alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 

DECEMBER 31, 2006 OF WORLDSPACE, INC. 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of WorldSpace, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

1.     The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, (the “Form 10-K”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2.     The informationcontained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: April 17, 2007 

/s/ SridharGanesan                        

Sridhar Ganesan 

Executive Vice President-Chief Financial Officer 

The certification set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officer.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60497

Summary Calendar

ROBERTO ABDULIO PORTILLO-RIVAS,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A094 021 435

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Abdulio Portillo-Rivas petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to

deny his request for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration

and Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). As

an initial matter, because Portillo-Rivas failed to challenge the denial of CAT

protection before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to address the issue. See Wang

v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 18, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-60497 Document: 00511114835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2010
No. 09-60497

2

Portillo-Rivas argues that he is entitled to asylum and withholding of

removal because of the likelihood of future persecution on account of his

membership in a particular social group. We review the BIA’s determination

that Portillo-Rivas is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal under the

substantial evidence standard, meaning that we will affirm “unless the evidence

compels a contrary conclusion.” Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th

Cir. 1996); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).

Both the BIA and the IJ determined that Portillo-Rivas failed to establish

that he had a well-founded fear that he would be persecuted should he return to

his native country. The evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. See

Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 186 (5th Cir. 2004). 

The BIA and IJ also determined that Portillo-Rivas failed to establish that

he would be subjected to persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Portillo-Rivas has

not demonstrated that he is a member of social group protected under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42). See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2006).

As Portillo-Rivas has not shown that he is a refugee as defined in

§ 1101(a)(42), he is not eligible for asylum. See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749

(5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, he cannot meet the more stringent standard of

eligibility for withholding of removal. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 190 n.7

(5th Cir. 1994).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Case: 09-60497 Document: 00511114835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2010
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17


May 9, 2001

Eric J. Keller
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

Dear Eric:

This confirms the agreement reached today between you and Corio, Inc. (the
"Company") regarding your employment with the Company. Effective July 30, 2001,
you will resign as the Company's Chief Financial Officer. Commencing on August
1, 2001 and continuing through and until the earlier of: (a) January 31, 2002,
or (b) the date you begin full time employment with another company (the
"Termination Date"), whichever applies, Corio will retain you as a part-time
employee in an Executive Advisor role. During this "Transition Period," you will
be available to provide services to Corio as requested, not to exceed 40 hours a
month. Corio will provide you a monthly salary during the Transition Period of
$18,333.33 through September 30, 2001 and $9,166.67 thereafter, less all
applicable withholdings. In addition, Corio will continue to provide you all
other employee benefits that you are currently eligible to receive during the
Transition Period, with the following exceptions: after July 30, 2001, you will
not be eligible to participate in the accrual of flexible time off hours and in
any bonus plans for the Company. Your Stock Options will continue to vest up
through the Termination Date.

Please indicate your agreement with the above terms by signing below.

Sincerely,


/s/ George Kadifa
George Kadifa
Chief Executive Officer



I have read, understand and agree to the terms set forth above.
/s/ Eric J. Keller                    May 10, 2001
------------------                    ------------
Eric J. Keller                        Date
#### Bruce ELLIOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27421.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 2, 1955.

Chas. H. Dean, Plainv'iew, for appellant

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for selling whisky in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $350.

Dunlap, an inspector for the Liquor Control Board to whom it was alleged appellant sold the whisky, and Dibrell, also an inspector for the Liquor Control Board, and Mrs. John Cantrell went to the home of appellant to buy some whisky.

Dunlap testified that appellant sold him a four-fifth quart bottle of whisky, for which he paid her $9. Dibrell corroborated that testimony.

*817As shown by the affirmative answer given by Mrs. Cantrell, testifying as a witness for the appellant, to a question asked her on direct examination, she accompanied the inspectors to appellant’s home, and falsely introduced one of them as her brother-in-law, “to try to get some whiskey off of Bruce Elliott” because she had been told that if she did so “they would dismiss the case” against her husband. The witness further testified that when she asked appellant for the whisky appellant handed her a bottle of whisky, as a loan upon the witness’s promise to later replace it, and that there was no sale made by appellant to the inspector, the bottle of whisky which the inspector claimed to have purchased from appellant being, in fact, a loan to her (the witness).

The defensive theory thus presented was pertinently submitted by the trial court in his charge and was rejected by the jury.

Appellant did not testify.

To offset Mrs. Cantrell’s testimony as to her purpose in accompanying the inspectors to appellant’s home, the state, in rebuttal, proved by the sheriff of the county that she made the trip because she was “mad at Tom and Bruce” and wanted to do “anything to help catch them.”

To this testimony the appellant reserved several bills of exception claiming that the state was thereby attempting, by hearsay, to impeach the witness by immaterial testimony.

The testimony objected to was a direct contradiction of the testimony of the witness as to why she was present upon the occasion alleged. We are unable to agree with the appellant that the testimony was subject to the objection urged.

In the course of the questions as to the matter just discussed, the sheriff was asked:

> “Were any arrangements made with her at that time for her going and helping the officers catch these bootleggers ?”

Appellant’s objection to the reference in the question that she was a bootlegger was promptly sustained, and the jury instructed not to consider it for any purpose. She insists that prejudicial error is, nevertheless, reflected.

Of course, state’s counsel should not have made the reference but we are unable to agree that the trial court’s prompt withdrawal thereof was insufficient to relieve the matter of reversible error.

