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





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the Annual Report of ERHC Energy Inc., a Colorado corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Sylvan Odobulu,
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:





(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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.







/s/    Sylvan
      OdobuluSylvan
      Odobulu
              Principal
      Accounting Officer
              December
      11, 2009







[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
ERHC Energy Inc. and will be retained by ERHC Energy Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1152 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1152

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to grants for buses 
              and bus facilities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 2021

  Mr. Lynch introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to grants for buses 
              and bus facilities, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Green Buses for Every Community 
Act''.

SEC. 2. LOW INCOME COMMUNITY GRANTS.

    Section 5339(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(H) the term `low-income community' means any 
                population census tract if--
                            ``(i) the poverty rate for such tract is at 
                        least 20 percent; or
                            ``(ii) in the case of a tract--
                                    ``(I) not located within a 
                                metropolitan area, the median family 
                                income for such tract does not exceed 
                                80 percent of statewide median family 
                                income; or
                                    ``(II) located within a 
                                metropolitan area, the median family 
                                income for such tract does not exceed 
                                80 percent of the greater statewide 
                                median family income or the 
                                metropolitan area median family 
                                income.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) Low and moderate community grants.--Not less than 10 
        percent of the amounts made available under this subsection in 
        a fiscal year shall be distributed to projects serving 
        predominantly low-income communities.''.
                                 <all>
```
AAM-11-322-E June 1, 2011

Exemption No. 10277 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0538

Ms. Melissa Hughes Human Resource Manager/Drug-Alcohol Program Manager Fargo Jet Center, Inc.

3802 20 th Street, North Fargo, ND 58102

Dear Ms. Hughes:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 18, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Fargo Jet Center, Inc. (Fargo Jet Cent er), for an exemption from part 40 and part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Fargo Jet Center, which is operating under separate parts of the regulation, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

Although you have also requested relief from part 40, the FAA finds that it is not necessary.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Fargo Jet Center.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Fargo Jet Center, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Fargo Jet Center, which is operating under separate parts of the regulation, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Fargo Jet Center are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Fargo Jet Center part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
#### Alton George LEWIS, AKA Anthony Chattman, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72817

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

Alton George Lewis, Pro Se

Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, *749Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Alton George Lewis, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Lewis references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. *See Fisher v.*INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the past harm Lewis suffered from a gang in Jamaica did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats “constitute[d] harassment rather than persecution.”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Lewis’s fear of future harm from the gang he previously encountered is not objectively reasonable. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear not objectively reasonable where the possibility of future harm was too speculative). Thus, Lewis’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial, evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lewis did not show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Jamaican government. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Addendum to Employment Offer Letter



 Exhibit 10.8 
 November 4, 2005 
 Howard Foyt, M.D., Ph.D. 
 1205
Sierra Linda Drive 
 Escondido, CA 92025 
 Dear Howard:

 The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an addendum to the terms set forth in your offer letter dated September 15, 2005. In addition to
the offer of employment with the same benefits and policy guidelines set forth in your original offer letter, the following terms will be added. Subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, you will be granted options to purchase an additional
8,196 shares of Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc. common stock which will have an exercise price of the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date of the grant. The option will be granted pursuant to the terms of a separate stock
option agreement and the terms of the Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc. employee stock plan. This will bring your total stock options to 62,806. 
 In addition to
your base salary, as an Officer of the Company, you will be eligible to earn an annual discretionary performance bonus (the “Bonus”). Your target Bonus will be up to 25% of your annual base salary, guaranteed for the first year of
employment. Thereafter, your target Bonus will be up to 25% of your annual base salary, assuming 100% attainment of individual and company goals. You must be employed on the date the Bonus is awarded to earn any portion of the Bonus. The
determinations of the Company’s Board of Directors with respect to your Bonus will be final and binding. The Bonus program is subject to change or suspension at the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors. 
 You will be expected to execute and deliver a Severance Agreement with Metabasis consistent with the employment agreements that have been executed with the other
officers. The agreement will include accelerated vesting, severance pay and benefits upon termination without cause or a significant change in role/responsibilities following a merger or acquisition that results in a change in control. In addition,
if you are terminated without cause in the absence of a change in control, you will receive a severance package that will include severance pay and accelerated vesting equal to one year of your then current option grant, if any. This agreement is
attached to this letter and is incorporated by reference herein. 
 To formally record your acknowledgement of this addendum, please sign below and return
one original of this letter to me as soon as possible. 
 Sincerely, 
  

					
			
	/s/ MARK ERION	 		 	 
	Mark Erion, Ph.D.	 		 	 
	Executive Vice President, Research and Development	 		 	 
			
	/s/ HOWARD FOYT 	 		 	November 7, 2005
	Howard Foyt, M.D., Ph.D.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

STEPHANIE A. OFOE, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-232 

 Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

 v. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed her Complaint (ECF 

No. 1) on March 19, 2018, against Defendant Department of Defense. On July 10, 2018, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 

timely effect service over Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF 

No. 4.) As the Court explained in the July 10 Show Cause Order, pursuant to Rule 4(m): 

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—

on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action 

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 

specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must 

extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service. 
2 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those 

specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with 

supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 

to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further 

evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

 /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

 CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Material Contract



 Exhibit 4(a)(ii) 
  

					
	Smith & Nephew plc	  		  	
	15 Adam Street	  	T 44 (0) 207 401 7646	  	
	London WC2N 6LA	  	F 44 (0) 207 930 3353	  	
	England	  	www.smith-nephew.com	  	

  

			
	Royal Bank of Scotland plc	  	
	Loans Administration	  	
	Corporate Agency Team	  	
	2 1/2 Devonshire Square	  	
	London EC2M 4BB	  	9 May 2008

 For the attention of: Loans Administration/LAU 
 Dear Sirs 
 SMITH & NEPHEW PLC US$2,500,000,000 Facility Agreement 
 dated 29 May 2007 (the “Agreement”) 
  

	1.	We refer to the Agreement. This is a Term Out Notice, given with effect on 9 May 2008. The relevant Term Out Date is 14 May 2008. 

  

	2.	Terms defined in the Agreement have the same meaning in this Term Out Notice unless given a different meaning in this Term Out Notice. 

  

	3.	We elect to exercise the Term Out Option pursuant to Clause 7.2 (Term Out Option) of the Agreement in relation to the following Loans: 

  

									
	 	  	Currency	  	 Amount
	  	 Borrower
	  	Initial
Maturity Date
	 a)
	  	USD	  	140,000,000 (One Hundred and Forty Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	20 May 2008
	 b)
	  	USD	  	25,000,000 (Twenty Five Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	20 May 2008
	 c)
	  	GBP	  	50,000,000 (Fifty Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	27 May 2008
	 d)
	  	GBP	  	50,000,000 (Fifty Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	27 May 2008
	 e)
	  	GBP	  	50,000,000 (Fifty Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	27 May 2008
	 f)
	  	GBP	  	47,902,481 (Forty Seven Million, Nine Hundred & Two Thousand, Four Hundred & Eighty One)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	27 May 2008
	 g)
	  	CHF	  	440,000,000 (Four Hundred and Forty Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	20 May 2008

  

	4.	We request that the above Loans be converted into Term Loans on the following terms: 

  

									
	 	  	 Currency
	  	 Amount
	  	 Borrower
	  	 Extended
Maturity Date

	 a)
	  	USD	  	140,000,000 (One Hundred and Forty Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	29 May 2012
	 b)
	  	USD	  	25,000,000 (Twenty Five Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	29 May 2012
	 c)
	  	GBP	  	50,000,000 (Fifty Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	29 May 2012
	 d)
	  	GBP	  	50,000,000 (Fifty Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	29 May 2012
	 e)
	  	GBP	  	50,000,000 (Fifty Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	29 May 2012
	 f)
	  	GBP	  	47,902,481 (Forty Seven Million, Nine Hundred & Two Thousand, Four Hundred & Eighty One)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	29 May 2012
	 g)
	  	CHF	  	440,000,000 (Four Hundred and Forty Million)	  	Smith & Nephew plc	  	29 May 2012









	5.	We confirm that: 

  

	 	a)	The Repeating Representations are correct on the date of the Term Out Notice as if made with reference to the facts and circumstances now prevailing; and 


 

	 	b)	No Default has occurred which is outstanding as at the date of this Term Out Notice. 

  

	6.	This Term Out Notice is irrevocable. 

 For and on behalf of

 Smith & Nephew plc 
 and
as agent for Smith & Nephew Deutschland (Holdings) GmbH 
  

									
	By:	 	 /s/    Adrian Hennah
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/    Paul Chambers

	Name:	 	Mr Adrian Hennah	 		 	Name:	 	Mr Paul R Chambers
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer	 		 	Title:	 	Company Secretary
Willy Fils MESIDOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-168

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Brittany N. O'Neil, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD BARROW,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:18-cv-674

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

TOBY HOLTON, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On or before October 2, 2019, the parties are ORDERED to submit an informal status 

report regarding their recent. The status report should be submitted to the Court at 

jolson_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 30, 2019 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:18-cv-00674-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 34 Filed: 09/30/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 169
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                       186
<INVENTORY>                                      7,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,547
<PP&E>                                          38,778
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,033
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                         819
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,508
<SALES>                                         34,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,251
<CGS>                                           27,896
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,016
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,580
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    759
<INCOME-TAX>                                       336
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                423
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       423
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
Alejandro and Elizabeth RODRIGUEZ, Appellants, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D16-1126

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.