alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofGenaissance Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter endedJune 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ben Kaplan, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

(1)  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
|                               | /s/ Ben  Kaplan         |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------|
| Date:  February 11, 2004 | Ben Kaplan              |
|                               | Chief Executive Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form with the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended February 4, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Shaffer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(i)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.



Dated:  April 3, 2007



|By:   | /s/ Michael Shaffer                                                  | 
|----- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name: | Michael Shaffer
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer | 



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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1774
In Re: CARRIBEL S. ENDER, Debtor.

_________________________ CARRIBEL S. ENDER, Debtor - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Creditor - Appellee, and ELLEN W. COSBY, Trustee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA96-586-S, BK-95-52816) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 24, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.23 Carribel S. Ender, Appellant Pro Se. Gary R. Allen, Sara Ann Ketchum, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders affirming thebankruptcy court's order and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinionand find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ender v. IRS , Nos. CA-96-586-S; BK-95- 52816 (D.Md. Mar. 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### R. T. MANNING et al., Appellants, v. Martha Davenport MAULDIN et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 24, 1955.

G. D. Milliken, Sr., G. D. Milliken, Jr., Bowling Green, for appellants.

Charles R. Bell, Joe B. Orr, Bowling Green, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal was granted by the circuit court from a judgment that a certain seven acres of stone quarry land had been excepted from a judicial sale and conveyance. The statement of appeal recites that it is *not*being prosecuted under KRS 21.060 and 21.080, which provide for an appeal by motion in this court where the amount in controversy is less than $2,500.

The “judgment does not when construed in connection with the pleadings certainly fix the value of the amount or thing in controversy.” And the trial court was not requested to state in the judgment the actual value as is required by KRS 21.070. However, in our consideration of the record, we observe that the plaintiffs, now appellants, proved the parcel of land to be worth $2,000 before the stone whs quarried from 1⁄8 and to be now worth dnly $200'. It was stipulated by the parties that the royalties *504which had been paid to the defendants for the stone amounted to $910.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Shely v. Votaw, Ky., 272 S.W.2d 462; Mullins v. Hall, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 831; Stokes v. Henderson, Ky., 276 S.W.2d 12.

We may say for the comfort of counsel that we had considered the record before ascertaining that this court was without authority to pass on the judgment, and that had an appeal been properly before us, the judgment would have had to be affirmed.

The appeal is dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5310

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN MATTHEW,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00016-RJC-CH-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela G. Parrott, Acting Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal, 

Allison Wexler, Assistant Federal Defenders, Asheville, North 

Carolina, Elizabeth A. Blackwood, Assistant Federal Defender, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, 

United States Attorney, Laura L. Ferris, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Justin Matthew pled guilty without a plea agreement to 

one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1999 & Supp. 2011), and one 

count of knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and in 

relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 

U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011), and was sentenced 

to seventy months in prison. He appeals from the district 

court’s judgment, challenging only the district court’s decision 

to enhance his base offense level four levels under U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.5(2)(B) (2006), 

based on the fact that he was wearing a bulletproof vest at the 

time he committed a drug trafficking crime. We affirm the 

district court’s judgment.

We review the district court’s factual findings 

underlying its Guidelines range calculation for clear error, and 

its legal interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See United 

States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 223 (4th Cir. 2008). Under 

USSG § 3B1.5, an enhancement for body armor should be applied 

if: (1) the defendant was convicted of a drug trafficking crime 

or a crime of violence; and (2) the offense involved the use of 

body armor, or (3) the defendant used body armor during the 

commission of the offense, in preparation for the offense, or in 

an attempt to avoid apprehension for the offense. See USSG 
3

§ 3B1.5 (2006). If the offense involved the use of body armor, 

a two-level enhancement applies, USSG § 3B1.5(2)(A), and if the 

defendant used body armor during the commission of, in 

preparation for, or in an attempt to avoid apprehension for the 

offense, a four-level enhancement applies. USSG § 3B1.5(2)(B). 

We have reviewed the record and considered the parties’

arguments and discern no error in the district court’s decision 

to apply the four-level enhancement under USSG § 3B1.5(2)(B).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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
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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending January 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Kass, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/Steven Kass*
---------------
Steven Kass
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  January 20, 2006



* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
Exhibit
10.4


 


NASDAQ:
APM







 





13
March 2019


 


Dr.
Ng Siu Yan (Angel)


Present


 


Dear
Angel,


 


Re:
New Appointment as Chief Operating Officer


 


We
refer to the employment contract entered into between the Company and you dated 8 September 2017 and hereby inform you in writing,
effective 1 April 2019, you will be appointed as Chief Operating Officer of Aptorum Group Limited (“the Group”)
whereas all other current employment terms and conditions remain unchanged.


