alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 06 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (SUBSECTION (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
                                      CODE)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350 , chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Subjex Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (the
"Company"), does certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on
Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that: (1) the 10-QSB
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the 10-QSB
Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of the Company.

                               By  /s/ Andrew Hyder

                               Andrew Hyder, CEO (acting CFO)
                               November 8, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, FORT 

PITT LODGE NO. 1,

Petitioner

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 129 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50635

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUCIO SANCHEZ-MENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-125-1-AML

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Lucio SanchezMendez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Railroad Retirement Board

# TIME AND DATE: 

10:00 a.m., January 19, 2022.

# PLACE: 

                        Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must submit a written request at least 24 hours prior to the meeting to receive dial-in information. All requests must be sent to                         *SecretarytotheBoard@rrb.gov.*

# STATUS: 

This meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

(1) SCOTUS Update

(2) Office of Legislative Affairs Update

(3) Re-Entry Update

(4) Programs Update

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, (312) 751-4920.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: January 7, 2022.

Stephanie Hillyard,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 2022-00412 Filed 1-7-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
#### Rosemarie A. Corbett, Plaintiff, v Walter Zedayko, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Saratoga County,

April 26, 1988

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Buchyn, O’Hare & Werner (William M. O’Hare*of counsel), for defendant. *Chauvin & Weliczka (Robert J. Chauvin*of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Loren N. Brown, J.

By notice of motion and supporting papers, the defendant moves for an order permitting renewal of his prior motion for summary judgment denied by a decision of this court, dated October 14, 1987. No order was submitted on that motion prior to that submitted with the plaintiff’s opposition to this motion.

In support of this motion, the defendant has, except for one new issue, relied upon the same arguments and facts pre*185sented and rejected on the prior motion. The court once again rejects those contentions.

The additional ground for relief is based upon section 202.48 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR), which requires the submission of a proposed order or judgment "within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted.” Failure to make a timely submission "shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown.” (22 NYCRR 202.48 [b].) Because the order denying summary judgment to the defendant was not submitted by the plaintiff as prevailing party within the period allowed, the defendant contends that the action must be deemed abandoned. The court does not agree.

The language of section 202.48, though not without ambiguity, provides for abandonment of the action or motion depending upon the procedure then before the court. Had the court’s decision required a judgment, and it was not forthcoming, the action would be deemed abandoned. Failure to submit a judgment demonstrates that the prevailing party no longer desires the relief originally sought. When, as in the case at bar, the court’s decision requires an interim order, the motion which gave rise to the decision and order may be deemed abandoned.* Failure to submit such an order, perhaps addressing a minor issue, cannot justify dismissal of the entire action based upon abandonment.

Accordingly, the motion is, in all respects, denied.

*

 The rule as it meshes with actual practice creates a procedural pitfall for the movant. The prevailing party on a motion, which customarily submits a proposed order, may not feel any sense of urgency in submitting an order on a motion brought by the opposing party. The abandonment of the motion holds no sting for the nonmoving prevailing party.
exv10w15






Exhibit 10.15








November 9, 2009




CONFIDENTIAL MEMO




Mr. Monty Vogler

Bluff Creek Petroleum, LLC

4625 North 1st Street

Abilene, Texas 79603




Re:      Purchase Offer — Letter of Intent Amended Closing Date




Dear Mr. Vogler,



This letter shall confirm our verbal agreement regarding the amended closing date for
the NYTEX Petroleum, Inc. (“NYTEX”) Purchase Offer — Letter of Intent (“LOI”), signed
by NYTEX and Bluff Creek Petroleum, LLC on September 15, 2009.



Pursuant to the LOI, the closing date was to occur on or before 90 days from the
signing and acceptance of the LOI. NYTEX and Bluff Creek Petroleum, LLC agree to amend
the LOI closing date to December 22, 2009.



If you agree to the LOI amended closing date please so indicate by signing in the
space provided below.



Respectfully
submitted,




	 	 	 
	/s/ Michael Galvis

	 	 
	 	 	 
	Michael Galvis
	 	 
	President and CEO
	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:

	 	/s/ Monty Vogler
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Monty Vogler, Bluff Creek Petroleum LLC	 	 






Date: November 10th, 2009








	Dallas ofHcu: 1222’’ Merit Drlvc\JiuUo 185(1 . Dallas, Texas T3J51 • Phom.-:
fi“J-770’47()0 • l;«x: 972-770-4701
: N.V. Mcruinlik- lildi;. • Out- Xurlli lintl Avc. Sulir nfll> X.V., .N.V. I02S2 • I’honu:
2 l2-76(5-599.i • Fax: 2\ 2’7fi(i-2-sa
Exhibit 99.1

Certification
of Chief Executive Officer underSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of OSullivan Industries, Inc.
for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in such quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of OSullivan Industries, Inc.

|Date: | September 30, 2002 |  | /s/ Richard D. Davidson
|----- | ------------------ |  | -----------------------
|      |                    |  |                        
|      |                    |  | Richard D. Davidson    
|      |                    |  | President and          
|      |                    |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OSullivan Industries, Inc.
and will be retained by OSullivan Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
#### Mikel Wayne HOUSTON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 79-55

582 S.W. 2d 958

Opinion delivered July 2, 1979

(Division I)

*258
      *John W. Achor,*Public Defender, by: *James Phillips,*Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

*Steve Clark,*Atty. Gen., by: *Robert J. DeGostin, Jr.,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

Mikel Wayne Houston was convicted of rape by forcible compulsion in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1803 (Repl. 1977) and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.

On appeal his counsel alleges only one error: the trial court should have allowed the introduction of evidence regarding the victim’s reputation and prior sexual conduct. The trial judge properly excluded the evidence and we affirm the judgment.

Houston, age 25, was charged with raping a 16 year old girl. The victim testified that she and Houston had a date, drove to a secluded place and Houston pulled a gun on her, forcing her to have sexual intercourse. Houston testified she consented.

Houston made a pre-trial motion requesting permission to use evidence about the victim’s reputation and prior sexual conduct.

An in camera hearing was held and testimony of witnesses recorded as provided for in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-*2591810.2 (Repl. 1977). At the private hearing, one witness said he had “messed around” with the victim; another said that he had had sexual intercourse once with the victim; testimony was offered that the victim “hung around clubs and bars.” The victim testified, and she essentially disputed all the unfavorable testimony.

The appellant argues that evidence should have been admitted because it was relevant and to impeach the victim’s credibility since she denied the essence of the proffered testimony. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1810.1 (Repl. 1977) specifically prohibits the introduction of such testimony and further states such evidence:

> ... is not admissible by the defendant, either through direct examination of any defense witness or through cross-examination of the victim or other prosecution witness, to attack the credibility of the victim, to prove consent or any other defense, or for any other purpose.

The statute, then, clearly prohibits the use of such evidence for the reasons argued by Houston. The trial court ruled the evidence was not relevant and we cannot say that decision was clearly erroneous.

Houston was permitted to file his own separate *pro se*brief in this case. He makes essentially the same arguments as his counsel. However, he also makes allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. We will not consider that issue because it was not raised at the trial level. *Hilliard*v. *Stale,*259 Ark. 81, 531 S.W. 2d 463 (1976).

However, relief under rule 37, Rules of Criminal Procedure, is not precluded.

Affirmed.

We agree. Harris, C.J. and George Rose Smith and Byrd, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           1-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          DEC-17-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,672
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,672
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.001)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11.1

                          MOLECULAR DEVICES CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)





PRIMARY                                                 Years Ended December 31,
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        1996     1995     1994
                                                        ----     ----     ----
Weighted average common shares outstanding for
   the period                                            8,828    7,031    2,433
Common equivalent shares pursuant to Staff
   Accounting Bulletin Nos. 64 & 83                       --        207      276
Common equivalent shares assuming conversion of
   preferred stock                                        --       --      4,487
Common equivalent shares assuming exercise of
   stock options under the treasury stock method           696      299      390
                                                        ------   ------   ------

Shares used in per share calculation                     9,524    7,537    7,586
                                                        ======   ======   ======

Net income                                              $2,252   $4,059   $1,519
                                                        ======   ======   ======

Net income per share                                    $ 0.24   $ 0.54   $ 0.20
                                                        ======   ======   ======

FULLY DILUTED                                           Years Ended December 31,
                                                        ------------------------
                                                         1996    1995    1994
                                                         ----    ----    ----
Weighted average common shares outstanding for
   the period                                            8,828    7,031    2,433
Common equivalent shares pursuant to Staff
   Accounting Bulletin Nos. 64 & 83                       --        207      276
Common equivalent shares assuming conversion of
   preferred stock                                        --       --      4,487
Common equivalent shares assuming exercise of
   stock options under the treasury stock method           777      613      390
                                                        ------   ------   ------

Shares used in per share calculation                     9,605    7,851    7,586
                                                        ======   ======   ======

Net income                                              $2,252   $4,059   $1,519
                                                        ======   ======   ======

Net income per share                                    $ 0.23   $ 0.52   $ 0.20
                                                        ======   ======   ======
#### Carroll v General Motors Corporation,

No. 90798;

Court of Appeals No. 132265.
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 USA Video Interactive Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anton J. Drescher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



1.

this report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or  15(d) of the 1934 Act, and



2.

the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the registrant's financial condition and results of  operations of the registrant.



By: /s/ Anton J. Drescher

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

Name: Anton J. Drescher

Title: Secretary and Chief Financial Officer

Date:November 13th, 2007
# Publicatieblad C 212A/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0995 |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 212A |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 62e jaargang24 juni 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0995

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 212A

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

62e jaargang24 juni 2019

---

| Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- |
| | Rectificaties |
| 2019/C 212 A/01 | Rectificatie van de bekendmaking van een vacature voor de functie van uitvoerend directeur van het Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau (EMA) — Amsterdam (Tijdelijk functionaris — rang AD 14) — COM/2019/20037 ( PB C 165 A van 14.5.2019 ) | 1 |

Inhoud

Bladzijde

Rectificaties

2019/C 212 A/01

Rectificatie van de bekendmaking van een vacature voor de functie van uitvoerend directeur van het Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau (EMA) — Amsterdam (Tijdelijk functionaris — rang AD 14) — COM/2019/20037 ( PB C 165 A van 14.5.2019 )

1

---

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

Rectificaties

| 24.6.2019 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | CA 212/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

CA 212/1

---

Rectificatie van de bekendmaking van een vacature voor de functie van uitvoerend directeur van het Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau (EMA) — Amsterdam (Tijdelijk functionaris — rang AD 14) — COM/2019/20037

(
  Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie C 165 A van 14 mei 2019
  )

(2019/C 212 A/01)

Bladzijde 6, „Uiterste datum voor het indienen van een sollicitatie”:

in plaats van:

„De inschrijving wordt afgesloten op 13 juni 2019 om 12.00 uur ‘s middags, Brusselse tijd. Na dit tijdstip is inschrijven niet meer mogelijk.”,

lezen:

lezen

„De inschrijving wordt afgesloten op 4 juli 2019 om 12.00 uur ‘s middags, Brusselse tijd. Na dit tijdstip is inschrijven niet meer mogelijk.”.

---
**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**

Inconnection with the yearly report of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (“PPD”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Linda Baddour, Chief Financial Officer of PPD, hereby certify pursuant 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 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PPD as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report. 

Date: February 26, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4523 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4523

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on 
    contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic 
    corporations whose shareholders include any foreign principals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2010

Mr. Perriello introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on 
    contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic 
    corporations whose shareholders include any foreign principals.

    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 ``Save Our Democracy From Foreign 
Influence Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF BAN ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES BY FOREIGN 
              NATIONALS TO DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS WITH FOREIGN 
              SHAREHOLDERS.

    Section 319(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
U.S.C. 441e(b)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) a corporation (other than a foreign principal, as so 
        defined) whose shareholders include one or more foreign 
        principals.''.
                                 <all>
```
### Structure of **9 -**  **Octadecen -**  **1 -**  **amine,hydrochloride (1:1), (9Z) -** 

**CA S No.:41130**  **- 29**  **- 4**  Synonyms : 9 - Octadecen - 1 - amine,hydrochloride, (9Z) - (9CI); 9 - Octadecen - 1 - amine,

hydrochloride, (Z) - ;Oleylamine hydrochloride Mo lecular Formula : C18H37 N . Cl H SM ILES : CCCCCCCCC=CCCCCCCCCN(CL) Mo lecular W eight : 303.95402

Alternate structure as depicted in CAS

- STN