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

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

I, J. Scott Kamsler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Centillium Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|Date: November 8, 2006 | J. Scott Kamsler Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------

---
SCWC

- 16

- 0000 798

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/P laintiff

- Appellant ,

vs.

BRONSON SARDINHA , Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellee

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 16

- 0000 798 ; CR. NO. 1PC16

- 1

- 00359 )

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ. ,

and Nakayama, J., dissenting )

Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellee’s Application for Writ

of Certiorari, filed on April 19, 2021 , is hereby accepted and

will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be

notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i , June 3, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-16-0000798 03-JUN-2021 08:32 AM Dkt. 3 OGAC
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7710

M. RODNEY JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY D. MAYNARD,

Director; JIM HODGES, The South Carolina

Governor; CHARLIE CONDON, The South Carolina

Attorney General; ROBERT W. STEWART, South

Carolina SLED Chief; JIM CHRISTOPHER, South

Carolina SLED Chief; BRENTON GLISSON, South

Carolina Department of Corrections PCI Doctor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-02-157-3-24)

Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 18, 2003

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

M. Rodney Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Saunders McKenzie Bridges,

BRIDGES, ORR, DERRICK & ERVIN, Florence, South Carolina; Robert E.

Lee, Amy Anderson Wise, AIKEN BRIDGES, Florence, South Carolina,

for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

M. Rodney Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. South Carolina,

No. CA-02-157-3-24 (D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2002). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case: 3:17-cr-00183-WHR Doc #: 61 Filed: 03/08/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 197
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

TYRONE R. JOHNSON, : Case No. 1:18-cv-43

 :

Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black 

: Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman

vs. :

 :

MICHAEL HUMPHREY, et al., : 

 :

Defendants. :

DECISION AND ENTRY 

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 7) 

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on March 5, 2018, 

submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff filed objections on March 

15, 2018 (Doc. 8).1

 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo 

all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its 

 

1 Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken. The Report and Recommendation recommended 

dismissal of several of Plaintiff’s claims, either because there were not adequate factual 

allegations to support a claim or because there was no legal basis for a claim. Plaintiff’s 

objections contain no new factual allegations that would lead this Court to decline to adopt the 

Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff also does not address the legal deficiencies of certain 

claims, including the fact that Plaintiff has improperly attempted to sue several supervisory 

personnel under a respondeat superior theory that does not apply in § 1983 lawsuits.
2

entirety. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1-1) is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 

1915A(b)(1), with the exception of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment individual capacity 

conditions-of-confinement claim asserted against Defendant Eaches and Eighth 

Amendment individual capacity excessive-force claim asserted against Defendants 

McCroskey, Bell, and Rodgers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ________________________

 Timothy S. Black

 United States District Judge 

March 29, 2018
First Amendment to Lease Agreement




 Exhibit 10.11 

OLD MILL BUILDING IV 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT MADE and entered into this 30th day
of October 2014, by and between OLD MILL BUILDING IV, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, (“Lessor”) and INSTRUCTURE, INC., a Delaware corporation, (“Lessee”). 

RECITALS: 
  

	A.	Lessor and Lessee previously entered into a Lease Agreement dated October 2, 2012, for premises in the building known as Old Mill Corporate Center IV located at 6330 South 3000 East, Cottonwood Heights, UT 84121
(the “Building”), said premises consisting of approximately 125,753 rentable and 106,572 useable square feet comprising all of the 7th,
5th and 4th floors and a portion of the 6th floor of the Building. 


 

	B.	Pursuant to Addendum A of the Lease, Lessee had the option to request Lessor to build a private entrance into the 4th floor of the Building from the top level of the
adjacent parking structure. 

  

	C.	Pursuant to Addendum A of the Lease, Lessee had an option to request Lessor to build out the 4th floor patio near the
4th floor parking structure entrance and an option to request Lessor to build out the 4th floor patio facing the freeway. 


