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

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003 (the "Report") of UTEK Corporation (the "Registrant"), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Carole
R. Wright, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant certify, to the best of
my knowledge, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

                                                      /s/ Carole R. Wright
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Name: Carole R. Wright
                                                      Date: November 3, 2003
Brandi BILLEAUDEAU, et al. v. OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, et al.

NO. 2018-C-1222

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

Denied.

GENOVESE, J., recused.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

133699 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 133699 COA: 265957 Kent CC: 05-000770-FH 05-000514-FH RONALD BERNARD JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 15, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.

s0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
IN the INTEREST OF R.D. and R.D., children.

M.N.C., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-1134

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Deborah LAYMON v. MAGNUSON GRAND HOTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER Formerly Quality Inn and Conference Center, Monmouth Holding, Inc. and ABC Insurance Company

NO. 2018-CC-0746

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24 - 0 337 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STEVEN JUSTIN HEDRICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until September 11 , 2024 to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 28 2024

08/28/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0337
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 07, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-15700

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-10011-CR-KMM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

MARTIN VILLEMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 7, 2006)

Before DUBINA, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After consideration of the parties’s briefs and review of the record, we find
2

no clear error in the district court’s enhancement of Villems’s sentence based on

his role as a leader and organizer of the conspiracy to commit access device fraud. 

The undisputed facts in the presentence investigation report and the facts admitted

at the plea colloquy reflect that Villems exercised decision-making authority,

recruited accomplices, and was very involved in planning and organizing the

conspiracy. Further, he exercised control over Katrin Pitkmann, and the

conspiracy involved at least five participants. Thus, we affirm Villems’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report of Concentra Operating Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel J. Thomas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Daniel J. Thomas   
|-----------------------
|Daniel J. Thomas       
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 4, 2003         

|
|
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) between Cyberonics, Inc. (the
“Company”) and Daniel Jeffrey Moore (“Executive”) shall be effective as of April 26, 2007.



The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated April 26, 2007 (the
“Agreement”).



The Company and Executive intended to provide certain compensation and benefits to Executive,
including reimbursement of all of Executive’s reasonable expenses related to relocation of his
principal residence to the Houston area. Following execution of the Agreement, the Company and
Executive recognized that Section 9(e) embodies a mutual mistake that may frustrate the intention
of the parties.



Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of such
consideration being hereby acknowledged, and for and in consideration of the mutual promises,
covenants, and obligations contained herein, Company and Executive agree as follows:



1. Section 9 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety, and the following provision is
substituted therefor:



Relocation. Executive shall use his reasonable best efforts to relocate his principal
residence to the Houston area within six months following the Start Date. Provided that Executive
complies with the requirements of the Cyberonics Executive Relocation Policy (as modified as set
forth below), the Company shall reimburse Executive’s actual, reasonable expenses, without regard
to when Executive actually relocates his principal residence, for the cost of:




	 	(a)	 	moving Executive’s household goods and
possessions to the Houston area;	 






	 	(b)	 	up to three trips by Executive and Executive’s
family to Houston to locate housing in the Houston area;	 






	 	(c)	 	temporary housing for the Executive in the
Houston area for up to six months from the Start Date,	 






	 	(d)	 	up to twelve round trips to Boston during the
period commencing on the Start Date and continuing until the
earlier of six (6) months from the Start Date or until
Executive’s family relocates to Houston, and	 






	 	(e)	 	up to nine percent (9%) of the selling price of
Executive’s Boston residence to cover the sales commission and
reasonable closing costs.	 





2. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.



In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the
26th day of April, 2007.



Cyberonics, Inc.



By      /s/ David S. Wise     

David S. Wise, Secretary




     /s/ Daniel Jeffrey Moore     


Daniel Jeffrey Moore
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,296
<PP&E>                                         230,723
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 351,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,980
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,229
<OTHER-SE>                                     228,143
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   351,352
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,945
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,479,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,297,873)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,297,873)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)




</TABLE>
Carlos MARTINEZ v. RELIABLE SOIL, Anthony James and Houston Specialty Ins.

NO. 2018-CC-1264

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 29, 2018

Denied.
Proposed label
BCS Cry1Ab Cotton 

INSECT RESISTANT COTTON SEED 

Insect-resistant cotton seed that produces an insecticidal protein Cry1Ab from 

Bacillus thuringiensis. For control of Cotton Bollworm and Tobacco Budworm.

Active Ingredient: 

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab protein and the genetic material (from plasmid pTDL008) necessary 

for its production in Event T304-40 cotton (BCS-GHØØ4-7)..................0.000079 – 0.000394%*

Inert Ingredient:

Substance produced by a herbicide tolerance gene and its controlling sequences (from plasmid 

pTDL008) necessary for its production in Event T304-40 cotton (BCS-GHØØ4-7).....................

............... ....................................................................................0.007853 - 0.016725%*

______________________________________________________________________________________

* Percentage (wt/wt) on a dry weight basis as expressed in whole cotton plants.

KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN 

CAUTION

EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER: 264-RNOU

EPA ESTABLISHMENT NUMBER: 000264-TX-004

Bayer CropScience

2 T.W. Alexander Dr.

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
DIRECTIONS FOR USE

It is a violation of federal law to use this product in any manner inconsistent with its labeling.

This plant-incorporated protectant may be combined through conventional breeding with other 

registered plant-incorporated protectants that are similarly approved for use in combination, 

through conventional breeding, with other plant-incorporated protectants to produce inbred cotton 

lines and hybrid cotton varieties with combined pesticidal traits.

No commercial planting of this product is permitted south of Route 60 in Florida.

Commercial planting of this product is prohibited in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin 

Islands.

Bt cotton is not permitted to be planted in the following counties of the Texas panhandle: Dallam, 

Sherman, Hansford, Ochiltree, Lipscomb, Hartley, Moore, Hutchinson, Roberts and Carlson.

USE PATTERN

CROP PESTS

Cotton Cotton Bollworm

Tobacco Budworm

EPA Accepted: __/__/__
Kyle R. SWILLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5068

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jorge BETHENCOURT, etc., Appellant, v. Guillermo BETHENCOURT, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1555

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 12, 2018

Wintter & Associates, Christopher Q. Wintter and Christin Coleman Gallardo (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Billbrough & Marks, P.A. and G. Bart Billbrough, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Wallace v. Keldie*, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1358, D1359, 249 So.3d 747, ----, 2018 WL 2945556 (Fla. 1st DCA June 13, 2018) ; *D.T. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families*, 54 So.3d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ; *Elwell v. State*, 954 So.2d 104, 105, 109 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5597 

To authorize microenterprise assistance for renewable energy projects in 

developing countries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2016 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize microenterprise assistance for renewable energy 

projects in developing countries. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Solar Villages Initia5 tive Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE FOR RENEWABLE 

7 ENERGY PROJECTS IN DEVELOPING COUN8 TRIES. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President, acting through the 

10 Administrator of the United States Agency for InterVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:52 Jun 29, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5597.IH H5597

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5597 IH

1 national Development and in consultation with the Sec2 retary of State and the Secretary of Energy, is authorized 

3 to provide assistance for renewable energy projects de4 scribed in subsection (b) in developing countries to in5 crease the availability of credit, savings, and other services 

6 to microfinance and microenterprise clients lacking full ac7 cess to capital, training, technical assistance, and business 

8 development services. 

9 (b) TYPES OF PROJECTS.—The renewable energy 

10 projects described in this subsection include projects to as11 sist small and micro businesses that loan or sell solar lan12 terns or lamps and other solar energy technologies. 

13 (c) PRIORITY.—In providing assistance under sub14 section (a), the President shall give priority to empowering 

15 female-owned businesses in developing countries. 

16 (d) RELATION TO EXISTING AUTHORITIES.—Assist17 ance provided under subsection (a) shall be made available 

18 under the authorities of section 252 of the Foreign Assist19 ance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2211a). 

20 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

21 authorized to be appropriated to the President to carry 

22 out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2017, 

23 $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2018, $7,500,000 for fiscal year 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5597 IH

1 2019, $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2020, $10,000,000 for 

2 fiscal year 2021, and $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2022. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
**INFOTEC      BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC.**

**FORM      10-KSB **

| Subsidiary                                       | Jurisdiction                of                Incorporation | %                Ownership |
|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                                             |                                                        |                       |
| Galaxy                Networks Inc.              | British                Columbia, Canada                     | 100.0%                     |
|                                             |                                                        |                       |
| Infotec                Business Strategies, Inc. | British                Columbia, Canada                     | 100.0%                     |
|                                             |                                                        |                       |
| Eventec                Inc.                      | Nevada,                U.S.A.                               | 100.0%                     |
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Certification**
I, David A. Slack, Executive Vice President – Finance and Chief FinancialOfficer, certify that:
     1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form of StratosInternational, Inc.;
     2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date: December 14, 2004 /s/ David A. Slack     David A. Slack  Executive VicePresident – Finance andChief Financial Officer
1
Jairo Lainez PADILLA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-0818

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 30, 2018

Candice K. Brower, Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Gainesville, and Melissa Ford, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for Appellant, and Jairo Lainez Padilla, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In this *Anders** appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentence. However, the written sentence contains a scrivener's error. We remand for the trial court to correct the written sentence to reflect that it imposed a public defender application fee. The box for that fee remains unchecked despite the fee being orally imposed and the money included in the total amount in the judgment and sentence. *See**Washington v. State* , 37 So.3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming *Anders* appeal but remanding for correction of scrivener's error).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.

*

*Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00690-CR

Cedric Deshawnn Green

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17FC-4466B (S1)

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and 

reversed in part and judgment of acquittal should be rendered as to the charge of 

engaging in organized criminal activity. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND RENDERS JUDGMENT OF 

ACQUITTAL.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 22, 2020