alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of A.P. Pharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald J. Prentki, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 17, 2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Ronald J. Prentki                
|Ronald J. Prentki,                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of A.P. Pharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John B. Whelan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 17, 2010



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John B. Whelan     
|John B. Whelan,        
|Chief Financial Officer
# C_2022424EN.01004001.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/40

---

Action brought on 8 September 2022 — House Foods Group v CPVO (SK20)

(Case T-556/22)

(2022/C 424/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: House Foods Group, Inc. (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and T. Wuttke, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Community Plant Variety at issue: SK20 — Application for a Community plant variety right No 2017/3314

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 1 July 2022 in Case A 018/2021

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order CPVO to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order CPVO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 81 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 81 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 

STATE OF MONTANA

Case No. DA 23-0575

RIKKI HELD; LANDER B., by and through his guardian Sara Busse; 

BADGE B., by and through his guardian Sara Busse; SARIEL 

SANDOVAL; KIAN T., by and through his guardian Todd Tanner; 

GEORGIANNA FISCHER; KATHRYN GRACE GIBSON-SNYDER; 

EVA L., by and through her guardian Mark Lighthiser; MIKA K., by 

and through his guardian Rachel Kantor; OLIVIA VESOVICH; 

JEFFREY K., by and through his guardian Laura King; NATHANIEL 

K., by and through his guardian Laura King; CLAIRE VLASES; RUBY 

D., by and through her guardian Shane Doyle; LILIAN D., by and 

through her guardian Shane Doyle; TALEAH HERNÁNDEZ, 

Plaintiffs and Appellees,

vs.

STATE OF MONTANA, GOVERNOR GREG GIANFORTE, MONTANA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, MONTANA 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, 

and MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

Defendants and Appellants.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF

Austin Knudsen

Jeremiah Langston

Aislinn Brown

David Dewhirst

Derek Oestreicher

Timothy Longfield

Melissa Hornbein

Barbara Chillcott

Western Environmental Law 

Center

103 Reeder’s Alley

Helena, MT 59601

01/10/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0575
2

Morgan Varty

Lee McKenna

Attorneys General Office

215 North Sanders

P.O. Box 201401

Helena, MT 59620-1401

Lee.mckenna@mt.gov

michael.russell@mt.gov

thane.johnson@mt.gov

Phillip L. Gregory

Gregory Law Group

pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

Mark L. Stermitz

Selena Z. Sauer

Crowley Fleck Attorneys PLLP

ssauer@crowleyfleck.com

mstermitz@crowleyfleck.com

Quentin M. Rhoades 

RHOADES & ERICKSON PLLC

430 Ryman Street

Missoula, Montana 59802

courtdocs@montanalawyer.com

hornbein@westernlaw.org

chillcott@westernlaw.org

Nathan Bellinger

Mathew dos Santos

Andrea Rodgers

Our Children’s Trust

1216 Lincoln Street

Eugene, OR 97401

nate@ourchildrenstrust.org

andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org

julia@ourchildrenstrust.org

Dustin Lefridge

Roger Sullivan

McGarvey Law

345 1st Avenue East

Kalispell, MT 59901

rsullivan@mcgarveylaw.com

dleftridge@mcgarveylaw.com

Amici parties, having filed their Unopposed Application for Leave 

to File Friend of the Court Brief, and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is GRANTED. 

Amicus Brief shall be due on or before February 13, 2024.

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 10 2024
EX-10.9



 Exhibit 10.9 

March 21, 2014 
 Neil Bodick, M.D., Ph.D. 

RE: Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Offer Letter 

Dear Neil: 
 Reference is made to that certain
letter agreement (the “Agreement”), dated August 28, 2013, by and between you and Flexion Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), which sets forth the terms of your employment with Flexion. This
letter agreement (this “Amendment”) shall serve as an amendment to the Agreement. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. 

Upon your execution of this Amendment in the space provided below, the Agreement shall be amended as follows: 

 

	 	1.	The penultimate sentence of Section 3 of the Agreement shall be replaced with the following two sentences: 


“Your target bonus shall be forty percent (40%) of your Base Salary for the applicable year. Your target bonus will be reviewed
periodically by the Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board and may be adjusted upwards, but may not be reduced while you are employed pursuant to this Agreement without your consent.” 

 

	 	2.	Section 7(b)(i) of the Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 


“(i) You shall continue to receive your then-current Base Salary (ignoring any decrease that forms the basis for your termination for
Good Reason, if applicable), less standard deductions and withholdings, for fifteen (15) months following the date of termination (the “Severance Period”).” 

 

	 	3.	Section 7(b)(iii) of the Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 


“(iii) The vesting of your outstanding unvested equity awards that were granted prior to February 25, 2014 shall accelerate to the
extent such awards are subject to time-based vesting requirements and as if you had completed an additional twelve (12) months of service with the Company as of the date of termination.” 

Except for the matters set forth in this Amendment, all other terms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 

If the foregoing correctly conforms to your understanding of the agreement between you and the Company, please sign and date the enclosed copy
of this letter agreement and return it to us. 







 Very truly yours, 
  

	
	 Flexion Therapeutics, Inc.

	
	 /s/ Michael D. Clayman, M.D.

	Michael D. Clayman, M.D.
	Chief Executive Officer
	
	Accepted and agreed:
	
	 /s/ Neil Bodick, M.D., Ph.D.

	Neil Bodick, M.D., Ph.D.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Baldemar SANTANA-CORONADO, also known as Baldemar Santana, also known as Baldemar Coronado-Santana, also known as Baldemar Coronado Santana, also known as Baldemar Coronado, also known as Jose Cruz-Rubalcava, also known as Jose Cruz Rubalcava, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50150 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Baldemar Santana-Coronado, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Baldemar Santana-Coronado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Santana-Goronado has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected .therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
No. D-2636.

#### In re Disbarment of Guffey.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 931.]
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO

 AMENDED AND RESTATED 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This
First Amendment dated as of November 9, 2005 (this “Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of September 30, 2003 (the “Original Agreement”), is entered into between La Quinta Corporation
(the “Company”) and Wayne B. Goldberg (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously
entered into the Original Agreement, which they wish to amend as set forth in this Amendment; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable
consideration, the delivery and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, respectively, said parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. In Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the Original Agreement, the title “Senior Vice President—Operations” is deleted and the title
“Executive Vice President—Operations” is inserted in lieu thereof. 
 2. In Section 3.1(b) of the Original Agreement,
“50 percent” and “100 percent” are deleted and “75 percent” and “150 percent” are respectively inserted in lieu thereof. 

3. Except as hereby amended, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has duly executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 

 

			
	 LA QUINTA CORPORATION

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Francis W. Cash

		
	Name:	 	 Francis W. Cash

		
	As its:	 	 President and Chief Executive Officer

	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Wayne B. Goldberg

	Wayne B. Goldberg
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA AF 06-0185

IN THE MATTER OF APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION OF THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT 

# F1LEJ JAN 

## 1 2 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

The term of the Honorable John Warner (Retired) as an alternate member of the Sentence ReviewDivision ofthe Montana Supreme Court expired on December 31, 2021. The Court thanks Judge Warner for his service to the Commission, tothe Court, andtothe people ofMontana. Pursuant to § 46-18-901, MCA, the expiration ofJudge Warner's term requires the Chief Justice of this Court to appoint a new alternate member to the Sentence Review Division. Judge Warner has expressed an interest in being reappointed. Therefore, and with the consent ofthe appointee, IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable John Warner (Retired) is reappointed as the alternate member to the Sentence Review Division for a term of three years, expiring December 31, 2024. The Clerk is directedtoprovide copies ofthis OrdertotheHonorable John Warner, all members of the Sentence Review Division, the State Bar ofMontana, Shelly Smith, Office Administrator for the Sentence Review Division, and all Montana District Court Clerks. DATED thiski

)47 day ofJanuary, 2022. For the Court,

By ChiefJustice 01/12/2022

Case Number: AF 06-0185
#### Don C. NEWBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. R. BROOKS, Officer, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Suffolk Police Department, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-7319

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 2, 2018

Don Cornelius Newby, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Paige Bishop, Jeremy David Capps, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRI-GAN *&*WELLMAN, P.C., Glen Alen, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Don C. Newby appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Newby’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action alleging the Defendant violated his "Fourth Amendment rights. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Newby v. Brooks,*No. 3:16-cv-00944-JAG, 2017 WL 4323583 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the *587facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-50562 

Summary Calendar

__________________

SHANNON DAY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY PAINTER, Sheriff of Midland County, Tex.,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-94-CV-223

- - - - - - - - - -

February 25, 1998

Before DUHE, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shannon Day, a Texas prisoner (# 683576), appeals from the

district court's denial of his “Motion for New Trial,” which was

actually framed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(2) and (b)(3), in his civil rights action. 

Because Day’s motion was not filed until June 27, 1997, and the

district court had entered judgment in his action on March 7,

1996, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
No. 97-50562

-2-

his “Motion for New Trial” as time-barred. See Wilson v. JohnsManville Sales Corp., 873 F.2d 869, 871-72 (5th Cir. 1989); Rule

60(b) (motion for relief from judgment brought pursuant to

subsections (b)(2) or (b)(3), for “newly discovered evidence” or

“fraud,” must be “made . . . not more than one year after the

judgment . . . was entered”). 

Insofar as Day sought relief under Rule 60(b)’s “savings

clause,” which states that a party may be granted relief from

judgment for “fraud on the court,” the district court’s denial of

Day’s “Motion for New Trial” was also not an abuse of discretion. 

Day’s primary assertion has been that defendant Painter provided

false, misleading, and incomplete answers to discovery requests. 

Even if Day’s allegations were taken as true, this is not

sufficiently egregious misconduct to warrant relief under the

“savings clause.” See Wilson, 873 F.2d at 872; Rozier v. Ford

Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338-39 (5th Cir. 1978). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted form the
balance sheet of CNL income Fund III,  Ltd. at june 30, 2000,  and its statement
of income for the six months  then ended and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to the Form 10-Q of CNL income Fund III, Ltd. for the six months ended
June 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         787,947
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  20,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         14,544,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,916,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,129,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,293,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,129,040
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               895,737
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  289,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                692,222
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            692,222
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   692,222
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1> Due to the nature of its  industry,  CNL Income Fund III,  Ltd. has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### HARRISON, P. v. UCBR

1937 CD 2016

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/19/2017

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, B-593263 .

Affirmed
#### COM. v. ELLISON, S.

743 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/26/2017

CP-23-CR-0000167-2014 (Delaware)

Affirmed
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50815 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERTO RIVAS-SALINAS, also known as Marco Antonio Carrillo-Luna Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-512-ALL
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roberto Rivas-Salinas (Rivas) appeals his sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Specifically, he challenges the enhancement of his sentence based upon the district court’s determination that his prior conviction in California f

or robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Rivas argues that CA L
. PENAL CODE § 211 may be violated not only by the use of force but also by threats to property. Because § 211 may be violated by fear of property damage alone, Rivas argues, it does not necessarily United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 19, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50815

2 have the use or threatened use of force as an element, does not fall within the contemporary meaning of robbery, and is not a crime of violence. Because Rivas did not object belowto the enhancement on the grounds he asserts on appeal, this court re views for plain error. See United States v. Castillo, 386 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 2004). In U nited States v. Tellez-Martinez, 517 F.3d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 2008), thiscourt specifically held that “robbery under § 211 of the California Penal Code falls within the generic or contemporary meaning of robbery as understood by this court” and is, therefore, a crime of violence under § 2L1 .2. Rivas’s arguments to the contrary are, therefore, without merit. Rivas additionally challenges, in light ofApprendi v. NewJersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the constitutionality of8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment ofprior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elementsof the offense that must be found by a jury. As Rivas concedes, this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). United Statesv. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F .3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), c ert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.