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 Giant Industries, Inc.(“Giant”) on Form 10-K for the year endingDecember 31, 2004, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Mark B. Cox, Chief Financial Officer of Giant, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:     (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and     (b) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Giant. By:     /s/ Mark B. Cox           Name: Mark B. Cox Title:    Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 16, 2005
5
Earlier this summer, EPA sent you a copy of its Pressed Wood Manufacturing Industry Survey. According 

to our records, you have not returned the survey yet. 

As you may know, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was recently passed 

by Congress and signed into law. The Act adopts some of the provisions in CARB’s composite wood 

products rule, but it mandates that EPA determine other requirements. For example, the Act requires 

EPA to determine whether to exempt laminated products from the federal rule.

EPA needs companies to respond to the survey so that we can understand the potential impact of these 

upcoming regulations. We would appreciate it if you could take the time to complete and return the 

survey by September 15, 2010.

Please let me know if you will be able to return the completed survey by September 15. If you think that 

the survey does not apply to your company, please let me know why you believe that is the case. And do 

not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions you would like answered before completing the 

survey. 

Thank you very much for your time.

William Silagi 

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mail Code 7406M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-8788

silagi.william@epa.gov
Exhibit 4.15


 


THIRD AMENDMENT


TO


CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS, INC.


2012 RESTATED EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


(Adopted April 26, 2016)


 


Capricor Therapeutics,
Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. 2012 Restated Equity Incentive Plan, effective
as of November 13, 2012 and as amended to date (collectively, the “Plan”), and, pursuant to Section 17
of the Plan, the Company’s Board of Directors may at any time amend, alter, suspend or terminate the Plan.


 


The
Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


		1.	Section 3(a) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:



 


“(a) Stock
Subject to the Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be
subject to Awards and sold under the Plan, when combined with the number of Shares that may be subject to Awards and sold under
the Former Plan, is 4,474,809 Shares. In addition, Shares may become available for issuance under the Plan pursuant to Section
3(d). The Shares may be authorized but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock. No one Participant may be granted options with respect
to more than 1,000,000 Shares in any one calendar year. In addition, no one Participant may be granted Stock Appreciation Rights
with respect to more than 1,000,000 Shares in any one calendar year. No more than 4,474,809 shares may be made subject to Incentive
Stock Option grants after June 2, 2016.”


 


		2.	A new Section 3(d) is hereby added to the Plan immediately following Section 3(c) of the Plan and
shall read as follows:



 


“(d) Automatic
Share Reserve Increase. Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of the Plan, the number of Shares available for issuance under
the Plan shall be automatically increased on January 1 of each year, commencing with January 1, 2017, by an amount equal to the
lesser of (i) two percent (2%) of the outstanding shares of Common Stock as of the last day of the immediately preceding fiscal
year (rounded down to the nearest whole share), or (ii) such number of shares of Common Stock determined by the Compensation Committee
in its sole discretion.”


 


		3.	The modifications set forth above shall not affect any other provisions of the Plan.



 


[Signature provided on following page.]


 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 


In
Witness Whereof, the undersigned adopts this Third Amendment to the Plan on behalf of the Company as of the date first
written above.


 


	 	CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS, INC.
	 	 
	 	/s/ Linda Marbán, Ph.D.
	 	By: Linda Marbán, Ph.D.
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1




ENCORIUM GROUP, INC.




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 Encorium Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Kai Lindevall, M. D. Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company.





/S/ Dr. Kai Lindevall, M.D., Ph.DDr. Kai Lindevall, M.D., Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) and Director




October 3, 2011




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

             STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

                          1ST REALTY INVESTMENTS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     FISCAL YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31,
                                                    -----------------------------
                                                        2002             2001
                                                    ------------      -----------
<S>                                                 <C>               <C>
Net loss                                            $  (332,440)      $  (243,079)
                                                    ===========       ===========
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding     17,518,525        17,154,141
Add: dilutive effect of stock options                        --                --
                                                    -----------       -----------
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding   17,518,525        17,154,141
                                                    ===========       ===========

Earnings (loss) per share:
    Basic                                           $     (0.02)     $      (0.01)
    Diluted                                         $     (0.02)     $      (0.01)
</TABLE>

                                       1
#### Robert J. Kish, Appellant, v Roseann L. Kish, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Matter of Eric D.*[appeal No. 1.], 162 AD2d 1051). *605(Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. — Divorce.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
# C_2009069EN.01001402.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/14

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Miguel Cabrera Sánchez v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Industrias Cárnicas Valle SA

(Case C-81/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Mixed word and figurative mark - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier mark)

(2009/C 69/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Miguel Cabrera Sánchez (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, abogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent) and Industrias Cárnicas Valle SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case T-242/06 Cabrera Sánchez v OHIM and Industrias Cárnicas Valle, by which the Court dismissed the action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2006 (Case R 790/2005-01), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Cabrera Sánchez and Industrias Cárnicas Valle SA.

