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 Annual Report of Optigenex Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Joseph
McSherry, as Principal 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:

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

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

                                        /s/ Joseph McSherry
                                        -------------------
                                        Joseph McSherry,
                                        Chief Financial Officer (Principal
                                        Financial Officer)

Dated: February 10, 2006
#### In re MARLOR’S WILL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

In the matter of the probate of the last will and testament of Jane Ann Marlor, deceased..

No opinion. Order modified (106 N. Y. Supp. 131), so as to provide for the submission of the questions to a jury. Settle order before HIRSCHBERG, P. J.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-92330; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2021-013]

                    On May 28, 2021, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) [1]                                          and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,[2]                                          a proposed rule change to introduce a new data product to be known as Short Sale Volume data.                

                    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 16, 2021.[3]                                          On June 30, 2021, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-CboeBYX-2021-013).                

                        For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.[4] 

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,

Assistant Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             17 CFR 240.19b-4.                    
        Back to Citation      

3.                                                     *See*                         Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92149 (June 10, 2021), 86 FR 32076. Comment on the proposed rule change is located at:                         *https://www.sec.gov/​comments/​sr-cboebyx-2021-013/​srcboebyx2021013.htm.*
        Back to Citation      

4.                                 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).                        
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2021-14694 Filed 7-9-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

The Board ofDirectorsRegal Entertainment Group:

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.333-87958 and 333-127367) on Form S-8 of Regal Entertainment Group of ourreports dated February 26, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of Regal Entertainment Group and subsidiaries as of December 28, 2006 andDecember 29, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income,stockholders’ equity (deficit) and comprehensive income, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 28, 2006, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting asof December 28, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 28, 2006, which reports appear in the December 28, 2006annual report on Form 10-K of Regal Entertainment Group.

Our reports refer to the adoption of Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 123(revised), *Share-Based Payment,*effective December 30, 2005.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Nashville,TennesseeFebruary 26, 2007

 

----
#### In the Matter of Bernard Turkewitz, Appellant. VIP Cadillac Corporation of Bayside, et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stecher, J.), entered May 11,1984, granting respondents’ motion to disqualify to the extent of directing the petitioner not to consult with any lawyer in his own law firm with regard to his dispute with the General Motors Corporation, unanimously reversed, on the law, as moot, without costs, and the motion to disqualify is denied.

As the respondents acknowledge with commendable candor, the order appealed from on their application to disqualify the petitioner’s law firm was moot as of the time it was entered. Their motion should accordingly have been denied. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Bloom and Rosenberger, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of CEO 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 AMCORE Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kenneth E. Edge, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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/ Kenneth E. Edge    
|Kenneth E. Edge        
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2007       

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 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 § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2019187EN.01005501.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/55

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris (France) lodged on 3 April 2019 — XS v Recteur de l’académie de Paris

(Case C-281/19)

(2019/C 187/58)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XS

Defendant: Recteur de l’académie de Paris

Question referred

Does French law, which does not take into account for the purposes of regrading within the school-teaching professional body the previous service of an official with the European Commission, or more broadly, with an EU institution, whereas it does provide for previous professional activities carried out within the authorities of an EU Member State to be taken into account, infringe the obligations and scope of Article 45 of the Treaty on the Function of the European Union?

---
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 of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James Hennen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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.




/s/ James HennenJames Hennen
Chief Financial Officer
October 19, 2007






---
#### In re Paul Leslie COX, Petitioner.

No. 11-1026.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

Paul Leslie Cox, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Leslie Cox petitions for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeking an order from this court to the South Carolina Attorney General to provide him with copies of his trial transcripts from 1987, copies of his warrants and indictments, and a copy of the statute of limitations. He also seeks answers to specific legal inquiries, and a copy of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and Title 42 of the United States Code. We conclude that Cox is not entitled to mandamus or prohibition relief.

Mandamus relief and prohibition are drastic remedies and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003); *In re Vargas,*723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.1983). Further, these writs are available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988); *In re Bankers Trust Co.,*775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir.1985).

The relief sought by Cox is not available by way of mandamus or prohibition. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 866 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 866

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the per-fiscal year 
 calculation of days of certain active duty or active service used to 
reduce the minimum age at which a member of a reserve component of the 
         uniformed services may retire for non-regular service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 2, 2011

    Mr. Tester (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
 Blumenthal, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Chambliss) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the per-fiscal year 
 calculation of days of certain active duty or active service used to 
reduce the minimum age at which a member of a reserve component of the 
         uniformed services may retire for non-regular service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reserve Retirement Deployment Credit 
Correction Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PER-FISCAL YEAR CALCULATION OF DAYS OF CERTAIN 
              ACTIVE DUTY OR ACTIVE SERVICE TO REDUCE ELIGIBILITY AGE 
              FOR RETIREMENT FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE.

