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
  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.
 Date:
October 29, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ J. Robert HippsJ. Robert HippsInterim Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
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 Cal-Bay International, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Charles  A. Prebay, 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  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result of operations of the
Company.




                              /s/Charles  A.  Prebay
                              -------------------------
                              Chief  Financial  Officer
                              November  6,  2002
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                              BAYCORP HOLDINGS, LTD

                            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 BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2001 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patrycia Barnard, Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer 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 result of operations
            of BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. as of December 31, 2001.



Date:  January 30, 2003                   /s/ Patrycia T. Barnard
                                          -----------------------
                                          Patrycia T. Barnard
                                          Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer
Exhibit 10.34

 

AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT is made in duplicate as of the 30th day of April, 2009 between ENERKEM INC. (“Enerkem”) and GREENFIELD ETHANOL INC. (“GreenField”).

 

WHEREAS Enerkem and GreenField entered into a Development Rights Agreement dated as of September 19, 2008 (the “Agreement”), which they have now agreed to amend as hereinafter set forth;

 

NOW THEREFORE, Enerkem and GreenField agree as follows:

 

1.                                      The Agreement is hereby amended by

 

(1)                                 deleting Section 1.1(g) and substituting therefor

 

“Commercial Plant” means the Varennes Commercial Plant.

 

(2)                                 changing the term “Commercial Plants” wherever it occurs to “Commercial Plant”

 

(3)                                 changing the term “a Commercial Plant” wherever it occurs to “the Commercial Plant”

 

(4)                                 in sections 6.1(e)(i)(A) and 6.2(b)(i), deleting the date “December 31, 2009” and substituting therefor the date “December 31, 2011”

 

(5)                                 deleting section 5.3; and

 

(6)                                 in Section 6.2(b)(i), deleting the words “(which for this purpose includes the proposed Edmonton Commercial Plant notwithstanding that it is not in Quebec or Ontario)”

 

2.                                      Except as expressly amended hereby, each and every provision of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and is hereby confirmed, and all rights and obligations of the parties thereunder shall not be affected in any manner except as specifically provided for in this Amendment.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have duly executed this Amendment under seal as evidenced by the signatures of their properly authorized officers in that behalf as of the date first above written.

 

	
 
    	
GREENFIELD   ETHANOL INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Barry S. Wortzman
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Barry   S. Wortzman, Vice President
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Brian C. Keith
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Brian   C. Keith, Secretary
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
ENERKEM   INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Jocelyn Auger
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Jocelyn   Auger, Vice President
#### Mark G. SIMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deputy LOVITT; Deputy Gwaltney; James H. Dunning, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-7773.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.

Decided Feb. 5, 2003.

Mark G. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Mark G. Simpson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Simpson v. Lovitt,*No. CA-02-1465-AM (E.D.Va. Oct. 24, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, DC 20549
 FORM 8-K/A
 CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT
TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 December 22, 2008
Date of report
(Date of earliest event reported)
 UNITED FUEL & ENERGY CORPORATION
  Nevada
 000-32473
(Commission File Number)
    
    91-2037688
(IRS Employer Identification No.)1800 W. Katella Ave., Suite 102Orange, CA
    
    92867(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (714) 923-3025
 see
 o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item
    
    5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of
Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers
 (c)
    
    On December 15, 2008, we filed a Current Report on Form 8-K disclosing, among other things,
that Joseph M. Juliano had been promoted to the office of President and Chief Operating
Officer. However, in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph under Item 5.02(c) of the
December 15, 2008 Form 8-K, we erroneously stated that Mr. Julianos employment agreement had
been amended and restated to add his new title as President and Chief Executive Officer. We
also erroneously stated Mr. Julianos age as 32. Mr. Juliano is 31. We are hereby amending
the previously filed Form 8-K to correct the reference to Mr. Julianos age to 31 and to
clarify that Mr. Julianos employment agreement has been amended and restated to add his new
title as President and Chief Operating Officer. As we previously stated, Frank P. Greinke
will continue to serve as our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  UNITED FUEL & ENERGY CORPORATIONDate: December 22, 2008
    By:
    /s/ William C. BousemaWilliam C. BousemaExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                                        

                          THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
                          Year Ended December 31, 1995

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Primary     Fully Diluted
                                                                 Earnings       Earnings
                                                                 Per Share      Per Share
                                                                ----------    -------------
<S>                                                             <C>            <C>
  I.   Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                       5,101,117      5,101,117

 II.   Common Stock Equivalents                                     51,745         52,901

III.   Other Dilutive Securities                                                   51,712
                                                                ----------     ----------
       Average Number of Common and Common Equivalent Shares     5,152,862      5,205,730
                                                                ==========     ==========
       Net Earnings                                             $3,344,000     $3,344,000

       Dividends paid on preferred stock of subsidiary             (33,000)       (33,000)
                                                                ----------     ----------
       Interest on convertible debt                                                26,890

