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 Medical Connections
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB, for the period ended September
30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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 results of operation of the
Company.

         3. 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: November 14, 2007

                                                    By: /s/ BRIAN QUILLEN
                                                        -----------------
                                                        Brian Quillen
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, StevenD. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify inaccordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2) the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated:  November 30, 2005 | /s/  STEVEN D. BONHAM    |   |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                           | Steven  D. Bonham        |
|                           | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to UnifyCorporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. HOCHUL:
       H.R. 6330.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
     States.
```
Converted by EDGARwiz


English Translation




Performance Salary Assessment Agreement




Party A: Guang dong Ge wang Biotechnology Shares Co., Ltd.




Party B: Li Wang




In order to promote the company’s economic benefit and stimulate employees’ working enthusiasm, on the principle of fairness, justice, encouragement and competition, the agreement hereby is made to make the income of employees be more closely associated with personal work capacity, his contribution and loyalty to the company. Party B confirms and voluntarily agrees with the relevant provisions of this agreement.




I. Both Party A and Party B consent to assess the working performance of Party B and dispense performance salary in accordance with Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China.




II. According to the content stipulated in the agreement, Party A shall pay the performance salary of 50,000,00 Yuan to Party B monthly when the net margin of the company reaches to 2,500,000,00 Yuan, and the performance salary shall be uniformly paid after accumulation before December 31 of that year.




III.Date of agreement: From April 8th, 2016 to April 7th, 2017




IV. The main assessment contents of performance salary are as follows: 




1. Loyalty: If Party B resigns from the job unilaterally during the contract period, Party B will not be paid the performance salary for that month.  




2. Working capabilities: Party B shall fulfill their duties according to responsibilities stipulated by Party A, perform duties seriously and complete all kinds of work tasks assigned by Party A.




3. Working attitudes: Party B shall comply with Party A’s rules and regulations, as well as relevant requirements, if there is any violation or nonperformance of the duties, Party B will be fined or be punished or be canceled performance salary in that month according to the situation.




V. The agreement, which comes into effect from the date of seal or signing, is made in duplicate with each Party holding one.




VI.  The interpretation power of this agreement is reserved by Party A.




(This page is for signing with no body.)





		
	Party A:
















Representative: Shili Zhang

	Party B: Li Wang


	Date of signing: April 8, 2016

	Date of signing: April 8, 2016
<PAGE>   1
            Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
          (Dollars and Share Data in Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           As of and For the Years Ended December 31,
                                                                   ------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                        1999                    1998                   1997
                                                                   ---------------         --------------         -------------

<S>                                                                <C>                     <C>                    <C>
Weighted-Average Common Shares Outstanding                              12,501                  12,249                 12,194

Weighted-Average Share Equivalents Outstanding                           2,615                   2,680                  2,736
                                                                         -----                   -----                  -----

Weighted-Average Shares and Share Equivalents Outstanding
                                                                        15,116                  14,929                 14,930
                                                                        ------                  ------                 ------

Net Income                                                             $18,843                 $20,028                $16,870
                                                                       =======                 =======                =======

Basic Earnings Per Share                                                 $1.51                   $1.63                  $1.38
                                                                         -----                   -----                  -----

Diluted Earnings Per Share                                               $1.25                   $1.34                  $1.13
                                                                         =====                   =====                  =====
</TABLE>




                                 Page 61 of 65
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Angelo Mammarello, Respondent, v Hubbs & Howe Company, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workers, Compensation Board, Respondent.

— Appeals from a decision and an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 3, 1990 and October 9, 1990, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant sustained a causally related disability.

