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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Optimal Group Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

|   | 1) | the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated: | March 15, 2007 | /s/ Gary S. Wechsler |
|--------|----------------|----------------------|

|   | Gary S. Wechsler |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Treasurer and |
|--------|---------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# PRESS ADVISORY: NRO awards Planet contract as part of transition of commercial imagery acquisition

By StaffNational Reconnaissance Office

                Chantilly, Va.  –              
CHANTILLY, Va. – The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) today announced the transition of the Planet commercial imagery subscription service from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) to the NRO. 

As part of the transition, the NRO awarded Planet an unclassified, multi-year subscription service contract for daily, large-area, 3-5 meter resolution commercial imagery collection. 

Recognizing the importance of mission continuity, the scope of the new NRO contract is comparable to NGA’s previous contracts with Planet and includes access to new daily unclassified imagery over multiple areas of interest to military planners, warfighters, and the national security community. 

The transition is consistent with NGA’s and NRO’s role in exploring new and viable commercial GEOINT opportunities for national security missions. 

“With its large constellation of satellites, Planet can image country – and even continent-sized areas – every day,” said Pete Muend, director, NRO’s Commercial Systems Program Office. “This capability to provide daily revisit over large areas of the Earth gives analysts unparalleled opportunities to discover and monitor activity for a wide range of applications.” 

“The NRO is committed to ensuring NGA and its customers continue to have access to Planet imagery to perform the vital analysis needed to create value-added geospatial products for our partners and policy makers,” said Muend. 

“NGA’s 2016 Planet subscription played a role in our analytic transformation, where we are now focused less on pixels and more on information content and services,” said David Gauthier, director of NGA’s Source Commercial and Business Operations Group. 

Gauthier said Planet imagery demonstrated the value that daily revisit of large areas, at 3-5 meter resolutions, to several mission areas – especially when combined with geospatial analytics.

“With the transition, NGA can continue to shift its focus to emerging commercial GEOINT products and services that uniquely support our user community,” said Gauthier. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
99-1115.

#### State ex rel. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondent Ohio Adult Parole Authority.

*Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) Νo 985/2006

of 29 June 2006         

fixing the export refunds on products processed from cereals and rice

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in rice (2), and in particular Article 14(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1518/95 are hereby fixed as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 June 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 June 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 96. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2004 (OJ L 280, 31.8.2004, p. 13).

(3)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 55. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2993/95 (OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 25).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 29 June 2006 fixing the export refunds on products processed from cereals and rice

----

(1)  No refund shall be granted on products given a heat treatment resulting in pregelatinisation of the starch.

(2)  Refunds are granted in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2730/75 (OJ L 281, 1.11.1975, p. 20), as amended.

----
#### Moore Knight and Wife, *v.*Theophilus Thomas.

The word creditors, in the act of 1784, *Rev. c.*225, s. 7, respecting parol gifts of slaves, means, as well those who have become credo tors since the parol transfer, as those who were such before.

Trover. *Thomas,*as Sheriff, had sold the negroes in controversy as the property of one *Pass,*to satisfy an execution of one of *Pass’s*creditors. It turned out upon evidence, that *Pass*had conveyed those negroes by parol, bef<>tc witnesses, to the wife of the Plaintiff, sometime before this creditor obtained judgment, and before the *334debt was contracted, it was argued at the bar, and ad-mith-d by’the couit, that the Judges heretofore have de-ci(Cd that under the act of 1784, *c.*10. *s.*7* a parol conveyance of negroes is good as between the parties themselves, as before the making of this act; but was v.iid as to creditors, as well creditors who became such afte> the conveyance as those who were creditors at the time; for the mischief intended to he icmedied by the act, was, that subsequent creditors had been defeated of their debts contracted'upon the credit of a man’s visible property, by means of secret gifts to children and others, made before the debts contracted often times, and when toe party may have been in good circumstances. The. court now assented to this construction of the act, and upon this ground granted a new trial, the jury having (bund for the Plaintiff as to one negro, who had been delivered in the presence of witnesses some years *before*— Pass had become a debtor to that creditor upon whose execution the. negro was sold, and even before he became involved.

Note.— *Vide*note to *Farrell*v. *Perry, ante 2.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk January 25, 2013

s0122 

# Order

January 25, 2013

145970

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145970

COA: 301662

Wayne CC: 10

- 007792

- FC

INDIA TAYLOR,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1465 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1465

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand access to 
         stroke telehealth services under the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2015

   Mr. Kirk introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand access to 
         stroke telehealth services under the Medicare program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Furthering Access to Stroke 
Telemedicine Act'' or the ``FAST Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANDING ACCESS TO STROKE TELEHEALTH SERVICES UNDER THE 
              MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 1834(m)(4)(C) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395m(m)(4)(C) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``The term'' and inserting 
        ``Subject to clause (iii), the term''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(iii) Stroke telehealth services.--With 
                        respect to services related to the evaluation 
                        or treatment of an acute stroke that are 
                        provided within the evidence-based window of 
                        treatment, the term `originating site' means 
                        any site at which the eligible telehealth 
                        individual is located at the time the service 
                        is furnished via a telecommunications system, 
                        regardless of where the site is located.''.
    (b) No Originating Site Facility Fee for New Sites.--Section 
1834(m)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(m)(2)(B)) is 
amended, in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``(other than 
an originating site that is only described in clause (iii) of paragraph 
(4)(C), and does not meet the requirement for an originating site under 
clause (i) of such paragraph)'' after ``the originating site''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to services furnished on or after the date that is 1 year after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
----

            EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY         

            2006. AMENDING BUDGET         

(2006/487/EC)

(Summary table) (1)

----

(1)  The detailed amended statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Aviation Safety Agency for the financial year 2006 can be consulted on the Agency website: http://www.easa.eu.int/

(2)  Revenue from fees and charges corresponds, in the left column, to the amounts levied and, in the right column to the amounts collected.

----
Sp4 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE? JULY 2015 

14. 

HANDLE VIA BrEl'elAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM ONLY 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20546 

OFFICE Or .HE 17 LPL', 1969 

Honorable John L. McLucas 

'Under Secretary of the Air Force 

Jgashington, D.C. 20330 

We have completed our initial Lamination of the applicability of the 

MOL developed optical technology and facilities to our Space Astronomy 

Pro ram. As a result of this preliminary examination I believe it is 

now appropr.l.aLe to initiate a limited technical feasibility study with 

Eastman Kc.,k. A work statement to accomplish this is attached. Upon 

your accep:„ince of this intent and of your willingness to execute the 

contract our behalf we shall forward necessary funds. Mr. Jesse 

Mitchell, Director Physics and Astronomy Programs, NASA Headquarters, 

will serve as the senior NASA technical contact for the study. As in 

the related study effort with General Electric, we agree that the study 

 with Eastman should be kept in the appropriate security system. 

A 5,:?arate b - .,;t related matter involves storage and maintenance of the 

ap,icable hardware until we are in a position to decide on its future. 

We :.ave been informed that the MOL termination schedule calls for 

di,osition of existing equipment earlier than we can make a final 

decision concerning its potential utilization. To relieve this situation, 

N;.. is willing to provide additional funds to be applied to the existing 

 Air Force contract to accomplish the storage and maintenance for a 

 pc-,..od not to exceed April 30, 1970. We have an estimate. of the costs 

CC involved and will include these funds in the procurement order. 

Dear 

4111111■•■••■• 

 If it is at. all possible, we would very much like to have the study 

 under contract before January 1. Since we envision a ninety-day effort, 

 a December contract date will provide us with the study results prior 

 to March 31. At that time, depending, of course, on the outcome of the 

 study and other factors, we could address the policy and security 

 questions involved and make a final determination on the remaining hard- 

 wc.re 

 Dr. McLucas: 

er E. Newell 

.Jociate Administrator 

HANDLL' 

CONTROL 

Inclosure 

Work Statement 

ViA 

sYsTz,4 c:Nry 

/7.1/7('(.. 

This doolimIlt 

NO. 01 

cr.:7,151t1 of _ 1744,res d c 

e C e 

_ . 

/2 -/7 —00e'
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1216 

To amend the Natural Gas Act to modify a provision relating to civil 

penalties. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 6, 2015 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Natural Gas Act to modify a provision relating 

to civil penalties. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DE NOVO REVIEW OF CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER 

4 THE NATURAL GAS ACT. 

5 Section 22(b) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 

6 717t–1(b)) is amended by inserting before the period at 

7 the end the following: ‘‘, in accordance with the same pro8 visions as are applicable under section 31(d) of the Fed9 eral Power Act (16 U.S.C. 823b(d)) in the case of civil 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1216 IS

1 penalties assessed under section 31 of the Federal Power 

2 Act (16 U.S.C. 823b)’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No . 1 8

- 60 302

_____________________

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ALL AMERICAN CHECK CASHING, INCORPORATED; MID

- STATE

FINANCE, INCORPORATED; MICHAEL E. GRAY, Individually,

Defendants

- Appellants

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

__________________________

(Opinion March 3, 2020 , 5 Cir., 20 20

, 2020 WL 1026927 )

Before OWEN , Chief Judge, JONES , SMITH, STEWART, DENNIS, ELROD,

SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES

, HIGGINSON, COSTA, WILLETT,

DUNCAN, ENGELHARDT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. 1

BY THE COURT:

A majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not

disqualified having voted in favor, on the Court’s own motion, to rehear this

case en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc

with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fix ed. Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R.

41.3, the panel opinion in this case dated March 3, 2020 , is vacated.

