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 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Lori J. Foust, treasurer and principal financial officer of the Company, 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 her knowledge: (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 Company.  Date: May 15, 2008By:/s/ Lori J. FoustName:Lori J. FoustTitle:Treasurer and principal financial officer  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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



     In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bridge
Capital  Holdings  for the  quarter  ended  March  31,  2006,  I,  Thomas A. Sa,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Bridge Capital Holdings,
hereby  certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1)  such 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 such Report fairly presents,  in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of Bridge
     Capital Holdings.



Date: May 4, 2006      /s/ THOMAS A. SA
                           _____________________________
                           Thomas A. Sa
                           Executive Vice President and
                           Chief Financial Officer
                           (Principal Financial Officer)
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000429 10-SEP-2014 08:08 AM
Thomas Charles PILOTTI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-2684

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELATED CASE ORDER

A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related or a 

Sua Sponte Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been 

filed. The time for filing an opposition or statement of support has passed. As the judge assigned 

to case 

17-cv-00485-WHO

City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump

I find that the more recently filed case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case 

assigned to me, and such case(s) shall be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not 

related to the case assigned to me are referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case 

for a related case determination.

Case Title Related Not Related

18-cv-5169-KAW State of California v. Sessions WHO

18-cv-5146-JSC City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions WHO

ORDER

The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the 

initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management 

conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the 

dates for the conference, disclosures and report required by FRCivP 16 and 26 accordingly. 

Unless otherwise ordered, any dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be renoticed by the moving party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local 

Rules remain in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue to 

govern, except dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned 

judge.

Dated: September 10, 2018 By: 

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 217 Filed 09/10/18 Page 1 of 1
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 on Form 10-Q of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Brenda G. Gujral, president of the Company, 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 her knowledge: (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 Company.  Date:  May 15, 2009By:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President  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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Summary
of Plan Terms for 2009 Executive Short-Term Incentive Plan


 


The Advent Software 2009
Executive Short-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is designed to motivate and
reward the Executive Team for short-term achievement of annual contract value,
revenue and income from operations milestones during the 2009 fiscal year.  A summary of the terms follows:


 


·                  The Plan is
applicable to the Chief Executive and Financial Officer and executive-level members
of Advent’s Executive Management Team (the “Executives”)


 


·                  The individual
plans establish various target amounts, performance measures and goals of the
cash bonuses awarded under the Plan for each Executive.


 


·                  Current target
amounts range from a total per individual of $97,000 to $275,000.


 


·                  Plan targets are
based on annual contract value, recognized revenue, income from operations (excluding
stock-based compensation, amortization and restructuring expenses) and
individual executive performance relative to goals.


 


·                  The Plan is an
annual plan and is effective for fiscal year 2009. Any bonuses earned will be paid
in the first quarter of 2010.


 


·                  The Plan may be
renewed at the election of the Company for future periods.
----

|   | (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 Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/ Richard W. McCullough                    |   | November 12, 2010 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
| Richard W. McCullough                              |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |
|  /s/ Gysle R. Shellum                         |   | November 12, 2010 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |

----
Charles Auther MOORE v. STATE

CR-17-0047

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
J

- A27003

- 18

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

SCIOLI TURCO, INC.

Appellant

v.

DENISE PRIOLEAU AND RASHEED F.

PRIOLEAU AND ISIAH N. BURNS

3206 PEARL STREET PHILADELPHIA,PA 19104 OPA/BRT:

241155400 :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 422 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Order December 20, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at

No(s): August Term, 2017 No. 1535

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 30 , 2018

This appeal was scheduled for oral argument on November 14, 2018 , by

notice served on October 11, 2018 . Appellees appeared for argument, but

Appellant did not. Nor did Appellant contact this Court to explain the absence

or request that the case be submitted on the briefs . Accordingly, we dismiss

this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2314 (“If appellant or the moving party is not

ready to proceed when a case is called for oral argument, the matter may be

dismissed as of course.”).

Appeal dismissed.J

- A27003

- 18

- 2

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/30/18
exv10w1






January 23, 2009




Stephen DiPalma

RXi Pharmaceuticals Corporation

60 Prescott St.

Worcester, MA 01609




Subject: RXi Pharmaceuticals/Newgate Properties Lease Amendment



Dear Steve,



Per your discussion with D’ Anne Hurd, Vice President for Business Development at Gateway
Park (Newgate Properties, LLC), this letter is to serve as an amendment to the Lease between
RXi Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Newgate Properties, LLC dated September 25,2007.



Landlord and Tenant agree to amend Section 1.1 , Term, to extend the Term for an additional
two (2) years beginning August I, 2009. Therefore, the Lease will now expire on July 31, 2011.