*969The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that claimant’s repeated lifting while loading and unloading the truck he drove for the employer acted upon his quiescent arthritic back condition and that, on June 18, 1984, it precipitated a disability that had not previously existed. This conclusion was based primarily on the testimony of claimant and his physician and it was within the Board’s province to assess the credibility of the witnesses *(see, Matter of Smith v Bell Aerospace,*125 AD2d 140), as well as the weight, credibility and reasonableness to be accorded the medical evidence *(see, Matter of Gaylord v Ronald Gaylord, Inc.,*90 AD2d 609). In our opinion, the record contains substantial evidence to sustain the Board’s finding that claimant sustained a causally related disability *(see, Matter of Film v Holmes Transp.,*147 AD2d 831). Furthermore, date of disablement is a factual question for the Board to resolve and its conclusion that claimant was suffering from a new disability which occurred on June 18, 1984 is also supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Falcone v Western Elec. Co., 72*AD2d 644, *lv denied*48 NY2d 612).

Mikoll, J. P., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision and amended decision are affirmed, without costs.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT -ROGER G. LITTLE



 EXHIBIT 10(m) 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”), effective November 18, 2004, by and between Spire Corporation, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Massachusetts (the “Company”) and Roger G.
Little (the “Executive”), shall amend, as set forth below, the Employment Agreement for Roger G. Little, which was effective January 1, 2002 (the “Agreement”). 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby agree that Section 3.4.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows but all other provisions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect: 
  
 3.4.2. Vacation. The Executive shall be entitled to paid vacations in accordance with the regular policy of the
Company for the executive officers, but in any event, no less than the aggregate of six (6) weeks per annum. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	AGREED:
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Roger G. Little


	Name:	 	Roger G. Little
	 	 	Executive
	
	SPIRE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael W. O’Dougherty


	Name:	 	Michael W. O’Dougherty
	Title:	 	Clerk and Contracts Manager
NO; oh\H-°033H~c& S-3-n-is

a/ T/jt doixtt OF (LhmiAal (\PfccJs

OF PtUSfiiJ le^CcLJ

file? \3bo3ol

li, 5

Tie .s-tere. tf-P t^^

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUN 03 2Q;5

Abel Acosta, Clerk

To /r/iU_ A PzhT\ov\ Fo£ £)iscbdTioAaAi Rm)\qmj.

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUN 012015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
fiPfkal Court, A/o. OF /</- 0 033H r C£.

Di51>.-cf Co^ /So*- /fo^ dtfi^ r„ AJo.iSbo^l

m^/c27aoi5

DOtffTOAi Fo£ Jf&tettSiOAf af T'Mt 7F f/Le.

(1oiv\q_ a/ouu R(a£uJ F^dMBeZ Pef.tioA** fM tke AboUc

&APfrbr\«J PtirJ A/urn£<ut&J ddAMt fho, £&. . /Ylfl-&*3 A ^^uM>iTo Tke. (LoULfW. FoR ft Etf**£>loh. oF fO /J4YS 7b

h*U A Petition Fan 0/schei',o/\lAny £4U.<juj. m rhs dAs*.

my £<ls± was af/^^j itj rU &u#- of M^J ^rL

F**St Qr^th.af #F 7e*<L3. ~C Am R^VuesfrNj rUo £*i*4a,G

/W odA^ tUt x mv/ ^^. my rkJl r^^Pt

#rJ PrtPoAn A PDfc.

65^1

?W^ Fo/? fte-L.U=

fihAnW. .Q^, eJ
### PD-0188-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 2/24/2015 1:30:42 PM Accepted 2/26/2015 4:11:30 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
**Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2011 – Power‐One Italy v Commission**

**(Case T-489/08)**

Action for compensation – Project cofunded by the financial instrument LIFE + – Development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony (Pneuma project) – Abuse of process – Disregard of formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for damages – Independent of actions for annulment – Action partially seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision
become definitive – Partial inadmissibility (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 42-50)*

2.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute
– Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Action seeking compensation for loss caused by an
EU institution – No indications as to the nature and extent of the loss and the causal link – Manifest inadmissibility (Arts
235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the
General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 52, 54-57, 61-62)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the Commission’s decision to end the Pneuma project (LIFE04 ENV/IT/000595), intended to cofund development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Power-One Italy SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
#### Glenn Wesley WOODS, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12794.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 13, 1960.

*1088Paul Haunstein, Enid, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Robert L. Gregory, County Atty., W. J. Otjen, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Enid, for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

Glenn Wesley Woods was charged in the county court of Garfield county with the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to serve ten (10) days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $100.

Judgment and sentence was pronounced on the 20th day of April, 1959, and the defendant was given seventy five (75) days in which to file his appeal in this court. The petition in error was lodged in this court on July 9, 1959.

Title 22 O.S.A. § 1054 provides:

> "In misdemeanor cases the appeal must be taken within sixty (60) days after the judgment is rendered: Provided, however, that the trial court or judge may, for good cause shown, extend the time in which such appeal may be taken not exceeding sixty (60) days.”

It is to be observed that the trial judge gave the defendant "60 days in which to prepare and serve a casemade; 10 days for suggested amendments, and 5 days to settle, and sign, and 75 days were given the defendant to file his petition in error in the Criminal Court of Appeals.”

There were no additional extensions requested or granted. The seventy five (75) days granted defendant to lodge his appeal began on the date of judgment and sentence April 20, 1959. The petition in error was filed in this court on July 9, seventy nine (79) days after judgment and sentence.

This court has closely adhered to the rule adopted in Snow v. State, 44 Okl.Cr. 182, 279 P. 975.

> Where an appeal has not been filed within time fixed by law, nor trial court’s extension thereof, Criminal Court of Appeals acquires no jurisdiction.

Also see Loving v. State, 87 Okl.Cr. 150, 196 P.2d 519; Jackson v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 6, 188 P.2d 878.

*1089It is obvious from the record that the failure to file said case in time was the result of a misunderstanding of the time granted. The record reflects that the appeal bond filed by the defendant related that defendant was given ninety (90) days in which to appeal. No doubt defense counsel relied upon this, which resulted in his failure to file the appeal in the time prescribed in the court’s order of judgment and sentence.

It is to be readily seen that the matter was confusing but this court has no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A review of the casemade reveals that defendant would have gained little had his case been filed in time.

The case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

POWELL, P, J., and BRETT, J., concur.
# C_2010063EN.01001501.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-22/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Energy policy - Energy savings - Directive 2002/91/EC - Energy performance of buildings - Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed time-limit)

2010/C 63/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and L. de Schietere de Lophem, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65), or failure to notify them to the Commission, within the prescribed time-limit

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82 of 4.04.2009.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of FORESIGHT  SPECIALISTS  INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kevin Ericksteen,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies 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  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                                   /s/ Kevin Ericksteen
                                                   --------------------------
Date: November 10, 2005                                Kevin Ericksteen
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
# C_2008301EN.01004502.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/45

---

Appeal brought on 8 September 2008 by Bart Nijs against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 June 2008 in Case F-5/07 Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case T-371/08 P)

(2008/C 301/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Declare the appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal admissible;

| — | Declare the appeal well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal well-founded;

| — | Consequently, annul the order of 26 June 2008 in Case F-5/07 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, annul the order of 26 June 2008 in Case F-5/07 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.

Bart Nijs

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal's order is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of procedural provisions inasmuch as it regards the action as inadmissible by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of clarity, an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and an erroneous application of the presumption of legality to the defendant's contentions inasmuch as the order was made after a single exchange of written pleadings.

In addition, the applicant considers that the contested order is lacking in clarity, is unsupported by evidence, is vitiated by a manifest error in the consideration of the pleas in law raised in the application and does not consider certain matters which the Tribunal should have considered of its own motion.

The applicant also claims that the contested order should have taken account of the lack of a statement of reasons at the pre-litigation stage and that it was wrongly based on a failure to comply with time-limits, inasmuch as the Tribunal had not carried out a suficient investigation to reach that conclusion.

---
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**Certification of the Principal Executive and Financial Officers of Promotora y Operadora de Infraestructura, S.A.B. de C.V. 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 on Form 20-F of Promotora y Operadora de Infraestructura, S.A.B. de C.V. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), David Peñaloza Alanís, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Carlos Césarman Koltenivk, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his 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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates and periods set forth therein.

 

 
| Date: June 28, 2012. | /s/ Carlos Césarman Kolteniuk |
|----------------------|------------------------------------|
|                 | Name:                              | Carlos Césarman Kolteniuk |
|                 | Title:                             | Executive Vice President of Finance   and    Administration and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

This certification is furnished as an exhibit to the Report and accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----