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 quarterly report of Pharmaceutical ProductDevelopment, Inc. (“PPD”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Linda Baddour, Chief Financial Officer of PPD, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

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

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of PPD as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. 

 

Date: May 5, 2004
Motion granted; Order filed November 29, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00429

- CR

____________ CRISTIAN YOSELI MARQ UEZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1433052



### ORDER

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has made known to this Court her desire to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967);
Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant’s motion is granted.
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 174th District Court to afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before December 14, 2016 ; that2

the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on whi ch delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file her pro se brief with this court within thirty days
of that date.

PER CURIAM
No. 82-5946.

#### Rene *v.*Federal Bureau of Prisons.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Review of Light Water Reactor Regulatory Requirements   (NUREG/CR-4330, PNL-5809)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Exhibit 6

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of International Tower Hill Mines Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey Pontius, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



August 27, 2010

/s/ Jeffrey Pontius



Name: Jeffrey Pontius
Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to International Tower Hill Mines Ltd. and will be retained by International Tower Hill Mines Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M AR QUEE M UNERLYN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10270

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00328-HDM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. M arque e M une rly

n a p p e a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgme nt a

nd c ha lle nge s the 240-m onth se nte nc e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for ba nk robbe ry , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2113(a). W e dismiss. M une rly n c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by de ny ing a

n a djustme nt for 

# FIL ED SEP 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne luna nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a c c e pta

n c e of re sponsibility

unde r U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t this a ppe a l should be

dismisse d ba se d on a

n a ppe a lwa ive r c onta ine d in theple a a gre e m e nt. Mune rly

n re sponds tha

t thea ppe a l wa i ve r c annot bee nforc e d be c a use the g ove rnm e nt bre a c he d theple a a gre e m e nt by

re fusing to re c om

m e nd a n a djustme nt for a c c e pta

nc e of re sponsibility . W e re v ie w de novo whe the r to e nforc e an a

p pe a l wa ive r. Se e Unite d State s v . W a tson , 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th C ir. 2009). Theple a

a gre e m e nt obliga

te d thegove rnm e nt to re c o m m e nd a n a djustme nt for a c c e pta

nc e of re s ponsibility

only if M une rly

n re fra ine d from

m aking fa lse sta te m e nts c onc e rning c o nduc t re l e va nt to theoffe n s e . B e c a

use M une rly

n m a de fa lse sta te m e nts c onc e rning there le va nt c onduc t of his c osc he m e rs, the gove rnm e nt did not bre a c h theple a a gre e m e nt. Se eUnite d State s v . Rutle dge , 28 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th C ir. 1994) (de nia l of a djustme nt for a c c e pta nc e of re sponsibility

is a ppropria t e if de fe nda

nt fa lse ly de nie s re l e va

nt c onduc t); se e also U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3(a )(1)(B ) & c m t. n.2 (re le va

nt c onduc t inc lude s re a sona bly fore se e a ble a c t s of c o sc he m e rs). Ac c ordingly , we dismiss this a ppe a lin light of the v a lid a

ppe a l wa ive r. Se eW

atson , 582 F.3d a

t 988. DISM I SSE D.

1 4 - 1 0 2 7 0 2
#### Central Wisconsin Trust Company, Trustee, Appellant, vs. Keating and others, Respondents.

*December 11, 1936*

January *12, 1937.*

*526For the appellant there were briefs by *Albert G. Michelson*and *Marjorie Loomis,*both of Madison, and oral argument by *Miss*Loomis..

*527For the respondents there was a brief by *La Follette, Rogers & Roberts*of Madison, and oral argument by *Glenn D. Roberts.*

Rosenberry, C. J.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that since the order of June 23, 1936, from which the appeal is taken, was entered more than sixty days from the end of the term at which the order entered January 15, 1936, was entered, the court was without jurisdiction to make the order. Sec. 252.10, Stats. The defendant Keating, on the other hand, contends that the court is specifically authorized to reconsider the matter by sec. 281.209 (2), which provides :

> “Upon the application of any party prior to the expiration of the extended period of redemption as provided in this section and upon the presentation of evidence that the terms fixed by the court are no longer just and reasonable, the court may alter or revise its terms in such manner as the changed circumstances and conditions may require.”

Sec. 281.209 (1) provides for extending the period of redemption for such additional time as the court may deem just and equitable, and prescribes the conditions upon which such extension shall be granted.

The only showing made by the defendant Keating was by affidavit. In this affidavit no facts were shown which even tended to establish the fact that the terms of the order entered January 15, 1936, as fixed by the court were not “just and reasonable.” No change of circumstance relating either to the financial ability of the mortgagors, the condition of the property mortgaged, or anything else is shown to have occurred between the time the order entered January 15, 1936, and the time when the application was made for a further extension, so that assuming, but not deciding, that the legislature may authorize such an extension, there was no compliance in this case with the provisions of the statute which requires the presentation of evidence from which the court *528can say that its first order was not just and reasonable. The justness and reasonableness of the first order are not even attacked. The statute does not authorize a second extension without such showing, and certainly the court has no power to do it in the absence of a statutory provision.