Tenant and Landlord agree to amend Section 1.1, Term to allow Tenant the right to terminate
the Lease as may be specified by at least
sixty (60) days’ notice to Landlord.



All other Lease terms including those contained in the amendments dated August 28, 2008 and
November 4, 2008 will remain in full force and effect.



By signing this letter, we agree to the above terms.



Very truly yours,




LANDLORD:

Newgate Properties, LLC




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ D’Anne Hurd
 	 
	D’ Anne Hurd, Vice President and General Counsel 	 
	Worcester Polytechnic Institute 	 



TENANT:

RXi Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Acknowledged and Agreed to as of this 23rd day of January, 2009




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Stephen DiPalma
 	 
	Stephen DiPalma, EVP and CFO 	 
	RXi Pharmaceutical Corporation
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of 

Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-40826

VALENTIN LUCERO,

Worker-Appellant,

v.

YELLOW CORPORATION and OLD

REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY,

Employer/Insurer-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION

Leonard J. Padilla, Workers’ Compensation Judge

Gerald A. Hanrahan

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Lynn & Associates, LLC

Phyllis Savage Lynn

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellees

MEMORANDUM OPINION

IVES, Judge.

{1} Summary reversal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed 

summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary reversal has been filed and 

the time for doing so has expired. REVERSED.

{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge
WE CONCUR:

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7100

MICHAEL L. MARTIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00853-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Martin, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael L. Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. See Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to 

one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates 

enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief 

on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Opinion filed August 31 , 2010



## In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 10

- 00199

- CR

__________

JOSE FRANCISCO GUERRERO , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 361 st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 08

- 00585

- CRF

- 361

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Jose Francisco Guerrero has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his appeal. Attached

to the motion is Guerrero’s signed statement that he no longer desires to continue his appeal.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

August 31 , 2010

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2424-2425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-434]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard
[CGD 95-002]


Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee 
will meet to discuss various navigation safety matters affecting the 
Lower Mississippi River area. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to approximately 1 p.m. on 
Tuesday, February 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in room 1830 of the World Trade 
Center, 2 Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LTJG Dave Seris, USCG, Recording Secretary, Lower Mississippi River 
Waterway Safety Advisory Committee, [[Page 2425]] c/o Commander, Eighth 
Coast Guard District (oan), Room 1211, Hale Boggs Federal Building, 501 
Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130-3396, telephone (504) 589-2353.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Section 1 et seq. 
The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public may present 
written or oral statements at the meeting. The agenda for the meeting 
consists of the following items.
    (1) Presentation of the minutes from the April 19, 1994 full 
Committee meeting.
    (2) Discussion of previous recommendations made by the Committee. 
Discussions will include an update on gaming vessel issues, marking of 
an alternate route through Breton Sound, and an update on CH-67 VHF/FM 
interference.
    (3) Presentation of any additional new items for consideration of 
the Committee.

    Dated: December 30, 1994.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eight Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 94-434 Filed 1-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Joseph Shawn WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-664

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Arthur L. Regan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2006 of Arlington Tankers Ltd.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [Not applicable];(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’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 financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect 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 over financialreporting.      /s/ Arthur L. Regan     Name: Arthur L. ReganDate: May 10, 2006 Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer & President
Michael Jerome HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-849

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
S. ALFARO, Associate Director of CDCR; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 16205

D.C. No. 1:17

- cv

- 01310

- AWI

- JLT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021 * *

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner John Wesley Williams appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims . We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca , 747 F.3d 1162, 11 68 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 16205

2014) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute

of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable.

See Ross v. Blake
, 578 U.S. 632, 635, 638 , 641

- 44 (2016) ( explaining that an

inmate m ust exhaust such administrative remedies as are available before filing an

action , and describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are

unavailable ); Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion of

administrative remedies . . . means using all steps that the agency holds out, and

doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted) ); Albino , 747 F.3d at 1172 (explaining that

once the defendant has carried the burden to prove that there was an available

administrative remedy, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence

showing that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams’s request

to stay summary judgment pending additional discovery because Williams failed to

show that the discovery he sought was essential to oppose summary judgment. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); Midbrook Flowerbulbs Holland B.V. v. Holland Am. Bulb

Farms, Inc. , 874 F.3d 604, 614, 619

- 20 (9th Cir. 2017) ( standard of review , and

explaining that to prevail on a Rule 56(d) request, a party must state the specific3 20

- 16205

facts it s eeks in further discovery, and show that such facts exist and are “essential
to oppose summary judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. S

ee Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.
AFFIRMED.