alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries**

 

 

EXHIBIT 32.2

**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the six-month period ended June 30, 2009 (this “report”), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the “registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies 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, as amended, and

2. The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

|   | /s/ James R. Segreto                    James R. Segreto                    Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and                    Secretary                    August 14, 2009 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

Ex-4

----
ex10-04.htm




Exhibit 10.04

















 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 



5
#### C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant v. ARRIS GROUP, INC., Cox Communications, Inc., Appellees

2016-2561

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

August 11, 2017

Walter E. Hanley, Jr., Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Armin Ghiam, Sheila Mortazavi.

Andrew Ryan Sommer, Winston *&*Strawn LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Appellee ARRIS Group, Inc. also represented by Eric M. Goldstein; Jonathan E. Retsky, Chicago, IL.

Mitchell G. Stockwell, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, for appellee Cox Communications, Inc. Also represented by Richard W. Gold-stucker, Michael Turton.

(Wallach, Chen, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### Jared P. Micks, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant. Samuel D. Wilde, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Samuel D. Wilde, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. John D. Hoyt Chamberlain, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant.

(No. 2).

*A. P. Laming*for the appellant.

*George W. Oothrcm*for the respondents.

These four cases present the same questions and were decided upon authority of *Fisher*v. *N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co.*(46 N. Y., 644).

Agree to affirm, for one penalty, and excess of fare, and reverse as to residue without costs in this court.

Judgment accordingly.
#### Wellington Tower Associates, L.P., Appellant, v New York First Avenue CVS, Inc., Respondent, et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 859]

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered February 3, 2003, which reversed the judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Cynthia Kern, J.), entered June 3, 2002, awarding money and possession to petitioner landlord for respondent tenant’s nonpayment of additional rent, and held that tenant is entitled to the benefit of landlord’s RPTL 421-a tax exemption in the determination of its additional rent obligation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*461The subject paragraph, entitled “Tenant’s Tax Payment,” does not evince an unequivocal intent that tenant’s additional rent obligation for real estate taxes is to include real estate taxes that are refunded to or otherwise not actually paid by landlord due to an RPTL 421-a abatement. Such an intent is necessary since, as Appellate Term explained, landlord would “reap a windfall” were it permitted to recover additional rent for taxes it does not actually pay *(S.B.S. Assoc. v Weissman-Heller, Inc.,*190 AD2d 529 [1993], citing *Fairfax Co. v Whelan Drug Co.,*105 AD2d 647 [1984]; *see also Rudd v 176 W. 87th St. Owners Corp.,*283 AD2d 202 [2001]; *1100 Ave. of Ams. Assoc. v Bryant Imports,*234 AD2d 101 [1996]). We reject landlord’s argument that such an intent is evinced by the paragraph’s definition of taxes as, inter alia, all real estate taxes or other governmental levies assessed, levied or imposed on the building or land “without reduction for any abatement.” Read as a whole, the paragraph requires tenant to pay the additional rent, or a reasonable estimate thereof, without reduction for any abatements, at least 30 days in advance of landlord’s obligation to pay real estate taxes, and requires landlord thereafter to make adjustments in favor of tenant for any inaccuracies in its estimate or refunds it receives. The result is that ultimately tenant is to be credited for its proportionate share of any abatements obtained by landlord. We have considered and rejected landlord’s other arguments. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ. *[See*2003 NY Slip Op 50558(11).]
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9631-9632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03616]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) 
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Drug Testing Advisory 
Board (DTAB) will convene via web conference on March 9, 2022, from 
10:00 a.m. ET to 1:00 p.m. ET.
    The board will meet in open-session on March 9, 2022, from 10:00 
a.m. ET to 1:00 p.m. ET, to discuss the Mandatory Guidelines for 
Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs with updates from the 
Department of Transportation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 
Food and Drug

[[Page 9632]]

Administration. Other discussion topics include a presentation on the 
Drug-Free Workplace Program Summit meeting scheduled for May, 2022, 
NLCP drug testing results, and synthetic urines and adulteration.
    Meeting registration information can be completed at http://snacregister.samhsa.gov/MeetingList.aspx. Web conference and call 
information will be sent after completing registration. Meeting 
information and a roster of DTAB members may be obtained by accessing 
the SAMHSA Advisory Committees website, https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/meetings or by contacting the Designated Federal 
Officer, Lisa S. Davis, M.S.
    Committee Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Drug Testing 
Advisory Board.
    Dates/Time/Type: March 9, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.: OPEN.
    Place: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
    Contact: Lisa S. Davis, M.S., Social Science Analyst, Center for 
Substance Abuse Prevention, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 
20857, Telephone: (240) 276-1440, Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca86a3b9abe48eabbca3b98ab9aba7a2b9abe4a2a2b9e4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c884a1bba9e68ca9bea1bb88bba9a5a0bba9e6a0a0bbe6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.

Anastasia Marie Donovan,
Public Health Advisor, Division of Workplace Programs.
[FR Doc. 2022-03616 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Seaion 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes that— 

(a) no person who holds a private pitot cenifioate may act as a pilot in oommand of an 

aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire: nor may that person, 

for eompensation or hire, act as pitot in oommand of an aircraft. 

(b)a private pilot may. for compensation or hire, act as pilot in oommand of an aircraft 

in connection with any business or empbyment'rf: 

(1)The flight is only incidental to that business or employment: and 

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensatfon or 

hire. 

Sm<t~ tve tvrl! no+ ne crtnyrng any passcrrrn7crs or prop:rr,y ror compons•vron aro wo1 a p: rv:rto 

1!dtx ean c,7n1V nalt tr;n o• prF' Pft" 

Section 91.7(a) prescribes that no person may operate a civit airoraft unless it is in an 

airworthy oondiUon. 

Section 91.7(b) prescribes that the pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for 

determining whether that aircraft is in oonditi0n for Safe flight and that the PIC shall 

discontinue the flight when un airworthy meehanical, eleottical, or structural oonditions occur. 

3ection 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S: registered clvit aireraft uniess there is avaftable 

in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flfght Manual, approved manual 

material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof. 

Tfrere i.ti e:<r ! AA:rPl:, crr>d n:.rnu.a rr.r rhr !'hanram >..• ;.^..r• fu'r,ri,mn:i 

rhnt wo fuo) wtl/ sutlico Flow hhnn• Vurck sfarl cher.k kyf. n.ser manua/ rmd adwux.•nd chnak li::t 

rn achlrhun wy hBvAr>repnrra7 n;rr own company opofatrng manu;tl 1tnJ turarly we have cieatevr a 

Q•iork lr,:( ro nnsllre a sAfe o{rt•rBhUn 

Sec4ion 91.1 p3(b) prescribes that a pilot shall for any flight, become familiar with runway 

lengths at airports of inlended use, and takeoff and larxiing distance information. 

T+ro Phnn!om-: doe:r nof vse anY wnway 67r Sakr• oH arro th,v rnmpony polrar rs thaf ttre 

....... .,..,.:.,. ,„r. 

., ~ .•.. ~ r... ~•rr_ a: ~ rr, c;:• ~uFU7r7. 

Section 91.1 09(a) preseribes, in perUnent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

(except a manned free balkwn) that is being used for flight instruction unless lhat aireraft has 

fully functioning dual conbols. 

The Phamom 2 does rxd Irdve tival ttight rnntrr•,Is arxf all instnrction rs via tlre one 

Xruoller. Wr. Iherelnru roquost an exemption Irom this reqtnrerrterrt 

x
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Arthur RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-31004 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Elizabeth Cary Dougherty, Esq., Dougherty Law Firm, L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James Arthur Russell appeals the within-guidelines sentence of 12 months in prison imposed following his guilty plea to assault. Russell argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. More specifically, he contends that his sentence is excessive because the district court failed to take into account certain mental health conditions existing at the time of the assault and the possibility that the Bureau of Prisons would not give him the proper credit for the time that he had already served for the assault.

Because Russell did not object to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence in the district court, our review is limited to plain error. *See United States v. Peltier,*505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To show plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. *Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Russell’s sentence falls within the properly-calculated guidelines range, and it is thus afforded a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. *United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

Russell has not shown that his sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or reflects a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. *See Cooks,*589 F.3d at 186. His mere disagreement with the district court’s determination that a 12-month sentence is appropriate is insufficient to overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded to his sentence. *313
      *See United States v. Alvarado,*691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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.
Exhibit 21.1Subsidiaries of Internet Capital Group, Inc.     Name Jurisdiction of IncorporationInternet Capital Group Operations, Inc. DelawareICG Holdings, Inc. Delaware2008 Internet Capital LP1 DelawareAnthem Ventures Fund, L.P. DelawareBlackboard, Inc. DelawareCaptive Capital Corporation (fka eMarket Capital, Inc.) DelawareChannel Intelligence, Inc. DelawareCreditex Group Inc. DelawareEmptoris, Inc. DelawareEntegrity Solutions Corporation CaliforniaFreeborders, Inc. DelawareGoIndustry plc GermanyICG Commerce Holdings, Inc. DelawareICG Commerce, Inc. PennsylvaniaICG Commerce India Private Limited IndiaICG Commerce Investments, LLC DelawareICG Commerce International, LLC DelawareICG Commerce Mexico I, LLC DelawareICG Commerce Mexico II, LLC DelawareICG Commerce UK Limited United KingdomICG Commerce Germany GmbH GermanyICG Commerce Latin America, S. de. R.L., de C.V. MexicoICG Commerce Services, S. de. R.L. de C.V. MexicoICG Patent, Inc. DelawareInvestor Force Holdings, Inc. DelawareInvestor Force, Inc. DelawareInvestor Force Securities, Inc. DelawareJamcracker, Inc. DelawareLGO Corporation (fka Logistics.com, Inc.) DelawareMetastorm Inc. MarylandOneCoast Network Holdings, Inc. (fka USgift Corporation) GeorgiaStarCite LLC DelawareTibersoft Corporation MassachusettsVcommerce Corporation DelawareWhiteFence, Inc. DelawareUnless otherwise provided, each of the subsidiaries named above do business under the same name. 1 Formed on February 12, 2008.
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
  **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of MDU Communications International, Inc.
        (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2005 (the “Report”), I,
        Carmen Ragusa, Jr., Vice President of Finance of the Company, hereby certify
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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
        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.
 
 
 /s/  CARMEN
                  RAGUSA, JR.Carmen
                  Ragusa, Jr.*Vice
                  President of Finance*MDU
                  Communications International, Inc.December
                  22, 2005Totowa,
                  New Jersey
 
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        and will be retained by MDU Communications International, Inc. and furnished
        to
        the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2**  **054**

ERMA FRAZIER , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.

ANGELA REPASS; MELISSA SMITH; REGINA KELLY; KAROL SEILER; DAVID REPASS; SALVATION ARMY DHQ; REGINA DAVIS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv
- 03356

- JMC )

Submitted : November 21 , 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Erma Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Winters, JOAN ELIZABETH WINTERS LAW OFFICES, Chester, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Un published opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Erma Frazier appeals the district court ’ s order entering judgment in favor of the remaining Appellees in
accordance with the ju ry’s verdict on Frazier’s claim of
retaliation and dir ecting judgment in favor of the Appellees on
Frazier’s claims of race and age discrimination . We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible err or. Accordingly,
we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Frazier’s
motion to assign counse l. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The State v. Kreiger et al.

1. Criminal Evidence: two on trial: declarations op one. Wkera K. and B. were together on trial for larceny, the declarations of K., made in a conversation with the witness, implicating both himself and B. in the crime, were admissible as against himself, but not as against B., and the court should have excluded so much of the evidence as related to B., or, if that could not have been done without excluding the evidence entirely, the jury should have been told at the time, and» also in the written charge, not to consider the evidence as against B.

*Appeal from Iowa District Ooxirt.*

Friday, March 4.

Indictment charging the defendants, Levi Kreiger and Andrew A. Beal, with the larceny of “ one Defiance corn plow,” and other property. Trial by jury. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant Beal appeals.

*J. T. Deem,*for appellant.

*A. J. Baher, Attorney-general,*for the State.

Seevers, J.

This cause has been submitted on a transcript, without argument. We have examined the whole record, and find, among the grounds upon which a new trial was asked by appellant, the following: “The court erred in admitting, as against the defendant, that part of witness Wilson’s testimony of his conversation with defendant Kreiger which related to this defendant.” It appears from the record that the witness was asked to state a conversation he had had with Kreiger in relation to the property charged to have been stolen, whereupon counsel for the appellant objected to any declaration or statement Kreiger may have made in relation tci the appellant’s connection with the larceny. The 'objection was overruled, and thereupon the witness stated what Kreiger stated to him, and such evidence tended strongly to show that the appellant stole or aided in stealing the property described in the indict.men't. Of course, the *41statements of Kreiger were competent evidence against himself, but not against the appellant; and • the court should either liave excluded so much of the evidence as related to the appellant, or, if this could not have been done without excluding the evidence entirely, then the court should at the time have said to the jury that they were not to consider the statements of Kreiger in relation to the appellant, and also have so said to them in the written charge. This the court failed to do. We think it quite clear that the court erred in admitting the evidence above referred to, for tlie reason, as we understand tlie record, that the witness could have stated what Kreiger said, so far as the same related to himself, without any reference to what he said in relation to the appellant. It will not even be claimed that the appellant was bound, or should be in any respect prejudiced, by the statements made by Kreiger. Such evidence is purely hearsay, and its admission cannot be justified.

Upon the ground above stated, the court should have granted a new trial.

Reversed.
Exhibit 32.1



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

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of BellaVista Capital,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Michael Rider, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that:

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

2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results of  operations  of  the
     Corporation.


/s/ MICHAEL RIDER

Michael Rider, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of BellaVista
Capital, Inc.
January 13, 2006
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2012
(the Report), I, Dan Amadori, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
      of the Company.

|Date: February 25, 2013 | /s/ Dan
      Amadori        
|----------------------- | -----------------------------
|                        | Dan Amadori                  
|                        | Chief Financial Officer      
|                        | (Principal financial officer)

---