*By the Court.*— The order appealed from is reversed.
* 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. 02-10559

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIA MARTHA CHAVEZ-GUIDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:01-CR-61-ALL-C

--------------------

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Martha Chavez-Guido appeals the sentence imposed

following her guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Chavez-Guido contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. She argues that the

aggravated felony conviction that resulted in her increased

sentence is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

that should have been alleged in her indictment. Chavez-Guido

maintains that she pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged
No. 02-10559

-2-

only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). She argues that

her sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment

which may be imposed for that offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Chavez-Guido acknowledges that her argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

She seeks to preserve her argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in

the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s

judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The

motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need

not file an appellee’s brief. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY

AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.
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 on Form 10-K of UnitedGlobalCom, 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, Frederick G. Westerman III, Co-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 to the best of my knowledge:



|Date: March 14, 2005 |  | /s/FREDERICK G. WESTERMAN IIIFrederick G. Westerman III
Co-Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial  information extracts from the
condensed  consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 1997 and the condensed
consolidated  statement of  operations  for the nine months ended  September 30,
1997 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         23,724
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                      180
<INVENTORY>                                     4,318
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               38,573
<PP&E>                                          5,944
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,345)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 40,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,576
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            9
<OTHER-SE>                                     33,776
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   40,361
<SALES>                                        27,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,650
<CGS>                                          10,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 5,952
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,240
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3,712
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,712
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.38
        


</TABLE>
No. 82-5900.

#### Smith *v.*Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,463,889
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,253,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                   127,842
<INVENTORY>                                  1,005,581
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,722,199
<PP&E>                                       3,256,797
<DEPRECIATION>                                 570,699
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,479,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,058,937
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,849
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,389,707
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,479,493
<SALES>                                      3,696,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,696,399
<CGS>                                        2,835,316
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,391,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (18,055)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (680,806)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (680,806)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (680,806)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
No. 90-6117.

#### Tamale *v.*Regents of the University of California et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

REGINALD BREW,

 Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00105-CR

Appeal from the

272nd District Court

of Brazos County, Texas

(TC# 13-01423-CRF-272)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal We further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2015.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2007 to 12/31/2007Page 1 of 110/09/2008 15:28:04

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Turkey Point 4 Docket (050- 00251)

Communication / IR162 - Communication Equipment LTA F - Fuel Handling R - Refueling 162 - Communication Equipment LTA O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 162 - Communication Equipment LTA O - Operations S - Surveillance 

316

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Problem Identification & Resolution / IR140 - Problem not completely or accurately identified G - Engineering S - Surveillance 140 - Problem not completely or accurately identified O - Operations S - Surveillance 142 - Operating experience (OE) review LTA G - Engineering S - Surveillance 146 - Evaluation LTA G - Engineering S - Surveillance 148 - Action not yet started or untimely M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 148 - Action not yet started or untimely O - Operations S - Surveillance 

632

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR185 - Procedural adherence LTA F - Fuel Handling R - Refueling 185 - Procedural adherence LTA F - Fuel Handling R - Refueling 185 - Procedural adherence LTA M - Mechanical T - Testing 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements D - Emergency Planning Q - Fire Protection 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements M - Mechanical T - Testing 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements Q - Quality assurance / oversight A - Administrative 

186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements Y - Shipping / transportation Y - Shipping / transportatio 

187 - Action implementation LTA G - Engineering Q - Fire Protection 196 - Independent verification / plant tours LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 197 - Self-check LTA Y - Shipping / transportation Y - Shipping / transportatio 

1053

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 19
#### In the Matter of Gary Rand, Respondent, v Victor Herbert, as Superintendent of Collins Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

[632 NYS2d 345]

Judgment unanimously vacated, determination modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent Superintendent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding presented substantial evidence questions, it should have been transferred to this Court in its entirety *(see,*CPLR 7804 [g]; *Matter of Grillo v Coughlin,*201 AD2d 905), and we consider the matter de novo, as if it had been properly transferred *(see, Matter of Grillo v Coughlin, supra; Matter of Lynch v Coughlin,*198 AD2d 889).

The determination that petitioner stole property in violation of inmate rule 116.13 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [17] [iv]) is not supported by substantial evidence. The misbehavior report failed to state that the removal of food from the mess hall was unauthorized. Respondents presented no evidence to refute the contention of petitioner that he was authorized to remove the food he had been charged with stealing from the mess hall. We modify the determination, therefore, by annulling so much of the determination as found petitioner guilty of violating inmate rule 116.13 and directing that all entries in petitioner’s record relating thereto be expunged and remit the matter to respondent Superintendent for the imposition of an appropriate penalty on the remaining violation.

The determination that petitioner made or possessed alcohol in violation of inmate rule 113.13 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iv]) is supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, there is no requirement that prison authorities chemically test the beverage for the presence of alcohol *(see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin,*209 AD2d 621). (Appeal from Judgment and CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Exhibit 13.1
– Certification of CEO and CFO











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



Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers
of Medicure Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F
for the year ended May 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 20-F”),
that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1) the Form 20-F 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 Form 20-F
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date:  April 14, 2015 |  | /s/ Albert Friesen                               | 
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------ | 
|                      |  | Albert D. Friesen Ph D., Chief Executive Officer | 
|                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                    | 
|                      |  |                                                  | 
|Date:  April 14, 2015 |  | /s/ James Kinley                                 | 
|                      |  | James F. Kinley CA, Chief Financial Officer      | 
|                      |  | (Principal Financial Officer)                    | 



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.