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

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Richard P. Powers, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Corgentech Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, as follows:

The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the
"Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 24th day of March 2005.

| |  | By: |  | /s/RICHARD P. POWERSRichard P. Powers
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
| |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), has been provided to Corgentech Inc. and will be ret ained by Corgentech Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-K/A to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Corgentech Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20843 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN LOCKETT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CR-13-1

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Lockett appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver cocaine and two counts of aiding and abetting with intent to distribute cocaine. He contends solely that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) to certain testimony regarding Lockett’s involvement with selling drugs. Lockett’s ineffective assistance claim was not raised before the district court, and the record is thus inadequate for this court to assess the merits of his claim on direct appeal.No. 97-20843 -2- Accordingly, we decline to address the merits of Lockett’s ineffective assistance claim but do so without prejudice to his right to raise the issue in a proper proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Delagarza-Villarreal , 141 F.3d 133, 140-41 (5th Cir. 1998). Lockett’s appeal is therefore without merit. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FORM 10-K OF ALCAN ALUMINIUM LIMITED FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                        31
<INVENTORY>                                      1,276
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,890
<PP&E>                                          12,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,746
<BONDS>                                          1,011
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        160
<COMMON>                                         1,230
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,849
<SALES>                                          7,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,503
<CGS>                                            5,695
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,695
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   477
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  76
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    686
<INCOME-TAX>                                       211
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                460
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       460
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.06


</TABLE>
Argued November 2,

reversed and remanded November 26, 1973

#### SKIRVIN, *Appellant, v.*STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND (No. 73 1182), *Respondent.*

516 P2d 91

*Harold W. Adams,*Salem, argued the cause and filed the- briefs for appellant.

*Al J. Laue,*Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and John W. Osbum, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Thornton, Judges.

*441SCHWAB, C.J..

The sole issue in this ease involves an application of that portion of the occupational disease law which provided that a medical hoard of review should hear appeals from findings of a hearing officer in occupational disease cases. The statutes, ORS 656.808 through 656.822, which were in effect at all stages of the proceedings below, have been repealed by Oregon Laws 1978, ch '543, p 1198, and therefore this opinion is probably of little interest except to the parties.

Loren Skirvin, now deceased, was a fireman. "While fighting a fire he inhaled smoke and was hospitalized for treatment. In the course of the treatment the doctors discovered that he had lung cancer, from which he subsequently died. His widow’s claim is that the smoke inhalation aggravated the decedent’s preexisting cancer. The hearing officer found that the smoke inhalation did not aggravate the cancer, and denied compensation.

Claimant then petitioned the "Workmen’s Compensation Board to submit the claim to a medical board of review. The Board did not do this, but, rather, assumed jurisdiction and affirmed the hearing officer, stating in its order on review:

> “The basic issue is, of course, whether the smoke inhalation episode aggravated the decedent’s preexisting cancer. The Hearing Officer concluded that it did not and with that conclusion, we agree. His order should therefore be affirmed in its entirety.”

The trial court affirmed the Board.

"We reverse and remand for the appointment of a medical board of review under the provisions of former ORS 656.808 through 656.822. As we pointed *442out in *Lawton v. SAIF,*5 Or App 539, 485 P2d 1104 (1971), citing *Beaudry v. Winchester Plywood Co.,*255 Or 503, 469 P2d 25 (1970):

> “* * * [Disability resulting from on-the-job aggravation [here smoke inhalation] of a preexisting condition [here lnng cancer] not caused by an injury * * * is an occupational disease * * 5 Or App at 544-45.

The Board relies on *Schoch v. SAIF,*9 Or App 100, 496 P2d 53 (1972), which is not determinative here. *Schoch*held that the statutory procedure applicable to injury claims rather than the statutory procedure formerly applicable to occupational disease claims should be followed when the claim is made for aggravation of a previously accepted claim for disability because of occupational disease. *Schoch*does not deal with a covered on-the-job aggravation of a preexisting physical defect. Such an aggravation is an original occupational disease claim. *Lawton v. SAIF,*supra.

Beversed and remanded.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30630 Conference Calendar

ALCY JOSEPH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ST. CHARLES PARISH GUIDE; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1306-F

- - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alcy Joseph, Jr., #20731, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his in forma pauperis complaint. We have reviewed the record and Joseph’s brief and find no abuse of discretion. Because Joseph’s appeal lacks an arguable basis in law, it is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5thNo. 96-30630 - 2 - Cir. R. 42.2. This court previously cautioned Joseph that he risked the imposition of sanctions if he continued to file meritless complaints and cautioned him to review any pending appeals to avoid the imposition of sanctions. See Joseph v. Lewis , No. 95-30846 (Oct. 18, 1995). Accordingly, Joseph is BARRED from filing any pro se , in forma pauperis , civil appeal in this court. Further he is BARRED from filing any pro se , in forma pauperis , civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Joseph, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
No. 07-14-00077-CV

SAR Western Center Plaza, L.P.

 Appellant

v.

Le Frisbie, LLC, Jennifer Frisbie, and

Diep Le

 Appellees

§

§

§

§

From the County Court at Law No. 1

 of Tarrant County

May 26, 2015

Opinion by Chief Justice Quinn

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated May 26, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the portion of the judgment of the trial court denying recovery against

Diep Le and Jennifer Frisbie is reversed and that the judgment is modified to reflect that

SAR Western Center Plaza, L.P. have and recover against Diep Le, Jennifer Frisbie,

and LeFrisbie, LLC, jointly and severally, all damages and sums previously awarded

SAR Western Center Plaza, L.P. solely against LeFrisbie, LLC. In all other things, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed, as modified.