We conclude that reversible error is not reflected by the record.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



                                  CERTIFICATION



I, Kenneth McCullum, certify that:


1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of the periods included in the year covered by this annual report of
         Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2005-014;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
         to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
         light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
         misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the
         pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
         reports is included in these reports;

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar
         agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review
         required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports,
         the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under
         that agreement; and

5.       The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
         trustee's or depositor's compliance with the minimum servicing or
         similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent
         public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
         Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
         procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar
         agreements, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

                  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents



Date: August 9, 2005

/s/ Kenneth McCullum

Kenneth McCullum
Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
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


         In connection with the annual report of QMed, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Cox, Chief
Executive 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/ Michael W. Cox
Michael W. Cox
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 1, 2004


A signed original of this certification 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.
Exhibit 10.16
 OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT OSI PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1. Grant of Restricted Stock Units.
 2. Vesting and Forfeiture.
 3. Settlement of Restricted Stock Units.




---



##### 



4. Restriction on Transferability
 5. Securities Laws
 6. Withholding of Applicable Taxes.
 7. Subject to Terms of Plan.
 8. No Rights as Stockholder.
 9. Continued Employment or Service.
 -2-




---



##### 



10. Binding Effect
 11. Governing Law.
 12. Counterparts
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.Name:Title:EMPLOYEE[Name]Date
 -3-
Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Mintz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Tofutti Brands Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 15(e) and 15d- 15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Reserved]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  January 20, 2006

/s/David Mintz*
--------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer

* 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 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I,
Joseph Driscoll, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Summer Infant, Inc.

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

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the board of directors:



March 10, 2010

/s/ JOSEPH DRISCOLL Joseph Driscoll


---



QuickLinks
MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 2, 2015

SUBJECT: Omission of Language in Revisions to Test Methods, Performance Specifications, and Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources Proposed Rule

FROM: Lula Melton

– Environmental Engineer, OAQPS/AQAD/MTG

TO : Docket #EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0292

Background
On September 8. 2015, the EPA published the subject proposed rule in the Federal Register . It has been bro ught to our attention that part of four paragraphs from four different test methods were inadvertently propo sed to be deleted

. The Federal Register Printing Office uses *** to indicate that the language within a paragraph will be retained and ***** to indicate that the language following a paragraph will be retained. The *** d o not appear at the end of the fo ur paragraphs (cited below) in the proposed rule which would have indicated that the Agency was retaining the remainder of the four paragraphs.

Clarification/Correction
The purpose of this memo is to make you aware that it wa s not the Agency’s intent to delete the existing (prior to the subject proposal) sentences in the paragraphs cited below.

 Method 202, paragraph 8.5.4.3 (p. 54152)

 Method 1, paragraph 11.2.1.2 (p. 54157)

 Method 2, paragraph 6.7 (p. 54157)

 Method 30B, paragraph 8.3.3.8 (p. 54165)

The Agency will include the above paragraphs in their entirety (as opposed to using ***) in the final rule to avoid confusion.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                       SAFEGUARD HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC.

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY




The subsidiaries of SafeGuard Health Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
are as follows:

1.     SafeGuard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  an  Arizona  corporation
2.     SafeGuard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  California  corporation
3.     SafeGuard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Colorado  corporation
4.     SafeGuard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Florida  corporation
5.     SafeGuard  Health  Plans,  Inc.  an  Illinois  Corporation
6.     SafeGuard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Nevada  corporation
7.     SafeGuard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  an  Ohio  corporation
8.     SafeGuard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  an  Oklahoma  corporation
9.     SafeGuard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Texas  corporation
10.    SafeGuard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Utah  corporation
11.    Guards  Dental,  Inc.,  a  California  corporation
       (A  wholly owned subsidiary of Safeguard Health Plans, Inc., a California
       corporation)
12.    SafeHealth  Life  Insurance  Company,  a  California  corporation
13.    SafeGuard  Dental  Services,  Inc.  a  Delaware  Corporation


<PAGE>
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.                  

###### Railroad Retirement Board

Notice is hereby given in accordance with Public Law 92-463 that the Actuarial Advisory Committee will hold a virtual meeting on April 3, 2024, at 9 a.m. (central standard time) on the conduct of the 29th Actuarial Valuation of the Railroad Retirement System. The agenda for this meeting will include a discussion of the assumptions to be used in the 29th Actuarial Valuation. A report containing recommended assumptions and the experience on which the recommendations are based will have been sent by the Chief Actuary to the Committee in advance of the meeting.

                    The meeting will be open to the public. Persons wishing to submit written statements, make oral presentations, or attend the meeting should address their communications or notices to Patricia Pruitt (                    *Patricia.Pruitt@rrb.gov*) so that information on how to join the virtual meeting can be provided.                

Dated: February 22, 2024.

Stephanie Hillyard,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 2024-04016 Filed 2-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
Docket No. FAA- 

### 2010--13 i2- Record of Ex Parte Contacts

## 2-c ID --/VM-.;2=---t1) Directorate Identifier: -AD With whom outside the FAA has tbis AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer. ATA. NBAA, RAA. AOPA, ALPA. GAMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a separate record 10the Rules Docket. The AD Manuol defines "Ex Parte Contacts

# 'J'- ORGANIZA nON PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE 

### ATA Joe White 9-20-2010 No response.

Othcr/Additionallnfonnation: