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**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)                         The accompanying QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31,2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii)                      The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  May 5, 2010 | /s/  Todd Newton                                   |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Todd  Newton                                       |
|                    | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of the written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will beretained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
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.
 Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration
 AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
 ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment.
 SUMMARY: The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
[2/12/2022 through 2/25/2022]
Firm name
Firm address
Date
                             accepted for 
                             investigation
Product(s)Pinnacle Technology Group, Inc
7076 Schnipke Drive, Ottawa Lake, MI 49267
2/14/2022
The firm manufactures printed circuit boards.New England Fabricated Metals, Inc
101 Crawford Street, Leominster, MA 01453
2/25/2022
The firm manufactures sheet metal fabrications.
 Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.8 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Bryan Borlik, Director.


[FR Doc. 2022-04572 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
#### Mario DE VERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-16281

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Mario De Vera, Pro Se

Aaron Lee Agenbroad, Esquire, Attorney, Karen Gal-Or, Attorney, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Mario De Vera appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. We have jurisdiction under to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. *Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on De Vera’s breach of contract claim because De Vera failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was a contract between the parties regarding travel benefits. *See Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,*246 Cal.App.4th 1160, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 390, 412 (2016) (setting forth elements of breach of contract claim); *see also Moncada v. W. Coast Quartz Corp.,*221 Cal.App.4th 768, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 601, 623 (2013) (subjective beliefs of parties cannot provide the basis for contract formation).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on De Vera’s breach of fiduciary duty claim because De Vera failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a fiduciary or confidential relationship existed between him and United Airlines. *See Knox v. Dean,*205 Cal.App.4th 417, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 582-83 (2012) (setting. forth elements of breach of fiduciary duty claim).

We reject as unsupported by the record De Vera’s contentions that the district court did not address his allegations and that his complaint was not transferred to the district court.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 4.11

LOGO



|                                                                                                             |  |                                                                                                               
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|411 108th Ave NE, Suite 1400 Bellevue, Washington 98004  Telephone 425. 372.3200 
Facsimile 425. 372.3800 |  | P Amy Reischauer Associate General Counsel & Assistant Secretary
425-372-3511 telephone
425-372-3801 facsimile

March 15, 2011

Via Fax to 201-680-4616 or 4617

Mellon Investor Services

DWAC Department

Ridgefield Park, New Jersey



|Re: | DWAC Issuance of Stock Pursuant to Restricted Stock Unit Release(s)  Control No. 10-041
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are hereby authorized to issue and deliver via DWAC shares of the Common Stock of drugstore.com, inc. (the Company) as indicated below,
pursuant to release(s) of restricted stock units under a Company stock equity plan:



|                                |  |                                            |  | 
|------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------ |  | 
|Equity Plan Issued Under:       |  | 2008 Equity Incentive Plan                 |  | 
|Issue to:                       |  | ETRADE Securities                          |  | 
|Date of Issuance:               |  | October 4, 2010                            |  | 
|Total Number of Shares Issued   |  | 53,151 shares                              |  | 
|Address:                        |  | 4005 Windward Plaza Dr
Alpharetta GA 30005 |  | 
|Taxpayer Identification Number: |  | 77-0054242                                 |  | 
|Legend:                         |  | None                                       |  | 
|Broker Name:                    |  | ETRADE Securities                          |  | 
|Broker Phone:                   |  | 1-888-680-2132                             |  | 
|Special Handling:               |  | None                                       |  | 

Should you have any questions, please contact me as indicated above.

Regards,

P. Amy Reischauer
#### Louise F. Swint, as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles J. Swint, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Wm. McEwan Coal Co., et al., Appellants.

Argued October 15, 1943;

decided December 2, 1943.

*749
      *John J. Conners, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Arthur B. Lanphier*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion..

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
f10k2011a1ex10xxii_yida.htm


Exhibit 10.22


 


[English Summary]







Jiangxi Province Zhangshu City Yang-sheng (Nourishing Life) Tourism


Development Project Investment Agreement







Party A: Jiangxi Province Zhangshu City Government


Party B: Yida (Fujian) Tourism Limited Company







Purpose:


Party B will be investing in the Jiangxi Province Zhangshu City Yang-sheng (Nourishing Life) tourism development project (the “Project”), including spas, parks, hotels, towns and nourishing life manors, etc.







Project Area:


6,000 mu (actual land use right is around 3,000 mu, others will be provided in other ways)


Party B may obtain the land use rights from Party A through public listing transaction. The payment amount shall be the amount in the public listing transaction.







Exclusive Clause:


Party A agrees not to introduce or approve other projects similar to the thermohaline spring tourism after the completion of Party B's project and to support Party B's project to establish the first tourism brand of nourishing-life paradise in China.







Benefits:


Party A agrees to waive the use fees of the project tourism resources and thermohaline spring water resources, the local administrative fees (registration, etc.) during the project construction and the local portion among the department administrative fees above the provincial and municipal levels. The self-supporting institutions charge the half of the minimum standard fees.







Party A agrees that the electricity charges of lighting project shall be according to the urban street light electricity standard.







Jurisdiction:


Law of China







Dispute:


If there is any dispute between the parties, both parties shall resolve the dispute through compromise settlement. If the parties cannot reach the settlement, then either party can resolve the dispute by the courts of Nanchang City or Fuzhou City.







Date of the Agreement:


April 18, 2010


 




  





1











  






 


Supplement







Party A will reimburse the excess amount of public land listing price that is over 8,000 RMB per Mu, and the reimbursement will refund to Party A for the use of construction within one month.







For the cultivated land leased from Party A to Party B, the rent is 200 RMB per mu annually. The rent for the mountain and forest shall be 150 RMB per mu annually. The rent is payable annually and is due by the end of January of each year.







Date of Agreement:


April 18, 2010


 


2
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines o f law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfa vors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 23 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERTO BARAJAS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-5067 (D.C. No. 99-CR-66-C) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , KELLY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Roberto Barajas pled guilty on September 7, 1999, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to d istribute and to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S. C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II) and (viii). He entered into astandard plea agreement. It provided that Barajas was responsible for approximately ten pounds (4.5- 2 -

kilograms) of methamphetamine. The plea agreement permitted Barajas to appeal only his sentence. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Barajas fully cooperated with the United States government, and thus the governme nt recommended a two-point downward departure for substantial assistance in ac cordance with United States Sentencing Guideline § 5K1.1. The government also recommended that Barajas receive a three-level reduction for acceptance of r esponsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The sentencing court adopted tho se recommendations, and it also found Barajas eligible for the “safety valve” provision under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Consequently, on April 10, 2000, the court found Barajas had a total offense level, after all reductions, of twenty-seven and a criminal history category of I, giving a sentencing range of seventy to eightyseven months. The court sentenced Barajas to seven ty months imprisonment, five years supervised release, $750 fine, and $100 speci al monetary assessment. Barajas appealed alleging that he was not treated f airly by the sentencing court. His attorney filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that “[a]fter a consci entious examination of the record below, and issue presented in this appeal having been thoroughly researched, it is counsel’s belief that there is no merit to the issue.” (Br. at 2.) Pursuant to our duty under Anders , we conducted an independent review of his- 3 -

sentence, see id. at 744, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous. Therefore, we GRANT counsel’s request to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
#### In the Matter of Alma M. Fabricius, Appellant, against Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

Argued October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*673
      *Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*and *Nicholas Bucci*of counsel), for motion.

*Alma M. Fabricius,*in person, opposed.

Motion denied, with leave to renew on argument of appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STERLING
COMMERCE, INC. FORM 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         269,122
<SECURITIES>                                   273,061
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               688,254
<PP&E>                                         123,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 842,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          120,342
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           910
<OTHER-SE>                                     690,686
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   842,646
<SALES>                                        217,359
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               217,359
<CGS>                                           44,492
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  148,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 80,380
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,202
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             51,178
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,178
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
#### Jasper, Lynch & Fishel, Inc., et al., Respondents, *v.*Frieda Fingerhood et al., Appellants.

Submitted October 18, 1943;

decided November 18, 1943.

*Frederick E. Klein*for motion.

*David M. Berger*opposed.

Motion dismissed on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          36,713
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,164
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               105,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                39,630
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     59,711
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,468,048
<ALLOWANCE>                                     20,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,841,143
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,418,555
<SHORT-TERM>                                   254,640
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,917
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           28,750
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                        14,099
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,841,143
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 31,204
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,574
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                33,778
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              14,913
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,115
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           16,663
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      493
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 222
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 23,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,666
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,666
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,071
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     884
<LOANS-NON>                                     26,866
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,244
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,015
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                20,776
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      833
<RECOVERIES>                                       121
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               20,557
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            20,557
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         20,557
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.17

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

|PARTIES: |           |                           |                                | 
|-------- | --------- | ------------------------- | ------------------------------ | 
|         | EMPLOYER: |                           | TANNING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION | 
|         |           | ("Tanning" or "Employer") |                                | 
|         | and       |                           |                                | 
|         | EMPLOYEE: |                           | AVR VENKATESA                  | 
|         |           | ("Employee")              |                                | 

AGREEMENT:

Employer
agrees to continue to employ Employee and Employee accepts employment on the terms and conditions set forth below, which are acknowledged by the parties to be good and sufficient
consideration for this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior employment agreements between Employee and Tanning, including, without limitation, the Employment Agreement dated July 13,
1998.

---



---



Therefore,
Employee covenants, agrees to, and accepts the following restrictions:



---



If
any court shall determine that the duration, geographic limitations, subject or scope of any restriction contained in this Section 5 is unenforceable, it is the intention of the parties that
this Section 5 shall not thereby be terminated but shall be deemed amended to the extent required to make it valid and enforceable, such amendment to apply only with respect to the operation of
this Section 5 in the jurisdiction of the court that has made the adjudication.

---



---

Employee accepts employment with Employer on the above-terms and acknowledges by Employee's signature below that Employee is employed at-will, which means that
either Employer or Employee

---

may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without prior notice, warning, procedure or formality, for any cause or reason or for no cause or reason.

|TANNING TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation (Employer) |  | EMPLOYEE                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  |  |                                                 
|By: ___________________________________                           |  |                                                 
|                                                                  |  | AVR Venkatesa                                   
|Printed Name: _______________________________________             |  |                                                 
|Title: ___________________________________________                |  | Date: __________________________________________
|Date: __________________________________________                  |  | Address: _______________________________________
|4600 South Syracuse St., Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80237
303-220-9944 |  |                                                 

---

QuickLinks