene L. Flaum, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In an action, among other things, for dissolution of a partnership, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated June 23, 1989, which (1) in effect, granted the motion of the defendant Ilene L. Flaum to dismiss the action, and (2) denied as academic the plaintiff’s cross motion to retain venue in Nassau County.

*474Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not err in dismissing, as legally insufficient, the plaintiffs action. Although CPLR 3211 (a) (7) was not one of the grounds asserted in the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by this technical defect *(cf, McLearn v Cowen & Co.,*60 NY2d 686; *see, Blumstein v Menaldino,*144 AD2d 412; *Farkas v Tarrytown Lbr.,*133 AD2d 251). Courts have the right to permit a mistake, omission, defect or irregularity to be corrected *(see,*CPLR 2001; *Russell v Trask Co.,*125 AD2d 136).

In the instant case, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by not having been afforded the opportunity to replead his complaint for dissolution of the partnership inasmuch as a partnership is dissolved by operation of law upon the death of a partner *(see,*Partnership Law § 62 [4]). Moreover, a second action has already been commenced in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, pursuant to Partnership Law §§ 68 and 75, seeking court supervision to wind up the partnership and determine the various interests therein. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### Darcy N. Sweatt et al., Appellants, v Jaffin, Conrad & Finkelstein, Respondent.

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Marie Lambert, S.), entered on or about December 27, 1990, which awarded the respondent law firm $23,400 as its fee for legal services rendered to and on behalf of petitioners, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As a result of the death of petitioner Sweatt’s father, petitioner Ulm (Sweatt’s mother) hired the respondent law firm to handle their affairs. Respondent rendered legal service to petitioners from February, 1986 through the end of 1989. As the decedent’s estate was "rather a complex one”, respondent spent much time in numerous proceedings, hearings and negotiations with many relatives, insurance companies and creditors in order to protect petitioners’ interests. Respondent also was instrumental in various guardianship matters concerning both petitioners. Ultimately, petitioners received over $320,000, largely as a result of respondent’s services. Respondent billed $26,094.95 for its services and since petitioners felt that this was too large a sum for the services, they requested the Surrogate’s Court to determine the reasonable fees.

The Surrogate’s determination was proper. The Surrogate "reviewed the entire record and evaluated, *inter alia,*the nature and extent of the services, the time and labor, and the size of the estate” *(see, Matter of Freeman,*34 NY2d 1, 9). While petitioners urge that fees for paralegal services were improperly billed, SCPA 2110 (4) (added by L 1990, ch 684) permits the Surrogate to consider a paralegal’s services rendered under an attorney’s supervision.

We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them to be meritless. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
#### People, Respondent, v Dale Burton, Appellant.

Motion to compel the production of documents denied. Memorandum: At the time this appeal is perfected, the Court will direct *1077that the probation report be sent directly to the Court. Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Principal Financial Officer

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 PetVivo Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John F. Dolan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result 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.







|Date: June 30, 2016 | By: | /s/ John F. Dolan                                                                                 | 
|------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                    |     | John F. DolanChief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, Director(Principal Financial Officer) |
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jackie Autotte, Respondent. Select Model Management, Ltd., Appellant; Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Casey, *901J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 6, 1989, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board decided, in a factual pattern strikingly similar to *Matter of Chopik (Newman—Hartnett)*(145 AD2d 747), that the employer herein was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated because the models involved were employees and not independent contractors. In our view, no material distinction or difference can be drawn between the factual pattern in *Matter of Chopik*and the situation involved here. We add that we find no merit in the employer’s contention that the Board’s decision herein violated the rule of "prior precedent” *(see, Matter of Martin [Troy Publ. Co.—Roberts],*70 NY2d 679). The case of *Matter of Lerczak (Hartnett)*(156 AD2d 882), relied upon by the employer, is clearly distinguishable from the situation involved in this appeal. Accordingly, the Board’s decision should be affirmed.

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Commissioner of Labor. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN FORT LAUDERDALE, Appellant, v. Esther GRANAT, as Executrix of the Estate of Roland W. Granat, et al., Appellees.

No. 723.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

March 28, 1967.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; L. Clayton Nance, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.