Cabrera Sánchez

OHIM

Industrias Cárnicas Valle

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Cabrera Sánchez shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Cabrera Sánchez shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

1

---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   06-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,965
<PP&E>                                       2,705,371
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,365,371)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,030,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,106,200  
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        649
<COMMON>                                          5574
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,076,296)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,030,553
<SALES>                                        570,384
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               570,384
<CGS>                                           41,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  358,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             134,176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,868
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,868
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0 
        

</TABLE>
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 41 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-138190) and Amendment No. 541 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.







/s/ Ernst &  Young LLP












Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


December 27, 2016
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2024-0530

_____________________________

ROY STOKES,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction.

August 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Court dismisses the petition for belated appeal as 

untimely filed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(A).

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Roy Stokes, pro se, Petitioner.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                  693
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        15,000
<ALLOWANCES>                            751
<INVENTORY>                          18,176
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     33,755
<PP&E>                               64,323
<DEPRECIATION>                       32,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       71,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                17,515
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              5,384
<OTHER-SE>                           18,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         71,559
<SALES>                              26,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     26,731
<CGS>                                24,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        40,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       (203)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         59
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (13,974)
<INCOME-TAX>                         (2,460)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (11,514)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        (11,514)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (2.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (2.14)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Eric X. and Others, Alleged to be Abused Children. Masao X., Appellant; Rensselaer County Department of Social Services, Respondent. (Proceeding No. I. ) In the Matter of Masao X., Appellant, v Francis Z., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Mikoll, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Perkinson, J. ), entered March 21, 1990, which denied petitioner’s application, in a proceeding (No. 1) pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, for an order returning petitioner’s children to his *411custody, and (2) from an order of said court, entered October 17, 1989, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding (No. 2) pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for visitation with petitioner’s children.

The issue to be resolved herein is whether Family Court properly dismissed petitioner’s petitions seeking, *inter alia,*visitation rights with his three minor children. In a prior proceeding, joint custody of the children had been awarded to respondent Francis Z. and his wife, who were the children’s maternal aunt and uncle, and to certain paternal relatives, with physical custody awarded to the aunt and uncle. Petitioner also sought rescission of joint custody and for a return of the children to his custody.

The first proceeding, initiated in December 1989, against respondent Rensselaer County Department of Social Services (hereinafter DSS) sought custody of the children. Family Court dismissed that petition because DSS had not had custody of the children since November 23, 1987 when temporary custody was awarded to the aunt and uncle. Furthermore, the order in the prior proceeding concerning custody was entered on consent of the parties and petitioner, though served in that proceeding, did not appeal.

In the second proceeding involved herein, petitioner sought visitation with his children, which was denied by Family Court on the basis of the best interests of the children. The record reveals that petitioner was charged with the shooting deaths of his wife and a Rensselaer County social worker, was subsequently convicted of the murder of the social worker, and is now serving a sentence of 25 years to life.

In our view, the present petitions were properly dismissed in that custody of the children is no longer with DSS and are thus untimely and inappropriate. We also decline to address the issues raised by petitioner for rescission of custody and an award of custody to him. These matters should have been raised on appeal from the order in the proceeding which awarded custody to the aunt and uncle *(see,*CPLR 5513 [a]). Furthermore, we cannot *agree*that Family Court erred in determining that visitation would not be in the best interests of the children. Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and found lacking in merit.

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18
United States Code

The
undersigned, being the Principal Financial Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certifies that the Partnership's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, 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, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version 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:
August 16, 2004

|/s/MARK A. MAKIMark A. Maki
Vice President, Finance and Principal Financial Officer | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

---



QuickLinks
# C_2008008EN.01002602.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/26

---

Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Lodato Gennaro & C. v Commission

(Case T-417/07)

(2008/C 8/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Lodato Gennaro & C. Spa (Castel San Giorgio, Italy) (represented by: M.A. Calabrese, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Order the annulment of Commission Decision SG/E/3/MIB/frw D(2007) 8690 of 8 October 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the annulment of Commission Decision SG/E/3/MIB/frw D(2007) 8690 of 8 October 2007;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the Commission decision of 8 October 2007, which refused access to certain documents sent to the Commission by the Italian Government in the context of a preliminary examination of State aid, Cases No 701/98 and 824/01, with reference to the opposition to disclosure expressed by the Italian Government following its consultation by Commission staff.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement and misapplication of Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1). It claims in this regard that the Commission erred in its interpretation of that provision, by granting Member States the power to prohibit the disclosure of documents originating from the Member State and held by Community institutions.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

1

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT OM A R ARELLANO ZAR

ATE, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-73083 Age n c y No. A077-160-480 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Om ar Are lla

no Za rate , a nat ive of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m i gration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for 

# FIL ED FEB 29 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).substa

ntia l e vide nc e the B IA’ s fa c tua l findings, Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th C ir. 2008), a

nd we de ny

the pe t ition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of Are lla

no Za rate ’ s C AT c la im be c a use he fa ile d to e s ta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not tha t he would be torture d. Se e Zhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th C ir. 2011). In light of our c onc lusion, wene e d not re a c h Are lla no Za rat e ’ s c onte ntion re ga

rding a c quie sc e nc e . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 3 0 8 3 2