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

Certification of Principal Financial Officer  Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)  of the Exchange Act

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advanstar, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Montgomery, 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, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|By:   |  | /s/DAVID W. MONTGOMERYDavid W. Montgomery
Chief Financial Officer | 
|----- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: |  | March 29, 2005                                                    | 

---



QuickLinks
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3201

To rename the National Museum of American Art.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 12 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. MOYNIHAN) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and

passed

A BILL

To rename the National Museum of American Art.

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

3 SECTION 1. RENAMING OF NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMER4 ICAN ART.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The National Museum of Amer6 ican Art, as designated under section 1 of Public Law 96–

7 441 (20 U.S.C. 71 note), shall be known as the ‘‘Smithso8 nian American Art Museum’’.

9 (b) REFERENCES IN LAW.—Any reference in any

10 law, regulation, document, or paper to the National Mu-
2

•S 3201 IS

1 seum of American Art shall be considered to be a reference

2 to the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

3 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

4 Section 1 shall take effect on the day after the date

5 of enactment of this Act.

Æ
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 Gouverneur Bancorp Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert J. Twyman, 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:

     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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.


         December 19, 2007             By: /s/ Robert J. Twyman
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Robert J. Twyman
                                           Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
#### Ollmann, Respondent, vs. Kowalewski, Appellant.

*May 22*

June *12, 1941.*

*245The cause was submitted for the appellant on the briefs of *Edmund J. Krzywkowski*and *Chester J. Niebler,*both of Milwaukee, and for the respondent on the brief of *Joseph F. Schoendorf*of Milwaukee.

Feitz, J.

Since the amendment of sec. 274.09, Stats., by ch. 541, Laws of 1935, an appeal may be taken to this court from a final order or judgment of a circuit court rendered upon an appeal under sec. 6.66 (3), Stats., to review the proceedings and determination of a board of canvassers in recount proceedings under sec. 6.66, Stats. *In re Burke,*229 Wis. 545, 551, 282 N. W. 598. However, in that case the appeal was from a judgment entered in the circuit court and unless there is such a judgment or at least a final order appeala-ble under sec. 274.33 (2), Stats., this court is without jurisdiction on an appeal from a finding or conclusion by a circuit court in such special proceedings. In the case at bar there is at most a finding as to the total ballots canvassed, the number defectively marked or blank, and the number of the votes for each candidate, but there is no judgment or final order adjudicating who was elected or otherwise modifying or vacating the board of canvassers’ determination or the certificate of election which it had issued to Kowalewski. As there is but a mere finding, which has not ripened in a judgment or a final order as to which the legislature has granted an appeal, this court is without jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. *Witt v. Wonser,*195 Wis. 593, 219 N. W. 344; *Estate of Maurer,*234 Wis. 601, 291 N. W. 764.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 10.24**

**MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.**

**Summary of Standard Director Compensation Arrangements forNon-Employee**

**Directors**

**Description of Director Compensation (effective as of April 25, 2006)**

Directors who are employees of Magma do notreceive separate compensation for service on the Board of Directors. Directors who are not employees of Magma receive a cash retainer of $25,000 per year and $2,500 per Board or committee meeting attended ($500 for teleconference meetings) forservices as a member of the Board of the Directors. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee and the Chairman of the Compensation Committee each receive a fee of $10,000 per year; the other members of the Audit Committee receive a fee of$5,000 per year, and the other members of the Compensation Committee receive a fee of $2,500 per year. Magma reimburses its non-employee Directors for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings of the board or its Committees. 

Pursuant to the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan, which was approved by Magma’s stockholders, each non-employee director receives an initial stockoption grant to purchase 50,000 shares of Magma common stock upon appointment or election. The initial option vests as to 25% of the shares on the first anniversary of the date of grant with the remaining shares vesting monthly over the followingthree years. Following the conclusion of each regular annual meeting of stockholders, each continuing non-employee director receives an additional option to purchase 20,000 shares at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the commonstock on the date of grant. When a non-employee director is appointed to the Board of Directors at a time other than at an annual meeting, such director receives a pro rata portion of the 20,000 share grant. The annual grants and the interim grantsvest in full on the day immediately prior to the annual meeting of stockholders in the year immediately following the year of the grant if the director continues as a member of the Board on that date. All options will vest fully upon a change incontrol of Magma, as set forth under the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan.
#### DOMINICK A. D’ONOFRIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. PHYLLIS D’ONOFRIO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued October 6, 1976

Decided October 14, 1976.

Before Judges Lora, Crane and Michels.

*353
      *Mr. LeBoy D. Safro*argued the cause for appellant.

*Mr. George D. Rosenthal*argued the cause for respondent *(Messrs. Rosenthal and Rubinowitz,*attorneys; *Mr. Jerome L. Rubinowitz*on the brief).

