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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief financial officer of
Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)     the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007
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 Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date:August 2, 2007 | By: /s/ Jeff T. Wilson   Jeff T. Wilson
 Chief Financial Officer
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------

---
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
333-13320,  No. 333-10312 and No. 333-132736 on Form S-8 of our
report dated June 20, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Highway Holdings Limited and its subsidiaries (collectively the “Company”)
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion), appearing in the Annual Report
on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2009.




/s/
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu





Hong
Kong


June 20,
2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jimmy Torres, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 40]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel McCullough, J.), rendered April 22, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of auto stripping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and *491was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence supports the inference that defendant was the person who broke the window of the victim’s car.

The only one of defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation that is even arguably preserved is his claim that the prosecutor mischaracterized certain evidence relating to a car alarm. However, we find that any minor misstatement in this regard was not prejudicial. Defendant’s remaining claims regarding the summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. The remarks were fair responses to defense counsel’s summation arguments and were based on reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, and there was nothing so egregious as to warrant a new trial *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-19 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

There was no mode of proceedings error regarding a note from the deliberating jury requesting to see photographs that had been received in evidence. At the outset of deliberations, the court made the routine and unremarkable statement that the attorneys had consented to the exhibits being delivered to the jury in the attorneys’ absence. If defense counsel had disagreed with the court’s statement, she had the opportunity to say so, and her silence constituted advance consent, satisfying any requirement of an opportunity to be heard. Moreover, the note requesting photographs came only about 10 minutes later, and it is unclear whether the attorneys had even left the courtroom. In any event, delivery to the jury room of requested exhibits in evidence was ministerial *(see People v Damiano,*87 NY2d 477, 487 [1996]; *People v Jackson,*105 AD3d 607, 608 [1st Dept 2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1016 [2013]; *People v Ziegler,*78 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 838 [2011]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000453 29-NOV-2019 09:26 AM
# L_2010126EN.01000601.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 126/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 126/6

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 441/2010

of 21 May 2010

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Canestrato di Moliterno (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Canestrato di Moliterno’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Canestrato di Moliterno’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 May 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 235, 30.9.2009, p. 28.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.3.   Cheeses

ITALY

Canestrato di Moliterno (PGI)

---
```

[Federal Register: January 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 8)]
[Notices]               
[Page 1839]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ja10-115]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

 
Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Moore County Airport, Pinehurst/Southern Pines, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the 
Moore County Airport Authority to waive the requirement that a 27.7 
acre parcel of surplus property, located at the Moore County Airport, 
be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-260, 
College Park, GA 30337.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Ms. Carol Thomas, Interim Airport Director at 
the following address: Airport Road, P.O. Drawer 5809, Pinehurst, NC 
28374.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta 
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbus Ave, Campus Bldg., Suite 2-260, 
College Park, GA 30337, (404) 305-7142. The application may be reviewed 
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the Moore 
County Airport Authority to release 27.7 acres of surplus property at 
the Moore County Airport. The surplus property will be used as right-
of-way for the newly constructed roadway associated with recent airport 
development.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, 
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the 
Moore County Airport, 7825 Aviation Drive, Carthage, NC 28327.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on January 4, 2010.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-397 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
No. 12-7459.

#### Jeffus *v.*Crews, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 12-701.

#### Parsons et al. *v.*Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### Paulette A. Kennedy, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Oshan Litchmore, et al., Respondents, v C.F. Galleria at White Plains, L.P., et al., Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, et al., Defendants. City of White Plains et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

[769 NYS2d 526]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul Victor, J.), entered February 26, 2003, which, in an action for wrongful death and other personal injuries, denied third-party defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint or, in the alternative, for a change of venue to Westchester County, *223and denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion for a change of venue to Westchester County, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to grant the motion and cross motion insofar as to change the action’s venue, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court’s denial of the venue change was improvident in light of the movants’ demonstration that the convenience of material nonparty witnesses would be better served by the change *(see Cardona v Aggressive Heating,*180 AD2d 572 [1992]). Defendants-appellants submitted the affidavits of three White Plains police officers, who affirmed that they had responded to the scene of the shooting and prepared reports of the incident based on their investigations. The police reports show that the testimony of these officers would be material, since they were among the first officers to respond, secure the scene, and interview witnesses. Their testimony presumably would also be highly relevant to the allegation in the third-party complaint that third-party defendants did not properly secure the vestibule area, in accordance with the agreement between the third-party litigants.

The officers also affirmed that they would be inconvenienced by having to travel to Bronx County during their normal business hours and during heavy traffic conditions, and that attending a Bronx trial would cause them to be absent from their police duties for a full day. The convenience of public employees and the use of public records at trial should be given more than ordinary consideration *(see Powers v East Hudson Parkway Auth.,*75 AD2d 776 [1980]).

The court properly concluded that issues of fact remain as to, among other things, whether third-party defendants-appellants owned the area where the shooting occurred and whether those parties engaged in a proprietary activity by operating the garage. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Ellerin, JJ.
Statement of Seth Heald, Rixeyville, Virginia 

Seth.Heald@gmail.com 

540-937-3404 

Hearing on EPA Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standards 

for Electric Generating Units 

Washington, DC May 24,2012 

I am here today to voice my strong support for the EPA's proposed 

new greenhouse-gas standards for electric-generating units. In recent years 

as I have learned more about climate change and the carbon-dioxide 

emissions that cause it, I have grown increasingly concerned at our nation's 

lack of meaningful effort to reduce carbon emissions. We have known for 

decades that we need to move away from carbon-intensive fuels, but 

business and government have not done nearly enough to deal with this. 

The EPA is charged with protecting Americans from pollution that 

adversely affects our health. The vast majority of Americans support this 

mission. Carbon pollution is a serious threat to Americans' health and 

welfare, and the proposed greenhouse-gas standards are a small but 

important step towards the goal of protecting us from climate disruption. 

The proposed standards are actually quite modest, and quite overdue. 

They will not affect coal-burning power plants that are already in service or 

under construction. The standards simply acknowledge the scientific reality 

that our nation cannot afford to build any new coal-fired power plants unless 

and until the electric-power industry comes up with a workable method of 

capturing and sequestering carbon emissions. 

I am a member/owner of the Rappahannock Electric Cooperative in 

Virginia, which in tum is a member/owner of the Old Dominion Electric 

Cooperative, or ODEC. As an active cooperative member I have taken 

seriously my role as both an electricity consumer and a utility owner. I have 

sharply reduced my electricity consumption through conservation and 

efficiency measures, while also installing solar panels to provide almost all 

of the power I do need. ODEC's management unfortunately persists with an 

ill-advised plan to build a huge new coal plant in Virginia notwithstanding 

strong opposition throughout the state and strong scientific evidence that 

coal burning is a leading cause of climate change. Yet ODEC engages in 

8515218.1 
only the most modest and superficial efforts to invest in efficiency or 

carbon-free renewable energy sources. We can and must do better, for the 

sake of ourselves, our children, and generations to follow. 

The coal industry and some short-sighted utilities are spending large 

sums to challenge the proposed greenhouse-gas standards. They claim that 

coal is "clean," while ignoring the fact that coal plays a major role in 

changing the earth's climate. Those changes will last for thousands of years. 

Americans cannot afford to ignore coal's role in climate disruption. The 

EPA's proposed standards are sound, science-based measures to protect 

Americans. I commend the EPA for proposing these standards and urge that 

they be implemented as soon as possible. 

8515218.1
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION



I, James H. Moore, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Mines Management, Inc. (the registrant);

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 10, 2005

/s/ James H. Moore





James H. Moore

Chief Financial Officer





1
Order entered January 4, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00961

- CV

THE CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V.

WILLIAM CLINTON FREE MAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the C ounty Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 16

- 00805

- C



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 2, 2019 unopposed motion for an extension of

time to file its reply brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s reply b ri ef be filed
by January 28 , 2019

.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 8.1



Name of Entity



|                                                                  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Antemat Limited                                                   | 
|                                                                  | 
|Badex Investments Limited                                         | 
|                                                                  | 
|Cavour Industrial Limited                                         | 
|                                                                  | 
|Hi-Lite Camera Company Limited (Hi-Lite)                        | 
|                                                                  | 
|Kayser Technik Limited (formerly known as Kayser Print Limited) | 
|                                                                  | 
|Kienzel Balkan Limited (Kienzle Balkan)                         | 



All of the
subsidiaries are wholly-owned, other than Kienzle Balkan, which is 51% owned by the Company. In addition, all subsidiaries, with the exception of Kienzle Germany and Kienzle Bulgaria, are incorporated in Germany and the Republic of Bulgaria,
respectively, are incorporated in Hong Kong.



59
No. 12-6483.

#### In re Smith,

*ante,*p. 1047. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.
*January 25, 2018*

2018-Ohio-260.]

2017-0088.

#### Pelletier v. Campbell.

Mahoning App. No. 15 MA 0220, 2016-0hio-8097. On joint motion of appellee and amicus curiae Ohio Association of Justice for leave allowing amicus curiae to present oral argument. Motion granted. Amicus curiae shall share the time allotted to appellee.
CAAP-12-0001079

#### State v. Cavillis

Affirmed
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comerica Bank


May 10, 2006


Shannon Walker
President
Liberty Premium Finance
12641 166th St. Cerritos, CA  90703

RE:      Liberty Premium Finance ("Borrower")
         Obligor Number #4629454937

Dear Ms. Walker:

Comerica Bank (the "Bank") has approved the extension of the maturity date of
the above referenced credit facility as evidenced by that certain
note/agreement, dated May 07, 2004 (as such may be amended, restated, modified,
supplemented or revised from time to time, the "Agreement") from May 14, 2006 to
June 14, 2006. Upon your execution of a counterpart of this letter, the maturity
date shall be so amended.

The Agreement, as modified and amended hereby, shall be and remain in full force
and effect in accordance with its respective terms and hereby is ratified and
confirmed in all respects. Except as expressly set forth herein, the execution,
delivery, and performance of this modification and amendment shall not operate
as a waiver of, or as an amendment of, any right, power, or remedy of Bank under
the Agreement, as in effect prior to the date hereof. Borrower ratifies and
reaffirms the continuing effectiveness of all promissory notes, guaranties,
security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, environmental agreements, and
all other instruments, documents and agreements entered into in connection with
the Agreement.

By execution of a counterpart of this letter, Borrower further represents and
warrants that the representations and warranties contained in the Agreement are
true and correct as of the date hereof, and that no event of default has
occurred and is continuing under the Agreement or any other document, instrument
or agreement entered into in connection therewith.



Sincerely,
Comerica Bank

By:  /s/ Jennifer Seto
     ------------------------
     Jennifer Seto
     Vice President


Acknowledged and accepted on 5/11/06.


LIBERTY PREMIUM FINANCE


By:  /s/ Shannon Walker                             By: /s/ Susan Scurti
     --------------------                               ----------------
     Shannon Walker                                     Susan Scurti
     President                                          Vice President
2017-0231.

#### Rocky River v. Collins.

Cuyahoga App. No. 104180, 2017-Ohio-14. Reported at 149 Ohio St.3d 1434, 2017-Ohio-4396, 76 N.E.3d 1209. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.