 

	D.	Lessor has built a private entrance to the 4th floor of the Building from the parking structure. 


 

	E.	Lessor and Lessee desire to amend the Lease relating to use of the 4th floor patios. 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises and covenants set forth hereinafter, the parties agree as follows: 

1. Use of 4th Floor Patios. Lessee shall be entitled to use the 4th floor patios for no additional rent. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee is aware and acknowledges that all costs associated with the operation and maintenance of said patios will constitute Basic
Costs, which are allocable to all tenants, including Lessee, as Additional Rent pursuant to Article IV of the Lease. 
 2. Lessor
Provisions of Lease. Except as modified herein, all terms and conditions of the Lease, as previously modified or amended, shall remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Lease Agreement as of the day and year first above written. 

 

									
	LESSOR:	 		 	LESSEE:
			
	OLD MILL BUILDING IV, LLC	 		 	INSTRUCTURE, INC.
					
	By	 	 /s/ Richard N. Beckstrand
	 		 	By	 	 /s/ Howard Baik

	Name:	 		 		 	Name:	 	Howard Baik
	Its:	 		 		 	Its:	 	Sr. Counsel
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS ARQUIMEDES REYES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72021

Agency No. A028-806-189

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2010** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Arquimedes Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

DEC 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72021

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006),

and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Reyes failed to

demonstrate the harm his family suffered was on account of a protected ground. 

See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1992). Accordingly, his asylum

and withholding of removal claims fail. See id. at 484.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Reyes is not

eligible for CAT relief because he failed to show it is more likely than not he

would be tortured if removed to El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d.

1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

We decline to consider the evidence Reyes attached to his opening brief

because our review is limited to the administrative record underlying the BIA’s

decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the period ended December 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001003282
<NAME> RMI NET INC

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      11,238,188
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,931,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,018,800
<INVENTORY>                                     10,049
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,055,362
<PP&E>                                      15,123,924
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,377,010
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,719,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,051,312
<BONDS>                                      2,222,373
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,069
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,424,276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,719,030
<SALES>                                        413,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,122,004
<CGS>                                          334,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,481,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            36,851,741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,368,600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             541,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (24,927,652)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (24,927,652)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (25,134,617)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.83)


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

WILLIE STEPHENS, JR., 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2012-7157 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 12-1173, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel. 

__________________________ 

Before NEWMAN, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R 

Willie Stephens, Jr. appeals from an order of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(Veterans Court) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We summarily affirm. 

Mr. Stephens is currently receiving Department of 

Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability benefits for his serviceconnected claim for residuals of prostate cancer. In June 

Case: 12-7157 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 12/26/2012
WILLIE STEPHENS v. SHINSEKI 2

2011, the DVA advised Mr. Stephens that because his 

condition had shown improvement, his disability rating 

was being reduced from 100% to 10%. 

In March 2012, Mr. Stephens filed the underlying petition with the Veterans Court. He attached a copy of a 

February 2012 letter he sent to the DVA asserting that he 

filed a notice of disagreement with regard to a June 2011 

DVA notification letter. His petition asked the Veterans 

Court to order the DVA to issue a statement of the case. 

According to Mr. Stephens, the DVA’s delay in issuing 

him a statement of the case was “disturbing and delaying” 

his appeal. In denying the petition, the Veterans Court 

noted that that he “has not demonstrated that the delay 

in his case is unreasonable.” 

This appeal followed. 

This court reviews the denial of a petition for a writ of 

mandamus by the Veterans Court for an abuse of discretion. Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy 

and should not be issued unless the petitioner has no 

other adequate alternative means to attain the desired 

relief and petitioner has established a clear and undisputable right to relief. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for 

D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). 

