alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Report of Solar EnerTech Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steve Ye, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Date:
      August 14, 2009
            By:/s/ Steve
      YeSteve
      YeChief
      Financial Officer
# L_2017120EN.01003101.xml

| 11.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 120/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 120/31

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/653 of 8 March 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) by laying down regulatory technical standards with regard to the presentation, content, review and revision of key information documents and the conditions for fulfilling the requirement to provide such documents

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 100 of 12 April 2017
  )

On page 17, Annex II, point 13, the formula is replaced by the following:

‘

  Formula

  ’

on page 17, Annex II, point 17, the formula is replaced by the following:

‘

  Formula

  ’

on page 28, Annex IV, point 13(d) is replaced by the following:

| ‘(d) | Calculate the return for each contract by summing returns from selected periods and correcting these returns to ensure that the expected return measured from the simulated return's distribution is as below





  where E*[r
  bootstrapped
  ] is the new simulated mean.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

Formula

where E*[r
  bootstrapped
  ] is the new simulated mean.’.

---
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 692 

Recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the enactment of title 

IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 into law. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 23, 2022 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. WICKER, Ms. ERNST, and Mrs. HYDESMITH) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the enactment of title IX of the Education Amendments of 

1972 into law. 

Whereas, on June 23, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon 

signed the Education Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 

92–318; 86 Stat. 235) into law; 

Whereas title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 

U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) is commonly referred to and referenced in common vernacular as ‘‘title IX’’; 

Whereas title IX originally read, ‘‘No person in the United 

States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation 

in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving 

Federal financial assistance’’; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 692 IS 

Whereas Representatives Patsy T. Mink of Hawaii and Edith 

Green of Oregon and Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana are 

recognized as the early authors and sponsors of the legislative proposal that would eventually become title IX; 

Whereas, on May 4, 1980, the Department of Education 

began enforcing title IX through the creation of the Office for Civil Rights; 

Whereas, on February 26, 1992, in Franklin v. Gwinnett 

County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992), the Supreme 

Court of the United States unanimously ruled that students who are subjected to sexual harassment in public 

schools may sue for monetary damages under title IX; 

Whereas only 1 in 27 girls participated in school sports before title IX was enacted, and 2 in 5 girls now participate 

in school sports; 

Whereas, in 1972, 12 percent more men than women received 

college degrees, but today, women are more likely than 

men to receive college degrees; and 

Whereas, since title IX became the law of the land, women 

and girls have enjoyed increased access to higher education, graduation, athletic participation, and overall advancement in every facet of education: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes and celebrates the 50th anniver3 sary of title IX of the Education Amendments of 

4 1972 on June 23, 2022; 

5 (2) honors and commemorates the work of 

6 women’s rights activists who led the fight for the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 692 IS 

1 equal treatment of men and women in education; 

2 and 

3 (3) encourages all women and girls in the 

4 United States to continue pursuing academic and 

5 athletic accomplishments, if they so choose. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
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 June 30, 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: August 14, 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 32.1**

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

I, Jonathan I. Schwartz,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SunMicrosystems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 1, 2006 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
| Date: November 9, 2006 | By:    | /s/ JONATHAN I. SCHWARTZ |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                   | Name:  | Jonathan I. Schwartz     |
|                   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer  |

 

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7032** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WYAKETTA LATOYA WELCH , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:11

- cr - 00064

- RBS

- TEM

- 2; 2:16

- cv - 00316

- RBS )

Submitted : December 20 , 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Wyaketta Latoya Welch, Appellant Pro Se. Alyssa Kate Nichol, Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding pre cedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wyaketta Latoya Welch seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing her to show cause why her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion should not be dismissed as untimely . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Welch seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 159 Filed 10/17/19 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 159 Filed 10/17/19 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.6


 


Amendment to the

FOSTER WHEELER INC.

Directors Deferred Compensation and Stock Award Plan


 


The Foster Wheeler Inc. Directors Deferred
Compensation and Stock Award Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows,
pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of Foster Wheeler
Ltd. and its Compensation Committee at their meetings held December 8,
2008, and resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of Foster Wheeler Inc. dated
January 23, 2009:


 


1.                                       References in the Plan to “Parent” are
replaced with “Foster Wheeler AG.”


 


2.                                       The following new Article XIV is
added to the Plan:


 


Article XIV   Redomestication.


Foster Wheeler Ltd. moved
the place of organization of the parent company of its group of companies from
Bermuda to Switzerland by means of a scheme of arrangement (“Scheme of
Arrangement”) between Foster Wheeler Ltd. and Foster Wheeler AG, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Foster Wheeler Ltd. registered in Switzerland, and certain
related agreements described in Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s Proxy Statement for the
Special Court-Ordered Meeting of Common Shareholders held on January 27,
2009.  Effective upon the completion of
the Scheme of Arrangement, shares of Foster Wheeler AG will be issued, held,
made available, or used to measure benefits as appropriate under the Plan in
lieu of common shares of Foster Wheeler Ltd. with respect to all outstanding
awards.


 


3.                                       This Amendment
shall take effect upon completion of the Scheme of Arrangement (as described in
the resolutions adopted on December 8, 2008 by the Board of Directors of
Foster Wheeler Ltd.) and shall apply to all awards outstanding on such date.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Foster Wheeler Inc. has
caused this Amendment to the Plan to be executed.


 


	
   

  	
  FOSTER WHEELER INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Peter J. Ganz

  
	
   

  	
  Name: 

  	
  Peter J. Ganz

  
	
   

  	
  Title: 

  	
  Executive Vice President
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00629-CR

Juan Manuel Deleon

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1285696R)

August 14, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel_________________

 Justice Lee Gabriel
Tyrone R. HARTSFIELD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D19-1074

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 7, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 14, 2019

Tyrone R. Hartsfield, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

*1152The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
| (1)   | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Revolutions Medical Corporation.  |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |   |                                                        |   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: March 31, 2011 | By:    | /s/  Rondald L. Wheet                   |   |
|                 |   | Rondald L. Wheet                                            |   |
|                 |   | Principal Accounting OfficerRevolutions Medical Corporation |   |
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT

Scott Sagaria (State Bar No.217981)

sjsagaria@sagarialaw.com

Elliot Gale (State Bar No. 263326)

egale@sagarialaw.com

Joe Angelo (State Bar No. 268542)

jangelo@sagarialaw.com

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

3017 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 100

Roseville, California 95661

Telephone: (408) 279-2288

Facsimile: (408) 279-2299

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — OAKLAND DIVISION

JULIE GREENHOW,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EQUIFAX INC.; et. al.,

Defendants.

Federal Case No.: 4:17-CV-00417-JSW

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT 

REDWOOD CREDIT UNION PURSUANT 

TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 41(A)(1)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Julie Greenhow, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1), hereby voluntarily dismisses Defendant Redwood Credit Union as to all 

claims in this action, with prejudice.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) provides, in relevant part:

41(a) Voluntary Dismissal 

(1) By the Plaintiff

(a) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(3), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any 

applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court 

order by filing: 

Case 4:17-cv-00417-JSW Document 38 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT 

a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a 

motion for summary judgment. 

Defendant Redwood Credit Union has neither answered Plaintiff’s Complaint, nor filed a 

motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the matter may be dismissed against it for all 

purposes and without an Order of the Court. 

Dated: June 15, 2017 Sagaria Law, P.C. 

