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

Certification of Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted  Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Danvers Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") for the Year Ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I hereby certify, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

This
statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is
not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated: March 16, 2009/s/ JAMES J. MCCARTHY James J. McCarthy Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer


---



QuickLinks
Daniel SMORYNSKI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10683.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, certify that:

(1)

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of PhotoMedex, Inc.;

(2)

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3)

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated 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 and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant'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 financial reporting; and



(5)

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: November 24, 2004

By: /s/ Jeffrey F. O'Donnell

Jeffrey F. O'Donnell

Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


         I, Lisa K. Vansickle, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of First Banks,  Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (1)   The  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  of the  Company  for  the
               quarterly  period  ended  June  30,  2007  (the  "Report")  fully
               complies with the  requirements of Sections 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 13, 2007

                                  By:  /s/ Lisa K. Vansickle
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                           Lisa K. Vansickle
                                           Senior Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                           Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2


                             THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES
                          SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN
                        (Effective as of January 1, 1988)

                                 First Amendment

The Williams Companies Supplemental Retirement Plan, effective as of January 1,
1988 (the "Plan") is hereby amended effective as of April 1, 1998, in the
following respects:

1.       The first sentence of Article IV of the Plan is amended and restated to
         provide as follows:

                  "Subject to Section 7.8, a Participant's Supplemental
                  Retirement Benefit, if any and if vested, shall normally
                  commence to be paid at the same time and shall normally be
                  paid pursuant to the same method of payment as is selected by
                  the Participants under the Pension Plan; however, the
                  Committee, in its sole and absolute discretion, is authorized
                  to approve or reject a Participant's request for a time of
                  commencement of payment or a method of payment under the
                  Pension Plan."

2.       In all other respects, the Plan remains unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Administrative Committee has caused this amendment of
the Plan to be executed this 30th day of March, 1998.

                                          THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.


                                          By:       /s/ John C. Fischer
                                              ----------------------------------

                                          Title: Chair, Administrative Committee
                                                 The Williams Companies, Inc.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10587

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAMIRO ESQUIVEL-SALAZAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:03-CR-00003-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Ramiro Esquivel-Salazar appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Esquivel-Salazar contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Esquivel-Salazar maintains that
No. 03-10587

-2-

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that

offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Esquivel-Salazar acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Calbert FAGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert KUHLMANN, Respondent-Appellee.

Docket No. 03-2557.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 19, 2004.

Theodore S. Green, Green & Willstatter, White Plains, NY, for Appellant.

Douglas A. Spencer, Assistant District Attorney (Steven A. Hovani, Assistant District Attorney, of counsel, Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney of Suffolk County, on the brief), Office of the District Attorney of Suffolk County, Riverhead, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: FEINBERG, CABRANES Circuit Judges and KRAVITZ,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

We have considered all of petitioner’s arguments and have found each of them to be without merit. We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the District Court’s opinion in *Fagan v. Kuhlman,*267 F.Supp.2d 388 (E.D.N.Y.2003).

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

AUDREY WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION, d/b/a AMTRAK, et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:12-CV-016 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. [DE 122]. This Court 

referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Cherry, who filed a Report and Recommendation on 

October 9, 2014, recommending that the motion be denied. [DE 167]. After referring a 

dispositive motion to a magistrate judge, a district court has discretion to accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court must 

undertake a de novo review “only of those portions of the magistrate judge’s disposition to 

which specific written objection is made.” See Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 

(7th Cir. 1999) (citing Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 1995)). If no objection or 

only a partial objection is made, the court reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. Id. 

Under the clear error standard, a court will only overturn a magistrate judge’s ruling if the court 

is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung 

Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.1997). 

The time for objections to the Report and Recommendation has now passed, and no party 

has objected, so this Court’s review is for clear error. Having reviewed the Report and 
2 

Recommendation and finding no clear error therein, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 

Recommendation [DE 167] in its entirety. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions [DE 122] is DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: October 30, 2014 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Parallel Technologies, Inc.
File No. 0-19276

          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 Parallel  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Glenn
A. Little,  Chief Executive and Chief Financial 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:

     (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: July 16, 2004                               By:     /s/ Glenn A. Little
      -------------                                  ---------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Parallel  Technologies,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  Parallel
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 22, 2010

y1115 

# Order

November 22, 2010

141433

CLIFTON GILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 141433 COA: 297042 Ionia CC: 09-027025-AH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 2, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Stephen Rex EDMISTON, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 13-6058.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF FISCAL 1999 AS FILED IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         132,970
<SECURITIES>                                    20,924
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,599
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,271
<INVENTORY>                                    212,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               506,579
<PP&E>                                         329,224
<DEPRECIATION>                                 137,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 708,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          140,847
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       405,501
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   708,225
<SALES>                                         85,487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,487
<CGS>                                           61,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 374
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,321)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,032)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,032)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.11(e)  


April 28,
2003 


Ms. Trudy
Briley

DSM Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

P.O. Box 1887

Greenville, NC 27835-1887 



	Re:
	Amendment
No. 4 to Toll Manufacturing and Packaging Agreement 




Dear
Ms. Briley: 


        This
letter is to confirm our understanding concerning an amendment to be made with respect to the Toll Manufacturing and Packaging Agreement dated as of August 24, 1999, as
amended by Amendment No.1 dated July 3, 2001, by Amendment No. 2 dated October 9, 2001, and by Amendment No. 3 dated June 21, 2002 (the "Agreement"), between
Cephalon, Inc. ("Cephalon") and DSM Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("DSM"). All terms not otherwise defined herein are used as defined in the Agreement. 


        The
purpose of this Amendment is to extend the Initial Term of the Agreement for one year and to set the minimum annual quantities of Product to be purchased by Cephalon and to increase
the manufacturing capacity reserved by Catalytica for the remainder of the Initial Term of the Agreement. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 



        1.
In the second line of Section 2.5 of the Agreement, the words "five (5)" are hereby replaced with words "six (6)." 


        2.
Existing Schedule F of the Agreement relating to Minimum Quantities shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached revised Schedule F. 


        3.
Except as amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 




        If
the foregoing accurately reflects your understanding as to these matters, please indicate your agreement in the space provided below, and return one fully-executed original to me. 



	 	 	 	Very truly yours,
	

 	

 	
 	

/s/ Robert Urban

Vice President, Technical Operations
	

Acknowledged and agreed to by:	
 	

 
	

DSM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	
 	

 
	

By:	

/s/  TERENCE S. NOVAK      
 Name: Terence S. Novak

Title: Sr. V.P. Comm. Ops.	
 	

 







 
Schedule F

Minimum Quantities  


        The minimum annual quantities to be purchased by CEPHALON and capacity to be reserved by DSM, are as follows for the remainder of the Initial Term of this
Agreement: 



	Year
 
	 	Quantity

	2004	 	[**]
	2005 (until 8/24/05)	 	[**]






        Pursuant
to Section 3.1, if the actual annual quantity exceeds the minimum annual quantity in any year by twenty-five percent (25%) or less, this excess will reduce
the minimum annual quantity in the following year. 


	**
	Portions
of this exhibit have been omitted and filed separately pursuant to an application for confidential treatment filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule
24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 


A-1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1140

In re: ROGER CHARLES DAY, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cr-00154-JAG-3)

Submitted: April 22, 2021 Decided: April 27, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Charles Day, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Charles Day, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district 

court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our 

review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied the motion on 

January 27, 2021. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Roger’s 

motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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. 

PETITION DENIED