    (a) Accumulation of 90-Day Periods of Service Within Any Two 
Consecutive Fiscal Years.--Section 12731(f)(2)(A) of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``in any fiscal year'' and 
inserting ``in any two consecutive fiscal years''.
    (b) Retroactive Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection 
(a) shall take effect as of January 28, 2008, and as if included in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 
110-181) as enacted.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Bryant, Also Known as Joseph Byrant, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), rendered August 23, 1983, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to *612withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.
# C_2019432EN.01001402.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/14

---

Appeal brought on 23 April 2019 by Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-134/17, Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case C-332/19 P)

(2019/C 432/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. (represented by: Y. Martínez Mata and S. Rating, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 November 2019, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. to bear its own costs.

---
Exhibit
10.1


 


                


 


100 Constellation Way


Baltimore, MD 21202-3106


 


December 9,
2009


 


Charles
A. Berardesco, Esq.


General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer,

Corporate Secretary and Senior Vice President


Constellation
Energy Group, Inc.


100
Constellation Way


Baltimore,
Maryland  21202


 


Re:          Waiver of Change in Control Severance
Agreement


 


Dear
Charlie,


 


I
hereby irrevocably and unconditionally consent to the termination of my Second
Amended and Restated Change in Control Severance Agreement with Constellation Energy
Group, Inc. (the “Company”), dated December 31, 2008.  From and after the date hereof, such
agreement is null and void and neither I nor the Company has any further rights
or obligations thereunder.


 


	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/
  Mayo A. Shattuck III

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Mayo
  A. Shattuck III

  



 


 


ACKNOWLEDGED: 
CONSTELLATION ENERGY  GROUP, INC.


 


 


	
  By: 

  	
  /s/ Charles A. Berardesco

  	
   

  	
  Date: December 9, 2009

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name: Charles A. Berardesco

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title: Senior Vice President and General
  Counsel
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00507-CR

Carl Roberson

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 362nd District Court

of Denton County (F-2013-1844-D)

February 26, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1943** 

NISHAN SINGH , Petitioner ,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : January 27, 2016 Decided: February 12, 2016

Before GREGORY and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Nishan Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. Linda Y. Cheng, Sheri Robyn Glaser, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nishan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Imm igration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of Singh’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Singh’s merits hearing, the applications for relief, and all supporting evidence . We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence sup ports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias

– Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Particularly, as relevant to Singh’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s affirmance of the immigration judge’s conclusion that Singh’s membership in either of the proposed social groups was not “one central reason” for the past harm he sustained or the future harm he feared. See Hui Pan v. Holder , 737 F.3d 921, 926 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that this c ourt reviews factual findings for “substantial evidence”); Crespin

- Valladares v. Holder , 632 F.3d 117, 127

- 28 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a persecutor’s motive is “a classic factual question” that the Board reviews for clear error).3 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Singh (B.I.A. July 21, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would no t aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 569 

To provide for fairness for the Federal judiciary. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2011 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. 

REID, Mr. LEE, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. 

KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for fairness for the Federal judiciary. 

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 ‘‘Federal Judicial Fair5 ness Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. JUDICIAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES. 

7 (a) REPEAL OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENT RELAT8 ING TO JUDICIAL SALARIES.—Section 140 of the resolu9 tion entitled ‘‘A Joint Resolution making further con10 tinuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1982, and for 

11 other purposes.’’, approved December 15, 1981 (Public 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 569 IS

1 Law 97–92; 95 Stat. 1200; 28 U.S.C. 461 note), is re2 pealed. 

3 (b) AUTOMATIC SALARY ADJUSTMENTS.—Section 

4 461(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read 

5 as follows: 

6 ‘‘(a) Effective at the beginning of the first applicable 

7 pay period commencing on or after the first day of the 

8 month in which an adjustment takes effect under sections 

9 5303 and 5304 of title 5 in the rates of pay under the 

10 General Schedule, each salary rate which is subject to ad11 justment under this section shall be adjusted by an 

12 amount, rounded to the nearest multiple of $100 (or, if 

13 midway between multiples of $100, to the next higher mul14 tiple of $100) equal to the percentage of such salary rate 

15 which corresponds to the overall average percentage of the 

16 adjustment in the rates of pay under the General Sched17 ule.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

**NANOGEN, INC.**

**CERTIFICATIONSREQUIRED BYRULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

I, David Ludvigson, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Nanogen, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:

|                                   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)      | The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company. |

|                                                        |        |                                                   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
| August 12, 2003                                        |   | /s/ DAVID LUDVIGSON                               |
|           |   | David Ludvigson                                   |
|           |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |
|           |   | and Treasurer                                     |