The Veterans Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mr. Stephens failed to satisfy the exacting 

standard for mandamus relief. The Veterans Court was 

reasonable in concluding that any delay in the DVA’s 

issuance of a statement of the case was not so unreasonable that it was equivalent to an arbitrary refusal by the 

DVA to act. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Case: 12-7157 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 12/26/2012
3 WILLIE STEPHENS v. SHINSEKI

(1) The judgment of the Veterans Court is summarily 

affirmed. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s26 

Case: 12-7157 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 12/26/2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEARS ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30,
1998 AND 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                                        <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               YEAR               YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-1998         SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1998         SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              727               4,780
<SECURITIES>                                          0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3,891               1,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                       1,645               1,819
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 37,872               8,837
<PP&E>                                           16,056              14,215
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,070                 596
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   68,061              26,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29,552              12,308
<BONDS>                                          14,077               3,389
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                           1                   1
<COMMON>                                             11                   9
<OTHER-SE>                                       14,734               6,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     68,061              26,590
<SALES>                                           3,569                 356
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5,617                 356
<CGS>                                             9,216               4,805
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9,216               4,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,579               2,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,745               1,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (11,308)            (10,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (11,308)            (10,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0                   0
<CHANGES>                                             0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (11,308)            (10,498)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.17)              (1.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (1.17)              (1.32)



</TABLE>
# * 602-685-4000 fax: 602-685-4350 410 North 44th Street Suite 700 Phoenix, Arizona 85008 www.mesa-air.com December 6, 2013

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Ave., SW Room 924A Washington, DC 20591 

### Re: Mesa Airlines, Inc. Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty (2011SW070031) Dear Sir/Madam: 

# RECEIVED DEC -9 2013 HEARING DOCKET

Pursuant to 14 CFR Sec. 13.16(f), please accept this letter as Mesa Airlines, Inc.'s request for a formal hearing in the above-referenced case. A Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty ("FNPCP") has beenissued in which a $11,000 penaltyhas beenassessed against Mesa Airlines, Inc. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (602) 685-4051. Thank you. Sincerely,

# 1r~~ Brian S. Gillman Exec. VP & General Counsel :llf

cc: Aunjenet Chennault, Attorney Office ofRegional Counsel, ASW-7 Federal Aviation Administration 2601 MeachamBlvd. FortWorth, TX 76137
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT


         THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, made this 2nd day of February,
1998, by and between Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc., a North Carolina
corporation ("PPD") and Fred B. Davenport, Jr. ("Employee"), amends that certain
Employment Agreement dated September 26, 1996 between PPD and Employee (the
"Employment Agreement").

         WHEREAS, concurrent with the execution of this Amendment Employee has
entered into a Severance Agreement with the Company that provides for benefits
similar to those provided to Employee under Section 20 of the Employment
Agreement;

         WHEREAS, Employee is required to agree to enter into this Amendment
deleting the provisions of Section 20 of the Employment Agreement in order to
receive the benefits provided by the Severance Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein
contained, the parties hereby agree that Section 20 of the Employment Agreement
is deleted effective the date hereof.

         The Employment Agreement, as amended herein, shall continue in full
force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the date first hereinabove set forth.

                                            PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT
                                            DEVELOPMENT, INC.


                                            By: /s/ Fredric N. Eshelman
                                               ------------------------------
                                            Name: Fredric N. Eshelman
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                            /s/ Fred B. Davenport, Jr.
                                            ---------------------------(SEAL)
                                            Fred B. Davenport, Jr.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

May 3, 2022

Before

DANIEL A. MANION

, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN

, Circuit Judge

CANDACE JACKSON

- AKIWUMI

, Circuit Judge

No. 21-1804

OLAWOLE OLUWAJANA

, Petitioner

,

v

.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States

, Respondent

. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

No. A061-591-186

O R D E R

Respondent filed a n unopposed construed petition for panel rehearing on April
11, 2022 . All members of the original panel have voted to deny rehearing and to issue an

amended opinion. The court’s opinion dated March 9, 2022, is amended by the attached opin ion, which includes changes to page s 5 through 7

.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED.