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

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**(As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley**

**Act of 2002)**

 

Pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Dividend CapitalTrust Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify withrespect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”) that:

 

(1)          the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 15, 2005 | */s/*James R. Mulvihill    |   |
|----------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|                       | James  R. Mulvihill        |
|                       | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

1

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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Texas Rare Earth Resources Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dan Gorski, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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/ Dan Gorski


Dan Gorski, Chief Executive Officer


April 19, 2011
Exhibit 10.18



 Exhibit 10.18 
 LEASE AMENDMENT 
 This Amendment to the lease dated
December 13, 2005 to be effective as of November 15, 2006 by and between American Central Plaza (“Lessor”), on the one hand, and American Apparel Inc, (“Lessee”), on the other hand for the premises located and described
at 1020 E. 59th Street, Los Angeles, CA, and whereas, the parties with to confirm the terms and conditions set for the below: 
 AGREEMENT 
 Lessor and Lessee hereby agree as follows:

  

	 	1.	The Term shall be five (5) years, with a five (5) years option to renew. Notice must be provided to the Lessor at least six months prior to the expiration of the initial
lease term to exercise the option. 

  

	 	2.	For the five (5) year option, the base rent should be adjusted annually by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of the previous year. 

  

	 	3.	The Parties stipulate and agree that, except as specifically amended or revised herein, all of the provisions, terms and conditions of the LEASE shall continue and be in full force
and effect during the extended term of the LEASE THROUGH November 15, 2016. 

 Each party hereby executes this Amendment
and by doing so represents and warrants that they have each read and fully understand the meaning and significance of the terms and conditions hereof and agree to be bound hereby. 
  

					
	Lessor:	 		 	
			
	/s/ Sam Eshaghian	 		 	April-17-07
	By: Sam Eshaghian	 		 	Date
	American Central Plaza	 		 	
			
	Lessee:	 		 	
			
	  	 		 	  
	Sam Lim, or Dov Charney	 		 	Date
	American Apparel, Inc
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, 085]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 3, 2009 in response to a petition filed by the United Steelworkers of America, Local 4-890, on behalf of workers at Colorite Specialty Resins, Burlington, New Jersey.

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

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-6524 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
MODERN MOTORS, LLC, Respondent, v. Terry L. GERBER, Donald W. Gessley and Cathy Gerber, Appellants.

WD 80732

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: January 22, 2019 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 26, 2019 Application for Transfer Denied April 30, 2019

Dennis R. Rowland, Kansas City, for appellants.

Charles E. Weedman, Jr., Harrisonville, for respondent.

Before Division Three: Anthony Rex Gabbert, P.J., and Victor C. Howard and Alok Ahuja, JJ.

*165**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Terry Gerber, Cathy Gerber, and Donald Gessley appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cass County following a bench trial. The circuit court granted judgment to Respondent Modern Motors, LLC against Terry Gerber and Gessley on Modern Motors' claim for enforcement of a promissory note. The judgment awarded Modern Motors $107,025.40 in unpaid principal, interest and late fees, and $16,053.87 in attorney's fees. The circuit court also denied Gessley's counterclaim seeking to exercise a state-law right of redemption to an airplane which had been pledged as collateral for the promissory note, and denied Cathy Gerber's motion to intervene in the action to assert a claim for replevin of the airplane.

Appellants raise six points on appeal. They argue that the circuit court erroneously admitted the promissory note and an assignment agreement into evidence; that the judgment was unsupported by sufficient evidence (assuming that the note and assignment were erroneously admitted); that Modern Motors' retention of the security for the note (the airplane) had the effect of extinguishing the debt; that the circuit court erroneously rejected Gessley's attempt to enforce his redemption rights to the airplane; that the court erroneously denied Cathy Gerber's motion to intervene; and that the court erroneously calculated Modern Motors' recoverable attorneys' fees.

