alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-32.2 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

EXHIBIT 32.2

I, Jack R. Lazar, the chief financial officer of Atheros Communications, Inc. (the
Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,:



|(i) | The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|Date: November 5, 2007                    
|                                          
|/s/ Jack R. Lazar                         
|Jack R. Lazar                             
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)
List of External websites on C2P2 web-site

http://www.circainf o.ca/factsheets.htm

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/coal_utiliz ation_byproducts/states/statereg

s.html

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/

http://www.acaa-usa.org/

http://www.rmajko.com/flyash.html\

http://www.rmrc.unh.edu/

http://www.eerc.und.nodak.e du/carrc/index.html

http://wvwri.nrcce.wvu.edu/ programs/cbrc/index.cfm

http://www4.uwm.edu/cbu/

http://ccpohio.eng.ohio- state.edu/ccpohio/

http://www.eerc.und.nodak.edu/ carrc/assets/FGDHandling.pdf

http://wvwri.nrcce.wvu.edu/programs/cb rc/fact_sheets/FINALDockter.pdf

http://www.pavement.com/

http://www.nrmca.org/

http://www.wbdg.org/

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19

http://greenerbuildings.com/

http://www.wbdg.org/design/greenspec.php

http://www.flyash.info/

http://www.fgdproducts.org/Presentations09.htm

http://www.recycledmaterials .org/tools/uguidelines/index.asp
Modification of Security Agreement



 Exhibit 10-6 
 MODIFICATION OF SECURITY AGREEMENT 
 This
Modification of BB&T Security Agreement, made this 4th
day of January, 2012, by and between SOUTHEAST POWER CORPORATION, a Florida corporation (“Debtor”) and BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation (“Secured Party”). 

RECITALS 

1. Debtor and Secured Party entered into that certain BB&T Security Agreement dated February 22, 2011 (“Security
Agreement”). 
 2. Security Agreement was entered into in connection with a certain Promissory Note dated February 22,
2011 (including all extensions, renewals modifications, and substitutions thereof) in the original principal amount of Three Million and 00/100 Dollars ($3,000,000.00) made in favor of Secured Party by The Goldfield Corporation
(“Borrower”), and other loan documents related thereto, which was renewed by that certain Renewal Promissory Note from Borrower to Second Party of even date herewith (the “Goldfield Note”). 

3. Debtor has executed a Promissory Note dated February 22, 2011 in the original amount of $6,940,000.00 in favor of Secured Party
(the “Southeast Note”). 
 4. Debtor desires to secure and collateralize the Southeast Note under the Security
Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for the sum of $10.00 and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and
correct and are expressly incorporated herein. 
 2. Cross-Collateralization. Debtor hereby agrees, stipulates and
acknowledges that the term “obligations” as defined in Section 1.2 of the Security Agreement shall include (in addition to the liabilities under the Goldfield Note), all of the obligations and liabilities under the Southeast Note to
the same and full extent as the Goldfield Note. Debtor further agrees and stipulates that the collateral and security interests granted in the Security Agreement shall secure the indebtedness evidenced by the Goldfield Note and the Southeast Note.

 3. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and provisions of the Security Agreement remain
in full force and effect, and Debtor reaffirms, confirms and acknowledges that all terms and provisions of the Security Agreement as modified herein remain valid and effective. 







 The parties have signed this Modification of Security Agreement under seal as of the date
and year first written above. 
  

									
	WITNESSES:	 		 	SOUTHEAST POWER CORPORATION, a Florida corporation
			
	 /s/ Barry Forbes
	 		 	
	Print Name: 	 	 Barry Forbes
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Stephen R. Wherry

		 		 		 		 	Stephen R. Wherry, Treasurer
	 /s/ John W. Davis III
	 		 		 	
	Print Name: 	 	 John W. Davis III
	 		 		 	


  
 2
americanchemistry.com®

 700 Second St., NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 249.7000 

November 8, 2013

Katherine Sleasman

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Chemical Control Division

Existing Chemicals Branch

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Dear Katherine:

Thank you very much for your presentation at the 2013 Polyurethanes Technical Conference. It 

is extremely valuable for the members of the ACC Center for the Polyurethanes Industry and 

others who attend the conference to hear about the developments under EPA’s Action Plans for 

MDI and TDI each year. Your presentations are always well attended and the information is

much sought after by the value chain.

In your slides, and in your response to my follow-up question, you indicated that EPA will 

“initiate a rulemaking under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) 

designating certain uses of TDI in a consumer product as a new use requiring prior notice to the 

Agency.” This raises a question: is EPA now considering a SNUR on finished consumer 

products? If so, then this action would be a significant departure from EPA’s original intent

expressed in the Chemical Action Plans and I would like to ask for further clarification regarding 

EPA’s intention with regard to the planned TDI SNUR. I am requesting a meeting during the 

week of December 2nd with you and whomever else from EPA that you believe would be 

appropriate to discuss developments under the Action Plans for TDI and MDI. 

Please feel free to contact me at 202-249-6604 or lee_salamone@americanchemistry.com. I look 

forward to hearing from you. 

Sincerely, 

Lee Salamone 

Senior Director

cc: Wendy Cleland-Hamnett

Leslie Cronkhite

Maria Doa
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         Eunice Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Initial Review Group, Population Sciences Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         March 1, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Christiane M. Robbins, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch (SRB), DER, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Rm. 2121B, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-451-4989,                         *crobbins@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 5, 2024. 

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-00369 Filed 1-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF ERNST &YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8Nos. 333-112448, 333-103228, 333-92572, 333-83954, 333-81396,333-43952, 333-33338, 333-93653, 333-85161, 333-51117,333-33197, and 333-06301) pertaining to the 1998 Supplemental StockOption/ Stock Issuance Plan, 1993 Stock Option/ Stock Issuance Plan, andEmployee Stock Purchase Plan of Ultratech, Inc. of our report dated January 16,2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofUltratech, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) forthe year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California

March 8, 2004

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 07, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 07, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16A1821. TYQUISE THOMPSON v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this

Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration

of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals

Rule 13.

On June 17, 2016, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a

brief no later than June 27, 2016. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

I, James R. Mault, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of HealtheTech, Inc. (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 the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 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 report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

| |  | By: |  | /s/JAMES R. MAULT, M.D.Name: James R. Mault, M.D.
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I,
Stephen E. Webb, the Chief Financial Officer of HealtheTech, Inc. (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 the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 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 report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | By: |  | /s/STEPHEN E. WEBBName: Stephen E. Webb
Title: Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### Leo Carl GUNDLACH, Plaintiff In Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12995.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 3, 1961.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1961.

*1109R. B. Strong, Arapaho, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

Leo Carl Gundlach was charged in the county court of Custer County with the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was tried before a jury, convicted and sentenced to serve 365 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $500, and has appealed.

No briefs have been filed in the action, no appearance was made in behalf of the defendant when the case came on for oral argument in this Court, and under the rules of the Court the case was submitted on the record.

Under such conditions this Court will examine the pleadings, instructions of the court and exceptions thereto taken, the judgment and sentence, and look for fundamental errors. If no such error is apparent in the record, the judgment and sentence will be affirmed.

We have also examined the record in the within styled and numbered case. We find no fundamental error, but in addition thereto we find that the evidence of the arresting officers and the defendant’s own admissions are so convincing that the jury was well within its prerogative and powers to find the defendant guilty.

The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

NIX, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4715 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require certain institutions 

of higher education to provide notice of tuition levels for students. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 21, 2017 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. 

DELANEY, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. PETERS, Mr. TONKO, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. 

CUMMINGS, Mr. CONNOLLY, and Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New 

York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

certain institutions of higher education to provide notice 

of tuition levels for students. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Truth in Tuition Act 

5 of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4715 IH

1 SEC. 2. NOTICE OF TUITION LEVELS. 

2 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 487(a) of the Higher 

3 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended 

4 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(30)(A) The institution will provide to each 

6 student admitted to an undergraduate or graduate 

7 program— 

8 ‘‘(i) a multi-year tuition and fee schedule; 

9 or 

10 ‘‘(ii) a single-year tuition and fee schedule, 

11 and a nonbinding, multi-year estimate of net 

12 costs after all financial aid is awarded, assum13 ing constant family and student income, assets, 

14 and relevant circumstances. 