By: /s/ Elliot W. Gale

Elliot W. Gale

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Julie Greenhow

Case 4:17-cv-00417-JSW Document 38 Filed 06/15/17 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,114
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                18,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    299,043
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          70,760
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           369,803
<LOANS>                                        588,340
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,031,280
<DEPOSITS>                                     852,890
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,994
<LONG-TERM>                                     73,865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,896
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,710
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,031,280
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,768
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,289
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   280
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                19,337
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,338
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,310
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,027
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 318
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,709
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,210
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,951
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,951
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,354
<LOANS-PAST>                                       131
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,558
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       48
<RECOVERIES>                                        23
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,833
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

	In connection with the Annual Report of
AFH Holding IV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-
KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Amir F.
Heshmatpour, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my 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/ Amir F.
Heshmatpour




Amir F. Heshmatpour



Principal Executive
Officer
Principal Financial
Officer
March 27, 2008
EX-10.2










FIRST AMENDMENT




TO THE




PROLIANCE INTERNATIONAL, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN




(as amended and restated effective January 1, 2008)





     In accordance with Section 10.1 of the Proliance International, Inc. Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (the “SERP”) the following amendment is hereby made to the SERP:




	1.	 	The following new Section 1.05 is hereby added to the SERP:






	 	 	1.04 Cessation of Accruals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Plan to the contrary, effective as of March 31, 2009, all benefit accruals under
Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the SERP shall cease with respect to all participants.
Benefits under said Sections shall be determined as if such Participant had
retired or died on that date.






	 	 	The foregoing amendment shall be effective March 31, 2009.





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PROLIANCE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 	 
	Date: January 27, 2009 	By /s/ Jeffrey L. Jackson
 	 
	 	Its Vice President -- Human Resources
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

JOHN TAYLOR BROWN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1978-95-4 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 9, 1996 

VIRGINIA SUE ANDERSON BROWN 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Gerald Bruce Lee, Judge 

 (Brian M. McCormack; Dunn, McCormack, 

MacPherson & Orfe, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Beverly J. Bach; Marcia F. Ruff; Shoun & 

Bach, P.C. on brief), for appellee. 

 John T. Brown (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court denying his motion to reduce spousal support payments to 

Virginia Sue A. Brown (wife). Husband frames his issue on appeal 

as follows: "If a motion is filed requesting relief based on 

events which have not yet occurred, does the dismissal of the 

premature motion have a res judicata effect?" Upon reviewing the 

record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of 

the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

Under familiar principles we view [the] 

evidence and all reasonable inferences in the 

light most favorable to the prevailing party 

below. Where, as here, the court hears the 

evidence ore tenus, its finding is entitled 

to great weight and will not be disturbed on 

appeal unless plainly wrong or without 

evidence to support it. 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

Martin v. Pittsylvania County Dep't of Social Servs., 3 Va. App. 

15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986). 

 Husband filed a motion to reduce spousal support, based upon 

his retirement. The court held a hearing on husband's motion. 

Husband admitted that he voluntarily retired and that he had 

additional income from other assets. Husband presented no 

evidence of the circumstances existing prior to his retirement. 

The trial court granted wife's motion to strike, and husband did 

not appeal that order. 

 Husband subsequently filed an amended motion, raising the 

identical issue. The trial court granted wife's motion to deny 

husband's amended motion on the grounds of res judicata, stating 

that 

the amended motion does not state any new 

grounds that were not presented to the Court 

on February 9. We have the identity of 

parties; the identity of issues. And there 

was a hearing on the merits on this matter, 

albeit the motion was resolved against the 

[husband], where the motion to strike was 

granted. 

 The doctrine of res judicata prevents husband from 

relitigating the same issue necessarily tried and finally 

determined by the trial court in its ruling on his first motion 

to reduce spousal support. See Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 413, 

418-19, 417 S.E.2d 302, 304-05 (1992); Hiner v. Hadeed, 15 Va. 

App. 575, 580, 425 S.E.2d 811, 814 (1993). Husband raised no new 

issue in his amended motion. Husband's characterization of the 

motion as "premature" does not accurately reflect the fact that 
 3 

husband's evidence at the February 9, 1995 hearing was based upon 

the fact of his actual retirement. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

Affirmed.