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

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Cephalon, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Kevin Buchi, Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, that:



|                                                                               |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/J. KEVIN BUCHIJ. Kevin Buchi Sr.
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|March 12, 2004                                                                 |  | 

---

QuickLinks
ex10-3t.htm


    Exhibit 10.3(t)*

    


    TWENTIETH
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    This
Twentieth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of
October 1, 2008, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
(“Employer”) and Robert M. Gans (“Executive”).

    


    Recitals

    


    
      	
              A)  

            	
              On
      September 20, 1994 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by
      and between Executive and Price Enterprises,
  Inc.

            


    

    


    
      	
              B)  

            	
              Said
      Employment Agreement has been assigned to Employer and amended on nineteen
      prior occasions;

            


    

    


    
      	
              C)  

            	
              Employer
      and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, as set
      forth hereinbelow:

            


    

    


    Agreement

    


    1.    Section
3.1 of the Employment Agreement, which currently provides:

    


    3.1           Term.  The
term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on October 17, 1994 and
shall continue until October 16, 2008 unless sooner terminated or extended as
hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").

    


    is hereby
amended, to provide as follows:

    


    3.1           Term.  The
term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on October 17, 1994 and
shall continue until October 16, 2009 unless sooner terminated or extended as
hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").

    


    
      	
              2.  

            	
              All
      other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain
      unaltered and fully effective.

            


    

    


    


    


    Executed
in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.

    


    


    EXECUTIVE                                                                                       EMPLOYER

     PRICESMART, INC.

    


    Robert M.
Gans                                                                                  By:           /s/ Robert E.
Price

    


    __/s/ Robert M.
Gans__________                                                 Name:     Robert E.
Price

    


     Its:            Chief Executive
Officer
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

157) ll-E-8 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:59 AM Sheet 157 of 276 
P.2 

*-> 

II-E-8 

CONVERSATION RECORD | J:oo | "f-ii-2$ 

TYPE 

• VISIT • CONFERENCE g j TELEPHONE 

• INCOMING 

Location of Visit/Conference: g OUTGOING 

NAME OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT 

WITH YOU 

ORGANIZATION (Office, dept., bureau, 

etc.) . „ 

TELEPHONE NO*. 

SUBJECT / r r - a r>y r* . • •/ • 

Mors. XnT o Tor MFrCO rS V Ae2T~r <MI r aTiofi 

ROUTING 

NAME/SYMBOL INT 

i*'«-C»«.Ti.*'C A 

"FooTfC* 

Pa/ ft l'l 

?&W> c 

f^ctt i)s"JuC~[ I 

SUMMARY 

£.to/J. Mr. tJ*?./<'ie<L Lot. woulA I'k.-^- the. Tailo«j'i*.a oJ-J.\T,*oma.\ 

! *A Tor mat/ ov* \~pn y^* iLJ/f r&O' 

(D lAi'l/ Wrfco W a.y^ ta ^u.r» A Y^-OKi. CotKi tf-Srf -h £ _ 

fr^E, / 

•wa r i a/i cgjs/ &r ?a r-aoLur- -cy frc*ici Ky 

7—r 

/'•f . ; 0 / '? C C* 

£ Ks *crr h <T~ ~7-2-?7 /tTftr j-g 

Iv fe o 

^ l y >- ' -M 6 i/1 / . i y ,-•-•,/ >, i c ; / /": (" 

T

2 /<3 t-«?£••/£ •>/,,, / / ;/• ef t a ••r rk c 

• / " 'f'

 ; 1 I 

J 

r yy u. tg- / / 5 g<a- <<" <g.T rJ' o I 7 /* -g.. f^ o i/ct^/ ax. <£?-.••. ^7 -^ M .•*. U O l< Z. <?a

err ga., /• idi-c/ &U>.* t 

*f) Hd'J£~- ex.-* •/ ['tar £.f(°.at*\. cx.ru.i-Z (2-Utr btPIA fep/octd 

CL J- o / f~ forf " 'Alg-&/iA*ci'h>i-i7 AT 

•ft 

aTh £ r VJBrCo TSL.C. h%tiy. 

H V 

/g/ flow ('.' a c >. i'i-]0r.ey r'EzS i?£ f.^* Stf-eni Ch ;-Ei a / « Tv :~i <O..JC

ACTION REQUIRED 

*^j', 1/ Ca.il ,M £ iJa-c./i i-uA-Jvl >• C- X^iiia. ' -'-J-V '' <S: 

I I to'.ii -f^txt- VjsPcC T~tO iclf-e^c* . 

NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION 

\E0*y\r* cx- &-r *-e. is* 

SIGNATURE 

^cr/^yj-<a- ^ L*Os-

^~* \? > ... 