15 ‘‘(B) Multi-year schedules and estimates re16 quired by subparagraph (A)— 

17 ‘‘(i) may include a percentage or dollar in18 crease or decrease of any size the institution de19 termines to be appropriate from one year to the 

20 next; and 

21 ‘‘(ii) shall indicate, on a year-by-year basis, 

22 costs for the normal duration of such student’s 

23 undergraduate or graduate program. 

24 ‘‘(C) Institutions that elect a single-year tuition 

25 and fee schedule under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall 

26 include with each multi-year estimate provided under 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4715 IH

1 such subparagraph the average deviation, in percent2 age terms, between previous year estimates and ac3 tual net costs for students at their institution. 

4 ‘‘(D) The Secretary shall waive the require5 ments of subparagraph (A) if the institution dem6 onstrates to the Secretary that the requirements of 

7 subparagraph (A) are not practicable because of the 

8 occurrence of one or more events causing the institu9 tion severe economic distress, dramatic reduction of 

10 State or Federal aid, or any other circumstance de11 termined to be appropriate by the Secretary.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) shall be effective on the date that is 120 

14 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4657 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code, to allow full subrogation, 

including subrogation to the priority rights of the United States, of 

claims for the payment of customs duties. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2017 

Mr. KING of New York (for himself and Mr. MEEKS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code, to allow 

full subrogation, including subrogation to the priority 

rights of the United States, of claims for the payment 

of customs duties. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Customs Business 

5 Fairness Act of 2017’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4657 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 507(d) of title 11, United States Code, is 

3 amended by inserting ‘‘excluding subparagraph (F)’’ after 

4 ‘‘(a)(8)’’. 

5 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT. 

6 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub7 section (b), this Act and the amendment made by this Act 

8 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

9 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.—The amendment 

10 made by this Act shall not apply with respect to cases com11 menced under title 11 of the United States Code before 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-11790

____________________

WILLIE THOMAS, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondents-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-62348-PCH

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-11790 Date Filed: 09/20/2022 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 20-11790

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After hearing oral argument in this case, we ordered a limited remand for the district court to make fact findings relevant to 

the issue of whether permitting the petitioner to amend his habeas 

petition again would be futile. We asked the court to make credibility and fact findings about whether, if the state court had not 

made an incorrect statement about the effect of his prior convictions, the petitioner would have changed his mind and decided to 

testify at trial. He wanted to amend his habeas petition to include 

a claim that he would have done that.

The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which the 

petitioner testified. After considering the evidence, the court determined that the petitioner had already made a “firm decision not 

to testify in the trial” before the state court made its erroneous 

statement about his prior convictions. The court found that the 

petitioner’s contrary testimony at the evidentiary hearing was not 

credible. His responses to questions were “vague, evasive, and 

confusing,” and they were “inconsistent with the trial transcript 

and [his] post-trial filings.” In assessing credibility, the court took 

into consideration the petitioner’s extensive criminal history and 

his eleven prior felony convictions. Based on its findings, the court 

concluded that allowing the petitioner to amend his habeas petition another time would be futile. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11790 Date Filed: 09/20/2022 Page: 2 of 3
20-11790 Opinion of the Court 3

The district court found the necessary facts and made entirely reasonable credibility determinations to support its conclusion that another amendment would be futile. Our review is limited to clear error, and “review for clear error is deferential,” United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir.

2007). “[W]e will not disturb a district court’s findings unless we 

are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.” United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th 

Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted); accord, e.g., United States v. 

Monzo, 852 F.3d 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2017). There is no error, 

much less clear error, in the district court’s findings. 

The district court’s judgment denying the petitioner leave to 

amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-11790 Date Filed: 09/20/2022 Page: 3 of 3
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2009 – Enercon v OHIM (E-Ship)**

**(Case T-81/08)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark E-Ship – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1.                     *Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see
para. 10)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Effects of the Community trade mark – Limitations (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 12(b))
(see paras 24-25)*

3.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed
exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94,
Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 33-35)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2007 (Case R 319/2007-1), relating to an application for registration of the sign E-ship as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Enercon GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Verbal mark E-Ship for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 12 and 39 – Application No 5050539 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs. |