Per Curiam.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the written, opinion of Judge Pressler, 144 *N. J. Super.*200 (Ch. Div. 1976).
---

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 Quarterly Report of Infinicall Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James A. Trodden, Interim 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:

(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.



|/s/ James A. Trodden
  Interim Chief Financial Officer
  February 17, 2005
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
RESPECTIVE BALANCE SHEETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE RESPECTIVE PERIOD THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          24,662
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                       425
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,373
<PP&E>                                           6,137
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,478
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,387
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           153
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,982
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    36
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,531
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,199
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,332
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,332
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
        

</TABLE>
#### THOMAS G. WALTON, Ex’r., &c., *v.*WILLIAM F. McKESSON and others.

In an action upon a former judgment, the record of the judgment is the proper evidence thereof ; and its production cannot he dispensed -with, or supplied by any other evidence.

Where the record of a judgment has been destroyed, the first step towards obtaining a remedy, is by proceeding in the Court where it was given, to the end that the record may be supplied.

*78ACTION for money due by judgment, tried upon demurrer to the complaint, by Mitchell, *J.,*at Eall Term 1869 of Burke Court.

The complaint alleged that a judgment had been obtained by the plaintiff against the defendants, at August Term 1861 of Burke County Court; that the record thereof was destroyed by the Federal forces under General Stoneman in the Spring of 1865, but that the plaintiff had a “certified memorandum of said judgment under the hand of the Clerk, dated March 29th 1865, showing the date and amount of the judgment, &c., which he stands ready to produce, together with other proof, if necessary, as evidence of his debt.”

The defendant demurred, and assigned as cause, that it appeared by the complaint that there is no record of the the said supposed recovery, &c.

The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant appealed.

*Folic,*for the appellant.

*Fwrches, contra.*

Beade, J.

In an action on a former judgment, the record of the judgment is the proper evidence thereof. Its production can not be dispensed with, or supplied by any other evidence. The reason is, that upon plea of *mil tiel*record, the court decides upon the *ims^ection*of the record itself.

The plaintiff’s remedy in this case, was, upon notice to the defendants, a motion in the original suit, to have a record made of the judgment, in place of that which was destroyed; and then to offer the record in evidence in this suit. It was neither necessary nor proper to make profert of the judgment, but to refer to it as of record, *prout patet per recordum;*but instead of such reference, it is stated in the complaint as an excuse for not making profert, that the record had been destroyed.

*79It is not desirable that the merits of a cause should be. prejudiced by technicalities, and the courts are liberal in allowing amendments to reach substantial justice. If upon the coming in of the demurrer, the plaintiff had obtained leave to amend his complaint, so as to refer to the judgment, as “remaining of record,” and upon motion in the original cause had made a record, it might have been offered on the. trial, but as the plaintiff joined in the demurrer, we are obliged to say that it ought to have been sustained. There is error.

Per, Curiam. Judgment reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 428 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 428

    To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to ensure that 
producers of all classes of soft white wheat (including club wheat) are 
    permitted to repay marketing assistance loans, or receive loan 
          deficiency payments, for the wheat at the same rate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 1999

  Mr. Gorton introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to ensure that 
producers of all classes of soft white wheat (including club wheat) are 
    permitted to repay marketing assistance loans, or receive loan 
          deficiency payments, for the wheat at the same rate.

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

SECTION 1. REPAYMENT RATE FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS FOR WHEAT; 
              LOAN PAYMENT RATE FOR LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR WHEAT.