 


Thank
you for your utmost efforts and contributions to the Group throughout the past year and wish you success in your new assignment.


 


Kindly
signify your understanding and acceptance of the new appointment by signing and returning the duplicate of this letter to the
Company.





 


Yours
truly,


 


APTUS
MANAGEMENT LIMITED


(A
member of Aptorum Group)





 


Huen
Chung Yuen Ian


Director


 


I
understand and accept the aforesaid new appointment and hereby acknowledge receipt of the copy of this letter.





 


Ng
Siu Yan (Angel)


HKID 


Date:
Option Grants and Other Stock Awards:*Initial Grants*     Each non-employee director receives an initial grant of options to purchase 15,000 shares ofcommon stock and also receives an award of 5,000 shares of restricted stock, restricted stock unitsor deferred stock units upon his or her initial election to the Board.*Annual Grants*     In addition to initial equity awards, non-employee directors receive annual equity grants.Each non-employee director, not including the Chairman of the Board, receives options to purchase7,500 shares of common stock and an award of 2,500 shares of restricted stock, restricted stockunits or deferred stock units upon each re-election for a one-year Board term, with the exceptionof those directors who as of the 2008 Annual Meeting had not served three years on the Board. Suchdirectors receive an annual option to purchase 3,000 shares of common stock and an award of 1,500shares of restricted stock, restricted stock units or deferred stock units until they have servedthree years on the Board, at which time they would receive the grants described above. The Chairmanof the Board receives options to purchase 10,000 shares of common stock and an award of 4,000shares of restricted stock, restricted stock units or deferred stock units upon re-election for aone-year Board term.*Forms of Awards*     The restricted stock and restricted stock units represent the right of a director to receiveone share of OSI common stock upon vesting. Each deferred stock unit represents the right of adirector to receive one share of OSI common stock upon the earlier of the director’s terminationfrom service on the Board or on a date no earlier than two years from the date of grant, asdesignated by the director.     The stock option awards and restricted stock awards, including restricted stock units anddeferred stock units, granted to the directors after June 14, 2006 vest annually over four years ofthe date of grant. The option awards expire on the seventh anniversary of their respective grantdates, subject to the earlier expiration upon the occurrence of certain events set forth in theCompany’s Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan. The exercise price of all option awards isequal to 100% of the fair market value of the underlying common stock on the date of grant.Post-Retirement Medical Benefits:     Prior to April 2007, we provided post-retirement medical and life insurance benefits toeligible employees and qualified dependents, and members of our Board of Directors. Eligibility wasbased on age and service requirements. These benefits are subject to deductibles, co-paymentprovisions and other limitations. In April 2007, we terminatedthis benefit and grandfathered the directors who were eligible for participation in the plan at thetime of termination (Mr. White and Drs. Mehta and Granner).
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Computer Software Innovations, Inc. (the
Company), each certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nancy K. HedrickNancy K. HedrickChief Executive OfficerDate: August 22, 2005/s/ David B. DechantDavid B. DechantChief Financial OfficerDate: August 22, 2005
#### Ruth Goldie STOWE, Appellant, v. John Luther BALDWIN and wife, Mollie Baldwin, Appellees.

No. 13141.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Feb. 6, 1957.

*944Wade & DuBose, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Ralph J. Graham, Corpus Christi, for appellees.

POPE, Justice.

This cause originated ás an action to declare a minor child dependent and neglected. The case .developed into a custody fight between petitioner, Ruth Goldie Stowe, and the child’s parents, John and Mollie Baldwin. The court concluded that the child was not dependent nor neglected and ordered the child returned to her parents. The only complaint is that the trial court denied petitioner’s request to call the mother as an adverse party under Rule 182, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Petitioner, Stowe, has not been able to point to any harm which she suffered. The court’s findings of fact state that John Baldwin was not called at all, that Mollie Baldwin later appeared as a witness, and that petitioner then cross-examined her fully as a hostile witness. In passing on prejudicial error, the court may' consider the whole record and when we do that we conclude that the error was harmless.

Petitioner argues that the denial of the right. accorded by Rule 182, T.R.C.P., is itself the harm, though we are not advised what that harm in fact may be. That was the unfortunate construction, known as presumed error, which was given to the old Rule 62a, discussed in Golden v. Odiorne, 112 Tex. 544, 249 S.W. 822, where the court held that the violation of a statutory rule was itself prejudicial. The day of presumed harm is over. Under Rule 434, T.R.C.P., appellant must show such a denial of „a right - as was reasonably calculated to cause, and probably did cause, the rendition of an improper judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Raymond BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27784.

Court *of*Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 16, 1955.

Mark Callaway, Comanche, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The indictment charges the offense to have been committed by appellant shooting a pistol at Johnnie Ed Simpson.

The state’s testimony shows that Johnnie-Ed Simpson and Robert Rice were travel-ling in an automobile along a public highway when the appellant and a companion, in an automobile drove alongside their car and the appellant in a loud tone of voice and using profane language told them to “pull over or get off the road”. Witnesses Simpson and Rice testified that they then increased the speed of their car and that appellant’s car followed, and that after going a short distance they “heard a shot fired” and later while appellant’s car was behind .them they, heard “more shots fired”.

It was shown that about two weeks prior to the date-in question appellant was seen riding in an automobile with a pistol on the seat between him and his companion.

On cross-examination, witnesses Simpson and Rice testified that they did not see a pistol in appellant’s possession or 'the possession of his companion, and further testified that from the sound of the “shots fired” they thought they were made by a pistol. They also testifiéd that they did not hear the movement of any bullets after the gun fired and, that no bullets struck either of them or their car.

Appellant did not testify, but offered testimony that he was not on said highway at the time of the commission of the offense here alleged and that he did not have a pistol on the date in question.

There is no direct evidence that" the appellant or his companion had a pistol at the time alleged or that either fired a gun toward the alleged assaulted party.

Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to respond to appellant’s exception and request that the jury be instructed on the law applicable to circumstantial evidence.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
[Entire first page is confidential]

### Detail of NCS components by GPC

PEAK AREA

, %

NO. TIME (MIN) OF TOTAL COMPONENT

1 15. 7 0.416 TETRAMER OF 115254

- 47

- 2

2 15.9 1.575 TRIMER OF 115254

- 47

- 2

3 16.3 11.3 180063

- 56

- 3(NCS 2)

4 17.1 86.7 115254

- 47

- 2 (NCS 1)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

         THE WENDT-BRISTOL HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                         ------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     STATE OF                       OWNERSHIP OF
                      NAME                        INCORPORATION                  VOTING SECURITIES
                      ----                        -------------                  -----------------
ACTIVE:

<S>                                                  <C>             <C>
  The Wendt-Bristol Company                          Delaware     100% by The Wendt-Bristol Health
   ("Wendt-Bristol")                                              Services Corporation

  Wendt-Bristol Diagnostics                            Ohio       85.87% by Wendt-Bristol
   Company

  American Living Centers, Inc.                        Ohio       100% by Wendt-Bristol

  Ethan Allen Care Center, Inc.                        Ohio       100% by American Living Centers, Inc.
   dba Bristol House of Springfield

INACTIVE:

  Wendt-Bristol Home Health Care
   Company                                             Ohio       100% by Wendt-Bristol

  Wendt-Bristol Organizational                         Ohio       100% by Wendt-Bristol
   L.P., Inc.

  1275 Olentangy River Road                            Ohio       Wendt-Bristol is the sole general and
   Limited Partnership (1)                                        limited partner

  Consolidated Medical                                 Ohio       100% by Wendt-Bristol Home Health
   Services, Inc.                                                 Care Company

  CMSI Medco Limited                                   Ohio       Consolidated Medical Services is the
   Partnership (1) (2)                                            sole general partner

  American Care Center, Inc.                           Ohio       100% by American Living Centers, Inc.
   dba Bristol House of Columbus

  Congress Liquors, Inc.                             Florida      100% by Wendt-Bristol

  Health America, Inc.                                 Ohio       100% by Wendt-Bristol Diagnostics
    dba The Wendt-Bristol Center                                  Company

  American Hospital of Athens, Inc.                    Ohio       100% by Health America, Inc.

  Wendt-Bristol Acquisition, Inc.                      Ohio       100% by Wendt-Bristol

  Wendt-Bristol Acquisition, LLC (3)                 Delaware     100% by Wendt-Bristol

(1)  Limited partnership
(3)  Limited Liability Company
</TABLE>


                                      IV-8
#### GRANT WESTERSON *v.*VINCENT COCCOLI ET AL.

(14112)

Lavery, Herman and Hennessy, Js.

Argued February 14

decision released March 5, 1996

*Michael E. Cronin, Jr.,*for the appellants (named defendant et al.).

*John S. Bennet,*with whom, on the brief, was *Lorri A. Massa,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Stephen R. Sheehan,*for the court-appointed accountant.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 135)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eschelon Telecom, Inc., aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), Richard A. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, doeshereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Sign:                                 | /S/ | Richard A. Smith |   |
|---------------------------------------|-----|------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Smith                      |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| August 11, 2004                  |

 

1

----