       Net earnings available to common shareholders            $3,311,000     $3,337,890
                                                                ==========     ==========
       Divided by Common and Equivalent Shares                       $0.64          $0.64
                                                                ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 11
               Statement re Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Year ended December 31,
                                                         1996           1995
<S>                                                   <C>            <C>
Net Loss for computing pro forma net income 
  per share .....................................    $(5,918,318)   $(5,268,562)
                                                     ===========    ===========

Pro forma weighted average common shares 
  outstanding ....................................     6,572,104      3,354,371

Shares of common stock assumed to be issued upon
  exercise of common stock options & warrants to 
  purchase common stock using treasury stock 
  method, including "cheap" options and warrants 
  as outstanding for all periods .................         8,315      1,453,505
                                                      ----------     ----------

Shares used in computing pro forma net loss
  per share ......................................     6,580,419      4,807,876
                                                      ==========     ==========

Pro forma net loss per share .....................        $(0.90)        $(1.10)
                                                           =====          =====
</TABLE>
**Exhibit31.1**

** **

### **CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John Kang, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of LiquidmetalTechnologies;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “EvaluationDate”); and

 

c)     presentedin this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the EvaluationDate;

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

a)     allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)    any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated inthis quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| Date: December 17, 2004 |   | /s/ John Kang                           |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                    |   | John Kang                               |   |   |
|                    |   | President & Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
|                    |   | (Principal Executive Officer)           |   |   |

 

1

----
Mr. Jonathan Blees

Assistant Chief Counsel

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

November 18, 2005

California Energy Commission

1516 Ninth Street - Mail Station 14

Sacramento, CA 958 145512

Dear Mr. Blees:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has received the California Energy Commission's

petition for exemption from federal preemption of California's water conservation standards for

residential clothes washers, dated September 13, 2005. DOE has reviewed the petition, and

determined that the regulatory requirements have not been met. The statement required by 10

C.F,R. 430.42(c), on whether "the same or related issue, act or transaction has been or presently

is being considered or investigated by any State agency, department, or instrumentally," was not

included in the petition. Please supply DOE with information in writing sufficient to satisfy this

filing requirement and DOE will complete its review of your petition and provide you with the

notification required under 10 C.F.R. 430.42(f).

Sincerely,

cc: Charles A. Samuels, General Counsel

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo, PC

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

 EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 91
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1657

Requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to make recommendations for

reducing the national debt.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 29, 1996

Mr. FAIRCLOTH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

Requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to make

recommendations for reducing the national debt.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE

4 THE NATIONAL DEBT.

5 Not later than 6 months after the date of the enact6 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall con7 duct a study of, and report to the Congress recommenda8 tions with respect to, methods for reducing the national

9 debt of the United States. Such report shall include spe10 cific recommendations with respect to—
2

•S 1657 IS

1 (1) the feasibility of using the Federal tax code

2 to create incentives to reduce the national debt,

3 (2) the feasibility of the establishment of a debt

4 reduction trust fund comparable to the Presidential

5 Election Campaign Fund, and

6 (3) improvements in the management of the

7 public debt, including improvements through the use

8 of new technologies.

Æ
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Renovo Holdings (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Stephen W. Carnes, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 

/S/StephenW. Carnes                               

StephenW. Carnes

Presidentand Chief Executive Officer

November22, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.6

                          RENAISSANCE WORLDWIDE, INC.
                     2001 DIRECTORS CASH COMPENSATION PLAN

1.   Purpose.  The purpose of this plan (the "Cash Plan") is to promote the
     -------
recruiting and retention of highly qualified independent directors (each, an
"Eligible Director") for Renaissance Worldwide, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation (the "Company").  The Company believes that paying its independent
directors cash compensation that is competitive with similarly situated
companies will serve to enhance the Company's ability to attract and retain the
services of such persons.

2.   Effective Date.  This Cash Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors of
     --------------
the Company (the "Board") in December 11, 2000 and is effective as of that date.
This Cash Plan, in combination with the 2001 Directors Stock Plan, replaces the
1998 Directors' Stock Plan.

3.   Annual Retainer.  Each Eligible Director shall be paid, on the date of the
     ---------------
Annual Meeting of Stockholders, an annual retainer in an amount equal to
$12,000.

4.   Per Meeting Compensation.  Each Eligible Director shall be paid the
     ------------------------
following amounts per meeting:

     $3,000 per in person Board Meeting

     $1,000 per telephonic Board Meeting

     $1,000 per Audit or Compensation Committee Meeting

5.   Amendment of the Cash Plan.  The Board may, at any time, amend or
     --------------------------
discontinue the Cash Plan.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7738.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.

Decided Jan. 27, 2003.

Ronald Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Fields seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Fields’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, which the district court construed under 28 *173U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and concluded the motion was successive and unauthorized under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Fields also seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Field’s subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, which the district court also concluded was successive and unauthorized under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Fields has not made the requisite showing. *See United States v. Fields,*Nos. CR-89-251; CA-02-650-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*