DATE 

ACTION TAKEN 

50271-101 *VGPO : 1984 O - 461-275 (317) CONVERSATION RECORD OPTIONAL FORM 271 (12-7f 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
NO. 07-11-00150-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B 

JUNE 27, 2011 

ROBERT ANDREW BARNES, APPELLANT 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY; 

NO. CR20,781; HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 On February 25, 2011, appellant, Robert Andrew Barnes, filed a notice of appeal 

from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of criminal non-support, sentencing him to 

eighteen months in a state jail facility and a fine, and ordering restitution. 

 The clerk’s record was filed on March 8, 2011 and the reporter’s record was filed 

on April 28. However, the clerk’s record contains no certification of defendant’s right of 

appeal. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) requires that a trial court shall 

enter a certification of defendant’s right of appeal each time it enters a judgment of guilt 

or other appealable order. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Under Rule 25.2, the certification 
2 

of defendant's right of appeal must be signed by the defendant and a copy must be 

given to him. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). 

 Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court. On 

remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means it finds necessary to secure a 

certification of defendant’s right of appeal that complies with Rule 25.2(d). Once 

properly executed, the certification shall be included in a supplemental clerk's record 

and filed with the Clerk of this Court. 

This order constitutes notice to all parties of the absence of a certification

pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 37.1. 

If a certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal is not made part of the 

record, the appeal must be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). 

On remand, the trial court is directed to: (1) conduct any hearings it finds 

necessary; (2) make and file such findings of fact, conclusions of law, recommendations 

or orders it finds appropriate to address the subject of this remand order; (3) if it holds a 

hearing, cause the hearing proceedings to be transcribed and included in a 

supplemental reporter's record; (4) cause any findings, conclusions, recommendations 

or orders it issues, together with the properly executed certification of defendant’s right 

of appeal, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record; and (5) cause the 

supplemental reporter’s record, if any, and the supplemental clerk’s record to be filed 

with the Clerk of this Court, no later than August 8, 2011. 

It is so ordered. 

Per Curiam 

Do not publish.
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 Drinks Americas Holdings, Ltd. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Fabio Berkowicz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:




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/
              Fabio
              Berkowicz
            
            
            April
                17, 2007Fabio
                Berkowicz,
              Chief
                Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet of Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership as of June 30, 1997 and
the related Statements of Operations and Cash Flows and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001011977
<NAME> ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,314
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (710)
<INVENTORY>                                        214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,477
<PP&E>                                         105,406
<DEPRECIATION>                                (54,886)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,549
<BONDS>                                        134,648
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (69,427)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,317
<SALES>                                         14,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,659
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,676
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    833
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                833
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       833
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
/be 

SI 0-100311-004 

RALEfGH - DURHA M AIRPOR T AUTHORIT Y 

100 0 Trad e Driv e * P O Do x 8000 1 * RD U Airport . N C 2762 3 

John C. Brantley, Airport Director ,^,, ,9,5, a-in-^ioo • .nx: (9i9) 8..o.oi7s - w«„.,du.com 

March 4, 2010 

The Honorable Raymond LaHood, Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Attn: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0034 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

I write in the capacity of Airport Director of Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDti) 

to strongly support the application to the Department of Transportation of American and 

Japan Airlines for limited antitrust immunity of their proposed joint business agreement. 

In the international air transportation arena, the competition truly has become between 

the three alliances, supplanting that between individual airlines. Thus, competition and 

benefit to the consumer are maximized when the alliances are able to compete on an 

essentially equal footing. 

The Department recently concluded successful negotiations with the government of 

Japan on an "Open Skies" air service agreement, for which it is to be commended. 

Execution of that agreement was deferred, however, pending the Department's consideration of antitrust applications involving both of Japan's major international air carriers. 

Those applications have now been filed - Japan Airlines with American and ANA with 

Continental and United. We support equal treatment and approval of both applications, 

thus opening the door to execution and implementation of the new agreement. 

I also want to commend the Department on the substantial progress that has been 

made in recent months in negotiations with the European Union on the second stage of 

the U.S.-E.U. "Open Skies" agreement. Completion of that effort will provide benefits 

for airlines and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic, while ensuring that the many 

benefits that were provided in the first stage continue in the future. 

Thank you for your attention to and consideration of our position on this matter. 

Sincerely. 

hl6hu C. Brantley 

Airport Director 

iohn.brantlevtairdu.com 

DUF« tAM WAKE COUfJ V V DUHIIAW coui n Y 

•>. lo-f.rMv Hiir.t 

C l At:):,-: D S.il-.Ci.)".-. 

HAi.f.;iaH 

Kim I) t'l;
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5




<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-2-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-2-2000
<CASH>                                         1,310,604
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    27,805,318
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30,550,220
<PP&E>                                         15,693,114
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12,079,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,579,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,910,028
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       48,285
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,621,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,579,944
<SALES>                                        100,207,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,207,583
<CGS>                                          63,665,075
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  98,247,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (30,562)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,990,922
<INCOME-TAX>                                   793,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,197,922
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      198,496
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,396,418
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .29


</TABLE>
#### HALL v. STATE.

No. 16737.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 18, 1934.

