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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James A. Tassone,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

•                                    The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and

•                                    The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | May 12,  2008 | By:    | /s/ James A.  Tassone                      |
|--------|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |               |   | James A.  Tassone, Chief Financial Officer |

 

*A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Uni-Pixel, Inc. and willbe retained by Uni-Pixel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not bedeemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.*

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,169]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 9, 2009 in response to a petition filed by an official of the Illinois Department of Employment Security on behalf of workers at Lyon Workerspace Products, LLC, Montgomery, Illinois.

The petitioner requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-6528 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRYAN A. VANMETER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (CR-96-4)

Submitted: August 26, 2005 Decided: September 12, 2005

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Sherry Muncy, Assistant United States

Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bryan A. Vanmeter appeals a district court judgment

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 10 months’

imprisonment. On appeal, Vanmeter’s attorney has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming

there are no meritorious issues on appeal, but raising the question

of whether the district court erred in using a certified copy of a

sentencing order to establish Vanmeter violated a condition of

supervised release by committing another crime. Counsel also

raises the issue as to whether the sentence was in error. Vanmeter

did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no error, we

affirm. 

We review the district court’s decision to revoke a

defendant’s supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United

States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). The district

court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised

release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Factual determinations are

reviewed for clear error. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d

1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003). We find the certified copy of the

sentence order was more than sufficient to support the court’s

decision to revoke supervised release. 
- 3 -

With respect to Vanmeter’s sentence, it did not exceed

the statutory maximum and was plainly reasonable. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(a)(4) (2000).

 Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record

and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

Vanmeter’s judgment. This court requires counsel inform his

client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of

the United States for further review. If the client requests a

petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Packaging Dynamics
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Phillip D. Harris, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Henry C. Newell, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.

 /s/ PHILLIP D. HARRIS
----------------------
Name: Phillip D. Harris
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Date:   August 13, 2004

/s/ HENRY C. NEWELL
-------------------
Name: Henry C. Newell
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Date:   August 13, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Packaging Dynamics Corporation and will be retained by Packaging
Dynamics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
December 11, 2007

Mr. William Lyons

2601 North Ocean Boulevard

Gulf Stream, FL 33483


	
                         
 	
                        Re:
 	
                        Temporary Salary Adjustment
 




Dear Bill:

By signing in the space provided below, you agree to a reduction in your annual salary for the calendar year 2008 from $400,000 to $100,000. Salary payments will continue to be made on the 15th and last day of each month in accordance with the Company’s ordinary payroll practices. Effective January 1, 2009, assuming you remain in AXS-One’s employ, your annual salary will revert to the current rate of $400,000, unless mutually agreed otherwise.

Additionally, in the event there is a Change of Control, as defined in Section 7(e) of your Employment Agreement dated April 21, 2004, during the calendar year 2008, your annual salary will revert to the current rate of $400,000. Should your employment relationship with AXS-One terminate during the calendar year 2008 under circumstances whereby you would be entitled to severance benefits pursuant to Section 7 of the aforementioned Employment Agreement, such benefits will be calculated at your current annual salary rate of $400,000.

In conjunction with this salary reduction, you are being awarded 600,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, as set forth in a Restricted Stock Agreement provided herewith.

If these terms are acceptable, please sign and date this letter below.

Very truly yours,

 


	
                        AXS-ONE INC.
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 
	
      By:
 	
                        
 /s/ Joseph P. Dwyer
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                          
 
	
                         
 	
                        Joseph P. Dwyer
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 
	
                         
 	
                        Chief Financial Officer
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 




 


	
                        ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 
	
                        
 /s/ William P. Lyons
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                          
 
	
                        William P. Lyons
Exhibit 10.11.2


 


SIXTH AMENDMENT OF LEASE


 


This SIXTH AMENDMENT OF
LEASE made this 15th day of  December,
2009 by and between E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY (hereinafter “LANDLORD”)
and INCYTE CORPORATION (hereinafter “TENANT”).


 


W
I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, LANDLORD and TENANT
entered into a Sublease dated June 16, 2003 as amended October 28,
2003 by the First Amendment of Sublease, the Second Amendment of Sublease dated
March 2, 2005, the Third Amendment of Lease dated December 15, 2006,
the extension letter to the Lease dated September 25, 2007, the Fourth
Amendment of Lease dated December 1, 2007, and the Fifth Amendment of Lease
dated December 5, 2008 (the Sublease and Lease as amended are hereby
referred to as the “LEASE”);


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire
to further amend the LEASE to extend the Term and to identify a fixed Base Rent
escalation rate;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


(1)           The term of the LEASE will be extended for an additional
three (3) year period commencing at midnight on July 1, 2010 and
expiring at midnight on June 30, 2013 (the “Term”). TENANT shall have the
right to extend the Term of the LEASE for an additional three (3) years by
giving LANDLORD ninety (90) days prior written notice from the expiration date
of the LEASE of TENANT’s exercise of its right to extend the Term.


 


(2)           Section 4 (a) (ii) “Base Rent” is modified
to delete all reference to the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) as the Base Rent
escalation rate. The Base Rent of the LEASED PREMISES, as currently delineated
in Fifth Amendment of Lease, shall 


 

















 


escalate at an annual rate of 2.5% per Lease year commencing July 1,
2010 and on the anniversary of each Lease year thereafter, including any
extended Term.


 


(3)           All other terms and conditions of the LEASE, as amended,
shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this SIXTH AMENDMENT OF
LEASE on the day and year above written.