    (a) In General.--Section 134(a)(2) of the Agricultural Market 
Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7234(a)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) in the case of soft white wheat, be uniform 
                for all classes of the wheat, including club wheat.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply 
beginning with the 1997 crop of wheat.
                                 <all>
```
### Flight Checklist DJI Phantom 2 Vison 

## +

Drone Solutions, LLC

Before Gettingto SiteEstablish goals ( project objectives, skills development,training, etc)

Check WX Forecast/Compare with minimums (and personal criteria) Potential for precipitation Visibility 

### Wind Speed Other Review scope ofworkwith VO Micro SO card in phantom Extra micro SO card in bag Battery#1 Fully Charged Battery#2 Fully Charged Battery#3 Fully Charged Cell Phone Charged Remote Control Fully Charged Wi-Fi Range Extender Fully Charged RC Firmware Updated to latestversion Phantom Firmware updated to latestversion Confirm Regular or NAZA mode Prep/charge/pack PC forfield 

### Ground Station (if using) -cache map ofarea

Page 1 of2

### At Site Priorto Flight 

## Flight Checklist DJI Phantom 2Vison 

## +

Drone Solutions, LLC

Check Actual WX Conditions Potential for precipitation Visibility Wind Speed Other Cell phone Charged to 60% minimum Cell phone setto Airplane mode Propellers firmed attached to Phantom Remove gimbal clamp Remove camera lens cover Put 

### 51 switch in upper-most position Put 52 swith in upper-most position Turn on RC and check LED lights Turn on Phantom ( battery) and check lights Allow Phantomto detect satellites Check for Ready to Fly (GPS) status Turn on Range Extender Cell Phone- Confirm "Airplane" Mode Cell Phone
- Turn on Wi-Fi Cell Phone- Start OJI Vision App App- Tap "Camera" and check live view App- check power levels ofbattery, extender, etc. Calibrate Compass Confirm Return-to-home active/elevation set properly 

## vo Test communication with hand radio

Page 2 of2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

SS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE DE JESUS MUNOZ BUZO; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72937

Agency Nos. A095-200-527

 A095-200-528

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jose De Jesus Munoz Buzo and Pascuala Diaz Vera, natives and citizens of

Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction

FILED

JAN 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SS/Research 2 07-72937

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Iturribarria v. INS,

321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 21 months after the

BIA’s May 31, 2005, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see

Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available where “petitioner is

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner

acts with due diligence”); see also Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th

Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (pending petition for review does not toll time limit for

filing motion to reopen with BIA). Petitioners’ contention that the denial of their

motion to reopen violated due process therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on due process claim). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.29





May 30, 2001



Mr. Daniel C. Dunn
1221 Newport Landing
Fenton, MO  63026

Dear Dan:

It is my pleasure to formally offer you the position of Allied's Vice President
Finance, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer.

We would like to offer you the starting salary at the rate of $120,000 per
annum, payable ratably at the normal payroll intervals of Allied.

In addition, you will receive an initial stock option grant of 30,000 shares
under the Allied Healthcare Products, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan, subject to
the vesting requirements stated below. The options will be granted pursuant to
Allied's standard form Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, which will provide
that 25% of your options will be exercisable after one year of continuous
employment with the Company, 50% after two years of continuous employment with
the Company, 75% after three years of continuous employment with the Company and
100% after four years of continuous employment with the Company. In addition,
your options will entirely vest upon the occurrence of a Change of Control
(i.e., the sale in one transaction of a majority of the common stock of the
Company). These terms will require Board ratification at the next Board meeting
on August 21, 2001. The option exercise price will be the closing stock price as
of that day.

You will be eligible for four weeks vacation.



<PAGE>   2

In the event that your employment is terminated within one year of and as the
result of a Change of Control of the Company, you will be entitled to severance
pay equal to one year of your regular salary.

This offer is contingent upon successful completion of a drug screen and
pre-employment physical. Human Resources will contact you to schedule an
appointment. Upon acceptance of this offer and successful completion of the
required screening, we anticipate you to begin full time employment on or before
July 2, 2001.

I would like to welcome you back to Allied Healthcare Products, Inc. and wish
you much success. If you need any assistance, please feel free to contact me at
(314) 268-1675. Please indicate your acceptance of the terms in this letter by
signing one copy and returning it to me.

Sincerely,



Earl R. Refsland
President and CEO

I ACCEPT THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT SET FORTH IN THIS LETTER.

-----------------------------
DANIEL C. DUNN
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00043-CV

Victor Jaramillo

v.

Mayela Gurrolla Sosa

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-3243-11-7

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the trial court’s judgment should be set aside without regards to 

the merits and the cause remanded to the trial court for rendition of judgment in 

accordance with the agreements. The Court orders the judgment SET ASIDE and the 

case is REMANDED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against the appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 12, 2015
Exhibit 10.16
 
 
  LTIP Plan
  Performance
    
    LTIP Award Amount at Attainment of Target
    
    Year of PotentialCycle
    
    Cumulative Adjusted EPS
    
    Payout2010
    
    $
    333,333
    
    
    
    20112010-2011
    
    $
    666,667
    
    
    
    20122010-2012
    
    $
    1,000,000
    
    
    
    2013
 CAGR
 2010
    
    2010-2011
    
    2010-2012Performance Cycle
    
    Performance Cycle
    
    Performance CycleThreshold 3% CAGR
above 2010 level
    
    $
    0.85
    
    
    $
    1.73
    
    
    $
    2.63Target
9% CAGR above 2010
level
    
    $
    0.95
    
    
    $
    1.99
    
    
    $
    3.11Maximum 12% or more
CAGR above 2010
level
    
    $
    1.05
    
    
    $
    2.23
    
    
    $
    3.54
 Cumulative Adjusted EPS GAAP
 a)
    
    the impact of all performance based awards during the relevant
Performance Cycle, including awards under the LTIP, for any named executive officer
of the Company;




---



##### 



Page 2 b)
    
    the effect of any tax, assessment or similar charge enacted or
implemented by a government or governmental agency which is not of general
application to corporate taxpayers in the relevant jurisdiction; andc)
    
    any quantifiable Non-GAAP (or other applicable accounting standard)
adjustment to net income for the relevant Performance Cycle reported in a public
filing with the SEC prior to the determination of the percentage of LTIP Awards
earned for such Performance Cycle.
   Sincerely,KBW, Inc.By:Name:Title:
  [Name]