We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). SM S/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA L E A. B US H, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J E A N H I L L , S upe r i nt e nde ntof the S na ke R i ve rC orr e c t i ona l I ns t i tut i on, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 35921 D. C. No . 6 : 0 6 - c v - 0 0 1 6 6 - ALA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nn L . A i ke n, C hi e f

D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED MA R 03 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSS M S/ Res ea r ch 08- 35921 2 D al e A . B ush, w ho i s c urre nt l y s ervi ng a tw o-ye art erm of supervi se d r e l e a s e , appe a l s f

r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 h ab e a s p e t i t i o n . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. B ush con t ends hi s S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o a j ury tri al un der App re nd iv. N ew Je rs ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , w a s v io la te d w h e n th e tr ia l c o u rt f o u n d th a t h is drug conv i ct i on s arose fr om se para t e c ri m i nal epi sodes and used thatfa ctw hen c a l c ul a t i ng hi s s e nt e nc e s . B us h ha s nots how n tha tthe s t a t e c ourt ’ s r e j e c t i on of th is c la im w a s e ith e rc o n tr a ry to , o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly e s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w , ortha ti tw a s ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). T he tr i a l c ourt ’ s f

a c tf i ndi ng di d noti m pl i c a t e B us h’ s S i xth A m e ndm e nt r ig h ts . See O rego n v. Ic e , 1 2 9 S . C t. 7 1 1 , 7 1 7 - 1 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( h o ld in g th a t Appr e ndi a nd B lake l

yv . W as hi ngton , 54 2 U . S . 29 6 (20 04 ) do n otappl y t o fi nd i ng s of f ac t ne c e s s a ry f

orthe i m pos i t i on of

c ons e c ut i ve s e nt e nc e s ) . I n a ddi t i on, e ve n i f the tr ia l c o u rt’s r e c a lc u a tio n o f B u s h ’s c r im in a l h is to rys c o r e f o rc e rta in c o u n ts i m pl i c a t e d B la ke ly , tha tde c i s i on doe s notappl yr e tr oa c t i ve l yt o B us h’ s c onvi c t i on, w hi ch became fi nal before B la ke lyw a s a n n o u n c e d . Sc hardt v . P ay ne , 414 F . 3d 10 25 , 10 38 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). AF F I RME D.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned, Punit Dhillon, President and Chief Executive Officer of OncoSec Medical Incorporated (the “**Company**”) hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended July 31, 2011 (the “**Report**”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:    October 19, 2011 | By:                                       | /S/   PUNIT DHILLON |
|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                                 | Punit   Dhillon                           |
| * *                             | *President   and Chief Executive Officer* |
| * *                             | *(Principal   Executive Officer)*         |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to OncoSec Medical Incorporated and will be retained by OncoSec Medical Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Sistrunk, Otis J. (POC)" <Otis.Sistrunk@polyone.com>

Date: 09/16/2011 10:39AM

cc: "Pettegrew, Mark (POC)" <Mark.Pettegrew@PolyOne.com>, "Matyger, Allan M. (PED)" 

<Allan.Matyger@polyone.com>, Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>

Subject: PolyOne Suspension Blending Data

Hello Jodi,

Attached is the supplemental Suspension Blending Resin data that Rich mentioned to you during last 

Tuesday’s call.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Otis Sistrunk 

Manager - Safety, Health & Environmental

PolyOne Specialty Resins Group

856.299.8413 

Otis.Sistrunk@polyone.com

This email and any attachment(s) may contain confidential information. If you were not the 

intended recipient, please notify the PolyOne person who sent you this email and 

immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying them or disclosing 

them. Thank you.

To view this disclaimer in other languages: www.polyone.com/disclaimer
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-64,977] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 23, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Circuit Check Inc., Maple Grove, Minnesota. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March, 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-6292 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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-65,038]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 29, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of the workers at Koch Originals, Inc., Evansville, Indiana.

The petitioners have 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. E9-6520 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
1 

### Forseth, Mark (FAA)

From: Kevin Jones <Kevin.Jones@livetv.net>

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:39 AM

To: Forseth, Mark (FAA)

Cc: Won, Ian Y (FAA)

Subject: RE: Time-limit extension for exemption no. 10760

Dear Mr. Forseth,

LiveTV would like to withdraw our request for time

‐ limit extension for exemption number 10706.

April 23, 2014 LiveTV received the Supplemental Type Certificate which shows compliance to 14 CFR 25.571(e)(1)

without limitation to said regulation.