 


 


	
  WITNESS:

  	
   

  	
  E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Lois J. Smith

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Mark C. Miller

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: 

  	
  Corporate Real Estate Manager

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  WITNESS:

  	
   

  	
  INCYTE CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Melissa Gillard

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Paula J. Swain

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: 

  	
  Executive Vice
  President, Human Resources

  
					



 


2
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy
Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |     |  |                                                                                                              
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Bruce C. Sexton                                                                                          
|                    |  |     |  | Bruce C. Sexton, Chief Financial Officer of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp.
#### Association of Friends of Sagaponack, Plaintiff, and Allan Stillman et al., Appellants, v Ira Rennert et al., Respondents.

*[719*NYS2d 690]

In an action, *inter alia,*pursuant to Town Law § 268 (2) for injunctive relief and for a judgment declaring certain building permits issued by the defendant Chief Building Inspector of the Town of Southampton to be null and void, the plaintiffs Allan Stillman, Joseph Dilworth, Clay D. Dilworth, and Joseph Zicherman appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated August 5, 1999, as granted the respective motions pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) of the defendants to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted on their behalf, and (2) from an order of the same court, also dated August 5, 1999, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and to require the defendants Ira Rennert and Blue Turtles, Inc., to post a removal bond.

Ordered that the order granting the defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted on behalf of the appellants is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of a judgment in favor of the respondents declaring that the building permits are valid; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and to require the defendants Ira Rennert and Blue Turtles, Inc., to post a removal bond is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that since the defendant Chief Building Inspector of the Town of Southampton (hereinafter the Building Inspector) was authorized to issue the building permits in reliance on the final approval of the Architectural Review Board of the building permit applications *(see, Matter of Sagaponack Homeowners Assn. v Chief Bldg. Inspector of Town of Southampton,*279 AD2d 579 [decided herewith]), no cause of action lies under Town Law § 268 (2) against Ira Rennert and Blue Turtles, Inc. *(see, Forget v Raymer,*65 AD2d 953). In addition, no cause of action against the Town of Southampton, the Building Inspector, or the Supervisor of the Town of Southampton exists under that statute *(see,*Town Law § 268 [2]). Similarly without merit are the *543remaining causes of action which are based on the alleged improper issuance of the building permits.

We note, however, that since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, a judgment should be entered granting declaratory relief in favor of the respondents *(see, Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334, *appeal dismissed*371 US 74, *cert denied*371 US 901).

In light of our determination on the appeal from the order dismissing the complaint, the appeal from the order which, *inter alia,*denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, is academic. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 53 (Friday, March 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6058]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11645 and <greek-i>11646]


Arkansas Disaster Number AR-00028

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 3.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Arkansas 
(FEMA-1819-DR), dated 02/06/2009.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm.
    Incident Period: 01/26/2009 through 01/30/2009.
    Effective Date: 02/24/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/07/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/06/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for private non-profit organizations in the State of 
Arkansas, dated 02/06/2009, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Pope.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-6058 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2938

___________

Walter Steven Brown, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Diane Kay Brown, *

* Appeal from the United States

Plaintiff, * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Internal Revenue Service, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 16, 1998

 Filed: December 22, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Walter Steven Brown appeals from the district court&s affirmance of the 1
The Honorable Lee M. Jackwig, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the

2

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-

bankruptcy court&s refusal to exercise residual jurisdiction over his and his wife&s

2

dismissed Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. Having carefully reviewed the record and the

parties& submissions on appeal, we deny Brown&s request for stay pending appeal and

we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-82,264-03 and WR-82,264-04

EX PARTE MIGUEL ANGEL NAVARRO, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 08-DCR-050238-HC2 AND 10-DCR-050236A-HC2

IN THE 240TH DISTRICT COURT FROM FORT BEND COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

aggravated assault. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Navarro v. State, Nos. 01-11-

00139-CR; 01-11-00140-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 17, 2013) (not designated for

publication).

Applicant contends that Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), which

concerned a juvenile transfer order, shows that the transfer of his case from juvenile to district court

was improper. The trial court recommends granting relief on the claim, and the State opposes. 
2

Applicant also argues that there is new scientific evidence applicable to his case that shows the

State’s expert witness gave false testimony. The State disagrees, and trial court recommends denying

this claim. 

We order that these applications be filed and set for submission. The parties shall brief

whether Applicant may rely on this Court’s opinion in Moon, which was delivered after Applicant’s

conviction became final, and if so, whether Applicant is entitled to habeas relief based on Moon. See

Ex Parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Applicant’s remaining claims are

denied.

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. If that is not correct, the trial court shall

determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and desires to be represented by

counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent Applicant. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art

26.04. The trial court shall send to this Court, within 60 days of the date of this order, a

supplemental transcript containing: a confirmation that Applicant is represented by counsel; the

order appointing counsel; or a statement that Applicant is not indigent. All briefs shall be filed with

this Court on or before 90 days from the date of this order.

Filed: January 25, 2017

Do not publish
**Exhibit32.2**

 

Certification of CFO under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

*I certify that this periodic reportcontaining the issuer’s financial statements fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this periodicreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the issuer.*

 
|       | *By: /s/ John F. Coger*                           |        |
|------------|---------------------------------------------------|-------------|
|       |                                              |
|       | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |
|       | and Chief Operating Officer                       |
|       |                                              |
| ** ** | ** **                                        | ***Date:*** | ***August 10, 2005*** | ** ** |
|            |                                                   |             |  |  |  |

 

----