1 Judge Ho is recused and did not participate in this decision

. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

March 20, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
#### Bell Oil & Gas Company, Respondent, vs. Sterling Oil Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Arthur Wickham,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Alexander, Burke & Clark*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.31    
  


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT  


    This Amendment No. 2, dated March 29, 2001, amends a certain Amended and Restated Severance Agreement dated as of August 15, 1997 by and
between Silicon Image, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and David D. Lee
("Executive"), as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated January 24, 2000 (the "Severance
Agreement"). 


    WHEREAS,
the Severance Agreement aimed to enhance Executive's ability to perform effectively by providing him with employment security; 



    WHEREAS,
with a view to that purpose, the Severance Agreement was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2003, covering the period that Executive's equity compensation continued
to vest; 


    WHEREAS,
Executive is eligible, pursuant to the Company's option repricing program for executive officers, to exchange an option granted to him in November 1999 for a new
option to be granted in April 2001 that will be subject to vesting until April 2005 and is also eligible to be awarded additional equity compensation by the Company in the future; and 


    WHEREAS,
the Company accordingly desires to extend the term of the Severance Agreement; 



    NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 


    1.  The
Severance Agreement is hereby amended to replace the date, "December 31, 2003" with the date, "December 31, 2006", each place that it appears
(including, without limitation, Sections 3(i), 3(ii), and 7). 


    2.  Except
as amended by this Amendment No. 2, the terms of the Severance Agreement remain in full force and effect. 


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 (or have caused this Amendment No. 2 to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives) as of March 29, 2001. 


Silicon
Image, Inc. 



	By:	 	/s/ STEVE TIRADO   
 Steve Tirado

Chief Operating Officer	 	/s/ DAVID D. LEE   
 David D. Lee











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.31
#### Atha Lindsey *v.*Bartholomew Lee,

From Johnston.

New trials for surprise, can only be granted in the Superior Courts, and a refusal to grant one, being the exercise of a discretionary power, cannot be examined upon appeal.

Notice to a particular agent to take the deposition of a non-resident witness to be read absolutely, is not supported by a rule authoris-ing notice to that agent to lake the deposition of the same witness *de bene esse,*the witness being at the granting of the rule a resident of this State.

This was an issue of *Devisavit vel non,*as to the supposed will of one *Burchet Lee.*The cause originated in Sampson, and had been removed to Johnston.

On the. trial, the Plaintiff offered to read absofutefy the deposition of one *John Lindsey,*taken in the State of .Tennessee, which was objected to by the Defendant, as the notice of taking it liad not been served upon him, but upon one *Caleb Lindsey,*who was no party to the suit. In order to justify the notice to *Caleb Lindsey,*the Plaintiff produced the following rule of Sampson Superior Court: “ *Ordered,*that a commission issue to take the deposition of *John Lindsey,*on giving *Caleb Lindsey*twenty days notice. Deposition to be read *de bene esse*But his honor Judge Martin, thinking that the order was intended for taking the deposition of a resident witness, to be read only *de bene esse,*and not that of a witness residing in another State, to be read absolutely, rejected the deposition. Whereupon, the Plaintiff submitted to a verdict against him, *John Lindsey*being the subscribing *465witness, and moved for a new trial — 1st, on the ground of surprise, and 2diy, because of error in rejecting tlie deposition. His honor discharged the rule, and the Plaintiff appealed.

*W. H, Haywood, for*the Plaintiff.

*Badgqr,*contra.

HeatoersoN, Judge.

It is argued, that the judgment in this case he reversed, 1st, on the ground of surprise, fidly, -Because the deposition of *John Lindsey*was improperly excluded.

Upon the first ground, this Court cannot act j if is matter addressed to the discretion of the Judge below, over which we have no control. As to the second ground, we concur in the opinion of the Judge, that the deposition ought to be rejected. Notice to take it ought to have been served on the parties, or on their agent. It does not appear that *Caleb Lindsey*was either their general agent, or agent to receive notice to take this, or any other deposition, except that of *John Lindsey, de bene esse,*under a rule made in Sampson Superior Court while the cause was there. This rule was special, and contemplated the taking of a deposition of another character, and at a different time and place from the one offered.

Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        6268
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                16100 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                      145232
<DEPRECIATION>                                5560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              179416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         8
<OTHER-SE>                                    8968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                179416
<SALES>                                     124235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            130975
<CGS>                                       144222 <F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               145262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             13120 <F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            5330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (32737)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (2518)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (30219)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (30219)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (3.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (3.84)

<FN>
<F1>Recievables are comprised of due from tax  credit partnerships, construction
contracts receivables, notes recievable and due from related parties.
<F2>Cost  of  goods  sold  is  comprised  of  constuction,  write-down  of  tax
partnerships to fair value, cost of homes sold and cost of commercial properties
sold.
<F3>Other expenses  are  comprised  of  general and administrative, depreciation
and amortization expenses and joint venture losses

</TABLE>