Thank you and regards,

Kevin Jones

Certification Engineer

LiveTV

8900 Hangar Blvd.

Orlando, FL 32827

T: 407

‐ 812

‐ 2521

F: 407

‐ 812

‐ 2621

C: 321

‐ 474

‐ 2309

E: kevin.jones@livetv.net

From: Mark.Forseth@faa.gov [ mailto:Mark.Forseth@faa.gov ]

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:55 PM

To: Kevin Jones

Cc: Ian.Y.Won@faa.gov

Subject: Time-limit extension for exemption no. 10760

Dear Mr. Jones:

By letter dated March 7, 2014, the FAA requested more information regarding your petition for an extension to the time

limit for the subject exemption. Our letter to LiveTV is attached.

Please indicate whether you intend to respond, or if you intend to withdraw your request. You may send your reply

directly via e

‐ mail and we can upload it to the Federal Docket (docket no. FAA

‐ 2013

‐ 0373), or you may upload it directly

to the docket at regulations.gov.

We hope to avoid a last

‐ minute emergency project in the event you need an extension to the exemption.

Best regards,

Mark Forseth

Regulatory Technical Writer-Editor, ANM-113

Standardization Branch

Transport Airplane Directorate

Federal Aviation Administration

1601 Lind Ave. SW

Renton, WA 98057

ph: 425-227-2796
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [OR-130-1020-AL; GP9-0123] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below. 

# DATES:

                        Thursday, April 16, 2009, at the BLM Spokane District Office, 1103 N. Fancher Rd., Spokane Valley, WA 99212.                               ( print page 13226)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will start at 9 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public and there will be an opportunity for public comments at 2:30 p.m. Discussion will focus on the status of projects of interest and identification of topics for future meetings. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

BLM Spokane District, 1103 N. Fancher Rd., Spokane Valley, WA 99212, or call (509) 536-1200. 

Dated: March 17, 2009. 

Robert B. Towne, 

District Manager.

 [FR Doc. E9-6753 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
Jeffery S. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106828

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: June 4, 2019

Kristina S. Olson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.

Garrick F. D. Aplin, P.O. Box 899, 221 West High Street, Jefferson City, Mo. 65102, for respondent.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton, III, J, and Angela T. Quigless, J.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM

Jeffery S. Richardson appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(2)&(5).
1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Nos. 124,158

124,159

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

V.

DANIELLE N. ALLISTON,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Jackson District Court; NORBERT C. MAREK JR., judge. Opinion filed April 15, 

2022. Appeal dismissed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(g) and 

(h).

Before MALONE, P.J., SCHROEDER and HURST, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Danielle N. Alliston was convicted of possession of heroin in two 

separate district court cases. At the combined sentencing hearing, the district court denied 

Alliston's motion for downward durational departure and imposed the presumptive grid 

box sentence of 20 months' imprisonment in each case, to run concurrent, with 12 

months' postrelease supervision, consecutive to Alliston's sentence for a misdemeanor 

conviction in another case. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6805(a) (sentencing guidelines grid 

for drug crimes). The misdemeanor case is not at issue in this appeal. Alliston's two cases 

were consolidated on appeal, and we granted Alliston's motion for summary disposition 

in lieu of briefs under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48).
2

Alliston asserts the district court erred in denying her departure motion and in 

imposing the standard grid sentence over the mitigated sentence as set out in the grid box,

but she concedes we do not have jurisdiction to review the imposition of a presumptive 

sentence. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(c)(1). Alliston further asserts the district court 

erred in ordering her present sentences be served consecutively to her sentence in another 

case. But, she likewise acknowledges we do not have jurisdiction to review this point. 

See State v. Young, 313 Kan. 724, 740, 490 P.3d 1183 (2021) (appellate court lacks 

jurisdiction to review imposition of consecutive sentences when such disposition is 

authorized by statute).

Upon review of the record, even if we did have jurisdiction to address Alliston's 

issues on appeal, she has failed to show the district court abused its discretion.

Given the controlling precedent, we have no jurisdiction to consider Alliston's 

claims; therefore, we dismiss her appeal.

Appeal dismissed.