It is further ordered that appellees, Diep Le and Jennifer Frisbie, pay all costs in

this behalf expended for which let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      445
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (131)
<INVENTORY>                                         13
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,767
<PP&E>                                           2,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,109)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,050
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,287
<OTHER-SE>                                       (279)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,058
<SALES>                                          5,270
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,569
<CGS>                                            2,573
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (304)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (421)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,857)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,857)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.62)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40455

Summary Calendar

DENNIS MITCHELL KADLEC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROY TONY GARCIA, Warden;

UNIDENTIFIED COOK, Captain,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:00-CV-741)

July 30, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dennis Mitchell Kadlec, Texas prisoner # 791082, appeals, p ro se

,

from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Kadlec asserts t he prison officials

were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when they refused to

provide him with a handicap shower.

A dismissal of an in forma pauperis action as fr ivolous under

subsection (B)(i) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. B lack v. Warren

,

### 2

134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998). A dismissal under subsection (B)(ii)

for failure to state a claim is reviewed under the same de novo standard

as is a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). I d.

Because the district cou rt relied equally upon each rationale for

dismissal, we review under the abuse of discretion standard.

A prisoner’s disagreement with prison officials regarding medical

treatment is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation under

the Eighth Amendmen t for indifference to medical needs. N orton v.

Dimazana

, 122 F.3d 286, 291-92 (5th Cir. 1997). It is the opinion of

the prison medical personnel that Kadlec does not require a handicap

shower. The defendants, Warden Garcia and Captain Cook, are thus

ab iding by the medical personnel’s instructions when they refuse to

provide Kadlec with a handicap shower. In essence, Kadlec’s complaint

reflects his disagreement with the medical staff regarding what medical

treatment he should receive. Because, as a matter of law, such

complaints are insufficient to establish a constitutional violation, the

distric t court did n ot abuse its discretion in dismissing Kadlec’s

complaint as frivolous. See id.

The district court’s dismissal counts as a strike for purposes of

2 8 U.S.C. § 1915(g). S ee Adepegba v. Hammons

, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th

Cir. 1996). Kadlec is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he

may n ot proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal wh ile

he is incarcerated of detained in any facility unless he is in imminent

danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner

v.

PETER P. BARNETT,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2606 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 175 DB 2018

Attorney Registration No. 73120

(Philadelphia)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20 th day of May , 2019, upon consideration of the Recommendation

of the Three

- Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint Petition in Support of

Discipline on Consent is granted , and Peter P. Barnett is suspended on consent from the

Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of two years . Respondent shall comply with all

the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursua nt to

Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 1 of 2

COALEX STATE COMPARISON REPORT - 260

July 1993

Charles Sturey

Division of Environmental Protection

10 McJunkin Road

Nitro, West Virginia 25143

TOPIC: DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL: DRAINAGE CONTROLS FOR DURABLE 

ROCK AND VALLEY FILLS

INQUIRY: Please locate State regulations equivalent to 30 CFR 816/817.72(a)(2) and 

816/817.73(f).

SEARCH RESULTS: Using the COALEX Library on LEXIS, state equivalents to the 

following federal regulations were researched:

1. 816/817.71 Disposal of excess spoil: General requirements 

2. 816/817.72 Disposal of excess spoil: Valley fills/ head-of-hollow fills 

3. 816/817.73 Disposal of excess spoil: Durable rock fills

The relevant regulations for these states are attached:

1. Alabama 

2. Arkansas 

3. Colorado 

4. Illinois 

5. Indiana 

6. Kentucky 

7. Maryland 

8. Missouri 

9. New Mexico 

10.Ohio 

11.Oklahoma 

12.Pennsylvania 

13.Texas 

14.Virginia 

15.West Virginia

Also included are the 1982 proposed rule and 1983 final rule on excess spoil fills, and 

excerpts from Federal Register preambles discussing state program amendments for 

these states: Kentucky, Ohio, New Mexico and West Virginia.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 2 of 2

ATTACHMENTS

1. State Regulations 

A. Alabama Regulations 

B. Arkansas Regulations 

C. Colorado Regulations 

D. Illinois Regulations 

E. Indiana Regulations 

F. Kentucky Regulations 

G. Maryland Regulations 

H. Missouri Regulations 

I. New Mexico Regulations 

J. Ohio Regulations 

K. Oklahoma Regulations 

L. Pennsylvania Regulations 

M. Texas Regulations 

N. Virginia Regulations 

O. West Virginia Regulations

2. Federal Register Notices 

A. 47 FR 24954 (JUNE 8, 1982). Proposed rules. Excess spoil fills. 

B. 48 FR 32910 (JULY 19, 1983). Final rule. Excess spoil fills. 

C. 51 FR 7262 (MARCH 3, 1986). Final rule. Kentucky program 

amendments. 

D. 56 FR 6596 (FEBRUARY 19, 1991). Proposed rule. Ohio program 

amendments. 

E. 57 Fr 27932 (JUNE 23, 1992). Final rule. New Mexico program 

amendments. 

F. 55 FR 21304 (MAY 23, 1990). Final rule. West Virginia program 

amendments. 

G. 56 FR 50256 (OCTOBER 4, 1991). Final rule. West Virginia program 

amendments.
Record of Contacts

 Docket No. FAA-2012-0726

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

Transport Canada Helen Tsai

(613) 952-4343

1/17/12 No objections

Bombardier 

Aerospace

Anita Shrivastava

416-373-6763

1/23/12 No objections 

Regional Airline 

Association

Scott Foose

202-367-1170

Foose@raa.org

1/23/12 No objections
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,1998
</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>                                          16,320
<SECURITIES>                                     2,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,644)
<INVENTORY>                                         26
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,280
<PP&E>                                           3,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,057)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,974
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,028
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,082
<SALES>                                         10,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,936
<CGS>                                            6,308
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,924
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,288
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>