Rehearing Denied May 23, 1934.

Mark Callaway, of Brownwood, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor, punishment assessed being one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment properly charges the offense. No statement of facts are brought forward. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

[21 In connection with his motion for rehearing appellant presents a certificate showing that a statement of facts had been duly filed in the trial court, but had been misplaced without fault on the part of appellant, and same now appears in this record, and has been duly considered. The charge against appellant was the selling of intoxicating liquor to Ed McCasland. On the trial McCasland testified for the state that about July 30, 1932, he bought from appellant a bottle of whisky, for which he paid $1.00. Other testimony for the state corroborated that of McCasland. The only testimony introduced on behalf of appellant was that of a witness who testified that he was present in Brownwood on July 30, 1932, at the home of appellant at the time certain officers came there and arrested appellant, and that he did not see the witness McCasland buy any whis-ky from appellant. We think the facts justified the jury’s conclusion of guilt. There being no other question in the case, the motion for rehearing will be overruled.
### Route l Bridge Replacement, Overview, Construction Updates, Commuter Information Page l of2

NJ Home I Services A to Z 1Departments/Agencies] FAQs S·1 ,, rl:' or NHV

**jHt~l:.\'** Site Index 1Search: NJ Home() NJDOT



### (~) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Chr\S Crvistie. Governor 1Kim Guadngno. Lieutenant Governor

Eng!nuering Construction UpdatesAbnut N.JOOT in lhH Works
Route 1 Bridge Replacement Overview Frequently Asked Questions Plans Alternate Route Community Outreach Photos NJcommuh;r,com Capita! Program Cornmunlty

**Program~** Freight, Air and Wate-r Hefen:mce I Links Doing Business 

# NJ 

# Route 1 Bridge Replacement

Overview
The construction on this project has now been completed. The New Jersey Department ofTransportation (NJDOT) is currently replacing the Route 1 Bridge over the abandoned Sayreville Railway and local roads. The $24.1 million project is located between the Milltown Road and the Ryders Lane interchangesjust north of the Route 1/130 interchange in North Brunswick Township, Middlesex County. Construction began in January 2009 and has an estimated completion in Winter 2011. The project will improve safety by reducing the horizontal and vertical curvature below the bridge and improve the sight distance on Route 1 over the bridge. The proposed design replaces the five-span bridge with a single span bridge. As a result of the railway being abandoned, NJDOT was able to interconnect the local roadways, remove the severe curves below the bridge and improve accessibility to the adjacent businesses, by building a bridge with a lower and shorter profile that will improve sight distance on Route 1. Three lanes will be maintained in each direction on Route 1 during construction. The bridge will be reconstructed in two stages while maintaining four lanes on the bridge (two in each direction). One lane in each direction will be detoured onto the adjacent access roads, temporarily changed to one direction only. A local road that crosses underthe bridge has been temporarily closed. As a result, motorists using access roads parallel to Route 1 will not be able to make left turns to cross underthe highway. NJDOT expects to reopen the underpass in Fall 2011 and at that time traffic will be maintained in both directions under the bridge.



### http://www.state.nj

.us/transportation/commuter/roads/route1bridge/ 9/5/2014

### Route 1Bridge Replacement, Overview, Construction Updates, CommuterInformation Page 2 of2



### (~ Contact Us 1Privacy Notice [legal Statement 1 Accessibility Statement

# {I) department: home Iabout l NJ commuter 1in the works 1business 1engineering 1freight, air &water 1capital[ community 1data [links Iindex statewide: NJ Home 1about NJ 1business 1government 1state services A to z 1departments Copyright© State of NewJersey, 2002-2014 Department ofTransportation P.O. Box600 Trenton, NJ 08625-0600
Last Updated: January3, 2012



### http://www.statc.nj.us/transpmiation/commuter/roads/routeIbridge/ OPRAtOp-en flut!lic Rr.ocon_h, Ac!



### 9/5/2014
Exhibit 23.2   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report dated March 30, 2009, in Guardian Technologies International, Incs Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (2008 For 10-K), related to the consolidated financial statements of Guardian Technologies International, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and for the year then ended, which appear in Guardian Technologies International, Incs 2008 Form 10-K filed on or about March 30, 2009.   /s/ KBL, LLP New York, NY March 30, 2009
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6202

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. STEPHON CLIFFORD BRYANT, a/k/a Stephen Clifford Bryant, a/k / a Moe , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Michael F. Urbanski , Chief District Judge. ( 7:14

- cr - 00060

- MFU

- 1 )

Submitted : May 27, 2021 Decided: June 14, 2021

Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Stephon Clifford Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Krista Consiglio Frith, Assistant United States Attorney, Rachel Barish Swartz, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE U NITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephon Clifford Bryant appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassio nate release. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affir m the district court’s order. United States v. Bryant , No. 7:14

- cr 00060

- MFU

- 1 (W.D. Va. filed Dec. 17, 2020; entered Dec. 18, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED