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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                 PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350

     Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 of Allstate Life
Insurance Company of New York filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York.

March 13, 2007


                                             /s/ Casey J. Sylla
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Casey J. Sylla
                                             Chairman of the Board and President


                                             /s/ John C. Pintozzi
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             John C. Pintozzi
                                             Vice President and Chief
                                             Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10103

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARNULFO GALVAN MIRELES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-109-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and GRAVES, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:*

Arnulfo Galvan Mireles (Galvan) appeals the sentence imposed following 

his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal from the United 

States. For the first time on appeal, Galvan argues that, following Alleyne v. 

United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), any fact that increases the range of 

reasonable sentences must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He 

asserts that the district court’s factual finding—that he had a serious criminal 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10103 Document: 00513194305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2015
No. 15-10103

2

history, that his drinking posed a serious danger to others, and that he had 

undertaken inappropriate contact with a victim in a prior case—violated his 

constitutional rights because it likely affected the range of reasonable 

punishments.

As Galvan did not raise this issue in the district court, we review it for 

plain error only. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To 

show plain error, Galvan must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious 

and that affects his substantial rights. See id. If he makes such a showing, we 

have the discretion to correct the error, but should do so only if the error 

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. See id.

The Government has moved for summary affirmance on the ground that 

the sole issue raised by Galvan is foreclosed. In United States v. Tuma, 738 

F.3d 681, 693 (5th Cir. 2013), the defendant argued that Alleyne required that 

any fact that increased his minimum sentence, including facts that raised his 

guidelines range, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This 

court rejected the argument, holding that Alleyne applied “only to facts that 

increase a statutory mandatory minimum sentence.” Id. In the present case, 

Galvan’s crime of conviction had no statutory minimum sentence of 

imprisonment, and no judicially found facts increased the statutory minimum 

sentence. See 8 U.S.C § 1326(b). Accordingly, as Galvan concedes, his 

argument is foreclosed. See Tuma, 738 F.3d at 693.

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The 

Government’s alternative motion to extend the time to file its brief is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10103 Document: 00513194305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2015
exv10w42






EXHIBIT 10.42




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

2010 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




     Pursuant to Section 18 of Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
“Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:



     First paragraph of Section 8 is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:




“On each Offering Date, the Company will grant to each
eligible employee who is then a Participant in the Plan an option
(“Option”) to purchase on the last day of such Offering (the “Exercise
Date”), at the Option Price hereinafter provided for, the lowest of (a)
a number of shares of Common Stock determined by dividing such
Participant’s accumulated payroll deductions on such Exercise Date by
the Option Price (as defined herein), (b) 10,000 shares; or (c) such
other lesser maximum number of shares as shall have been established by
the Administrator in advance of the Offering; provided, however, that
such Option shall be subject to the limitations set forth below. Each
Participant’s Option shall be exercisable only to the extent of such
Participant’s accumulated payroll deductions on the Exercise Date. The
purchase price for each share purchased under each Option (the “Option
Price”) will be 85 percent of the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock
on the Offering Date or the Exercise Date, whichever is less.”


All capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such
terms in the Plan.



The effective date of this Amendment No. 1 shall be December 15, 2010.



Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan remains in full force and effect in accordance with
its terms.



Adopted by the Board of Directors of Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: December 15, 2010
Agreement August 1, 2010 Pamela G. Boone Executive Synergetics USA, Inc. Company
  Board
     Standard Compensation Due
 Cause 2
 1




---



##### 



provided however
 Change in Control
    Code
 2




---



##### 



Disability Disabled
 Exchange Act
 Involuntary Termination Status
Changes
 Person
 Term Term
 Termination of Employment
    3




---



##### 



No Mitigation
   Excess Parachute Payments
   Funding
 Assignment
 4




---



##### 



Notices
  
 To Executive:
    
    Pamela G. Boone
3845 Corporate Centre Drive
OFallon, Missouri 63368
  Provisions Severable
 Entire Agreement
 Not an Employment Agreement
 Amendments and Modifications
 Governing Law
  SYNERGETICS USA, INC.By:
    /s/ Robert H. DickName:
    Robert H. DickTitle:
    Chairman of the Board of DirectorsEXECUTIVE/s/ Pamela G. BooneName:  Pamela G. Boone 5
#### Milton Medina, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Rosemary Giglio, et al., Respondents, v Giorlando S. Barbaro, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[720 NYS2d 165]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Giorlando S. Barbaro appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated March 2, 2000, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

CPLR 3212 (a) provides that motions for summary judgment shall be made no later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on “good cause” shown. The Supreme Court is afforded latitude in determining whether good cause exists for permitting late motions for summary *616judgment, and it may entertain a belated but meritorious motion in the interest of judicial economy where the opposing party fails to demonstrate prejudice *(see, Goodman v Gudi,*264 AD2d 758; *Quinlan v Kaufman,*258 AD2d 453).

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to excuse the appellant’s minimal delay in serving the motion where he demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. When a tenant acquires a dog, a landlord is not liable to a third person for injuries caused by the dog, unless the landlord (1) knew of the dog’s presence and its dangerous tendencies and (2) had control of the premises or otherwise had the ability to remove or confine the dog *(see, Strunk v Zoltanski,*62 NY2d 572, 575; *Bemiss v Acken,*273 AD2d 332; *Powell v Wohlleben,*256 AD2d 397). Here, there is no proof in the record that the appellant, a landlord, had control over the premises, that he was aware prior to the underlying incident that the defendant Diana Burkhardt harbored a dog, or that the dog had vicious propensities. S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
     the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 1997 and
     is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000840319                        
<NAME>APHTON CORPORATION                        
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                        8,846
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 9,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              9,155
<PP&E>                                          850
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (634) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               18,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        (1,949)
<BONDS>                                      (3,902) 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                    (26,665)
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1,098)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                (18,362)
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                271
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 5,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (5,494)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (135)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (5,629)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.43)
        

</TABLE>
MANUEL BARRIOS,

Appellant,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5538

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 22, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County.

Gregory S. Parker, Judge.

Manuel Barrios, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney 

General, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000839437
<NAME> AMFAC/JMB HAWAII, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           8,736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     56,808
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,274
<PP&E>                                         351,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 483,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,791
<BONDS>                                        321,298
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (153,571)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   483,605
<SALES>                                         96,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,406
<CGS>                                           89,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,222
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (55,209)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,043
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (34.2)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (34.2)



</TABLE>
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
 
 
 In connection with the quarterly report of West Bancorporation, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas R. Gulling, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of West Bancorporation, Inc., 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 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 conditions and results of operations of West Bancorporation, Inc.
 
 
 April 29, 2010
 
 
 /s/ Douglas R. Gulling
 Douglas R. Gulling
 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
   40
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a/15d OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





I, Michael Beecher, certify that:





1.
 I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Vaso Corporation and
subsidiaries (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.





/s/ Michael Beecher


Michael
Beecher


Chief
Financial Officer


Dated:
May 12, 2020
Exhibit 31.2
 
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    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 period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and(d)
    
    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
  (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.
 By:
    /s/ Roman GregorigRoman GregorigVice President and Principal Financial OfficerAugust 13, 2008 E-3
AAM-13-385-E

June 05, 2013

 Exemption No. 10791

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0452

Mr. Jeremy Bass

Executive Helijet Charters, LLC

3231 Victory St. Hangar 328

Myrtle Beach, SC 29577

Dear Mr. Bass:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 17, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Executive Helijet Charters, LLC (EHC) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow EHC to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to EHC.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing 

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of 

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was 

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.
2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Executive Helijet Charters, LLC an exemption from 

14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow EHC to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations

described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of EHC are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the EHC part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Frederick W. Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Aphton Corporation; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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 29, 2004



By:

/s/ Frederick W. JacobsName:

Frederick W. JacobsTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. David Ezell SIMPSON

No. 194P19-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

David Ezell Simpson, For Simpson, David Ezell.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th of June 2019 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

"Dismissed without prejudice by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of August 2019 by Defendant to Amend Petition for Writ of Mandamus:

*85"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."