alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE> 1

                                   Exhibit 32.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lee G. Christianson,
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, 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.



     Date: September 10, 2010

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
#### Bonnie M. JAHANGIRI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETSMART, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35288

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*732Submitted February 28, 2018 *

Filed March 2, 2018

Bonnie M. Jahangiri, Pro Se

Timothy E. Miller, Attorney, Miller & Associates, Lake Oswego, OR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Bonnie Jahangiri appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment after a jury trial in her diversity action against PetS-mart, Inc., awarding her damages on her negligence claim but finding her 45 percent at fault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court erred in refusing to compel PetSmart to provide, if it could do so without undue burden, the names of other customers who were present at around the time of the accident and who may have been able to corroborate Ja-hangiri’s version of the event. However, Jahangiri has not shown that she was prejudiced by this ruling inasmuch as her testimony about how the accident happened, and that of PetSmart’s witness, did not differ in any way that mattered to the outcome. *See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,*342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that party seeking discovery must show that denial resulted in prejudice).

The district court properly excluded special damages evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(C) on the ground that the evidence was late-filed and disorganized. *See Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,*410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming exclusion of untimely-identified expert testimony at summary judgment); *Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc.,*648 F.3d 779, 787 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that violations of a scheduling order may result in sanctions, including dismissal).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in responding to a jury question regarding lost wages damages. *See Harrington v. Scribner,*785 F.3d 1299, 1304 (9th Cir. 2015); *C.B. v. City of Sonora,*769 F.3d 1005, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF

THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul B. Bolno, M.D., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Wave Life Sciences Ltd.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 27, 2018



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul B. Bolno, M.D.                                            
|Paul B. Bolno, M.D.                                                
|President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         760,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,800,000
<PP&E>                                      78,599,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,079,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,722,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,499,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,603,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,722,000
<SALES>                                      3,111,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,188,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,224,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             832,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (910,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (910,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (910,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.90)
        

</TABLE>
U.S

.Deportment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration April 7 , 2015 Ms. Suzanne Dickerson Parent of Ryan Dickerson 5612 Darmondale San Antonio, TX 78261 Dear Ms. Dickerson: 800 Indepen den ce Ave

. . S w Wash ington. D

.C

. 20591

We offer an apology for not being able to follow up to your request; it is incomplete. This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an extension ofExe mption No. 10750 from§ 121.311(b) ofTitle 14 , Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

### Why We Cannot Process Your Request

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us the following:

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest ; that is , how it would benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exe mption.

• Any additional information, views , or arguments available to support your request. 

### What You Should Do If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described above to reach us within 30 days. We have included a website where you can download sample letters that may help you with your request for an extension of your exemption

-- http: // kidsflysafe.com /instructions/car es-for-spec ial-needs-flyers

. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 

### § 11.63(d) requires you to send your request at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. Under normal circumstances, the exemption process may take up to 120 days , therefore, you should plan accordingly.

### 2IfWe Do Not Hear From You If we do not hear from you within 30 days , we will close the docket without notifying you further. Again , we offer an apology and we look forward to hearing from you.

## Si**~~~ J**  . ( 

# c:· Y**(A. ~** **...,. -------**  1 } / Valcz_9 (0-z:-- neda rogram Analyst Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6536

SAMSON JAMARCO COLEMAN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
BRAD PERRITT , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. ( 3:17

- cv
- 00688

- FDW )

Submitted : October 18, 2018 Decided: October 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Samson Jamarco Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Samson Jamarco Coleman se eks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’ s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of app eal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (20 07).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on December 21 , 201 7

. Coleman mailed the notice of appeal 135 days later, on May 5 , 201 8 . Because Col eman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8681 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8681

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent dealings in 
       firearms and ammunition unlawful, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 23, 2020

 Ms. Scanlon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent dealings in 
       firearms and ammunition unlawful, 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 ``Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of 
Firearms Act''.

SEC. 2. FRAUDULENT DEALINGS IN FIREARMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) for any person--
                    ``(A) to import, manufacture, or sell a firearm or 
                ammunition by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, 
                representations, or promises; and
                    ``(B) to transmit or cause to be transmitted, by 
                means of wire, radio, or television communication in 
                interstate or foreign commerce, any communication 
                relating to the importation, manufacture, or sale 
                described in subparagraph (A).''.
    (b) Penalty.--Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended by inserting ``(a)(10),'' before ``(f)''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 899 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 899

               To terminate the Department of Education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2019

 Mr. Massie (for himself, Mr. Amash, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Gaetz, 
 Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Jones, Mr. Roy, and 
 Mr. Weber of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To terminate the Department of Education.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

    The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
No. 11-10562.

#### Pope *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5954]


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


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 
20573.

Transglobal Solutions, 1808 Arlington Avenue, Torrance, CA 90501, Jin 
Miyamoto, Managing Partner, William Robert Parkinson, Partner, Jerry 
Lee Russell, Jr., Partner
International Transportation Services, Inc., 573 S.W. 169th Avenue, 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326, Officer: Steve M. Snyder, President
Hanover Shipping Corporation, 1 Gina Court, East Hanover, NJ 07936

    Officers: Rohini Kumar Vemula, President, Divyajyothi R. Vemula, 
Director

Albany Freight, Inc., 5245 N.W. 36 Street, Suite 230, Miami Springs, FL 
33166, Officer: Caridad C. Gonzalez, President
    Dated: March 5, 1997.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5954 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
EXHIBIT 31.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Aaron D. Todd, certify that:

1.  I  have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  Form  10-Q  of  Air  Methods
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material  fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made,  in  light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading  with  respect  to  the  period  covered  by  this  report;

3.  Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of,  and  for,  the  periods  presented  in  this  report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing  and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-15(e)  and  15d-15(e))  for  the  registrant and have:

     a)  Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or  caused such
disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to  be designed under our supervision, to
ensure  that  material  information  relating  to  the registrant, including its
consolidated  subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly  during  the  period  in  which  this  report  is  being  prepared;

     b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures  and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of  the  disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by  this  report  based  on  such  evaluation;  and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the registrant's most recent
fiscal  quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially
affect,  the  registrant's  internal  control  over  financial  reporting;  and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most  recent  evaluation  of  internal  control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's  auditors  and  the  audit  committee  of the registrant's board of
directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent  functions):

     a)  All  significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation  of  internal  control  over  financial reporting which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize  and  report  financial  information;  and

     b)  Any  fraud,  whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees  who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting.


Date: November 15, 2004

/s/ Aaron D. Todd
    -----------------
Aaron D. Todd
Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 879 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to modify the percentages of funds 

to be allocated to certain urbanized areas under the surface transportation block grant program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Ms. BROWNLEY of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to modify the percentages of funds to be allocated to certain urbanized 

areas under the surface transportation block grant program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Support Local Trans5 portation Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 879 IH

1 SEC. 2. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PRO2 GRAM. 

3 Section 133(d)(6) of title 23, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) and in5 serting the following: 

6 ‘‘(D) for fiscal year 2019, 62.5 percent; 

7 and 

8 ‘‘(E) for fiscal year 2020, 65 percent.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 23, 2009 

s1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

139369 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139369 

 COA: 283611 

Wayne CC: 06-009068-FH 

PATRICK LAMAR CRY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 30, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles JOHNSON Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1974

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 6, 2018

Filed: February 9, 2018.

Allison Hart Behrens, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Thomas Joseph Mehan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, Amanda Schlager Wick, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Charles Johnson, Pro Se

Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Charles Johnson appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to conspiring to interfere with commerce by robbery, and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 886 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), discussing the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing procedural and substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumed reasonable). In addition, we have independently-reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

1

. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

                            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

North American Technologies Group, Inc.
Houston, Texas


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-26347 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-01141 and 333-16549
on Form S-8 of our report, dated February 21, 2002, except Note 2, which is as
of April 9, 2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements of North
American Technologies Group, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                                BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Houston, Texas
April 11, 2002