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 SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ulrich Gottschling, Chief Financial 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 his 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.

 
| Dated:   February 22, 2011 | By:      | /s/ ULRICH GOTTSCHLING                                    |
|---------------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |     | Ulrich Gottschling                                        |
| * *                        | * * | *Chief Financial Officer   (Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
Case 6:15-cv-01843-CL Document 22-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 2 

John E. Haapala, Jr. 

OSB No. 061739 

401 E. 10th Ave., Ste. 240 

Eugene, OR 97401 

Ph. 541-345-84 7 4 

Fax 541-345-3237 

jeh@haapalaw.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

BETTIE A. HAYES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01843-CL 

ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406{b) 

After considering Plaintiffs Motion, and counsel for Defendant having no 

objection, Plaintiffs Motion is hereby granted in the sum of fee of $17,070.88 reduced 

by $7,086.94 Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA") fees, for a net of $9,985.94 as 

attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant shall pay this amount to 

Plaintiffs attorney, John E. Haapala, Jr., less an administrative assessment pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 406{d). There are no other costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this U_} day of_~--

PRESENTED BY: 

John E. Haapala, Jr. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

/Magistrate Judge 

1 -APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO 

JUSTICE ACT 
Case 6:15-cv-01843-CL Document 22-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 2 of 2 

2 - APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO 

JUSTICE ACT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          20,765
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  520,004
<ALLOWANCES>                                   325,112
<INVENTORY>                                  1,130,707
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,449,989
<PP&E>                                       1,002,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                 533,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,966,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,425,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,512
<OTHER-SE>                                   (511,090)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,966,903
<SALES>                                        260,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               260,394
<CGS>                                          287,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  287,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (588,823)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (588,823)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (588,823)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
null

298.0512
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM JOYCE,

Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH SHINGARY a/k/a JOE SHINGARY, GRETCHEN GAEBEL and

BANYAN DETOX, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-27

[December 16, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-CA-001140.

Robert M. Lewis of Law Office of Robert M. Lewis, LLC, Jupiter, for 

appellant.

Adam G. Heffner of Adam G. Heffner, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee 

Banyan Detox, LLC.

GERBER, J.

We reverse the circuit court’s orders granting the corporate 

defendant’s motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees under section 

57.105, Florida Statutes (2019), and then awarding the corporate

defendant the amount of those attorney’s fees.

The corporate defendant convinced the circuit court that the plaintiff 

had “improperly structur[ed] [his] pleadings as to the jurisdictional 

amount to invoke [the circuit court’s] jurisdiction.” However, the record 

indicates the plaintiff’s original complaint and amended complaints all 

properly pled above the then-circuit court $15,000 jurisdictional amount

by alleging unpaid future wages of $12,000 and unpaid past wages of

$6,500, both arising from the corporate defendant’s termination of the 

plaintiff’s employment under a single independent contractor agreement. 

See State ex rel. City of West Palm Beach v. Chillingworth, 129 So. 816, 

817 (1930) (“[I]f the demands from their nature or character are joint or 

composite, or are in some way related to each other or arise out of the 

same transaction, circumstances, or occurrence, they may be aggregated 
2

to confer jurisdiction.”); White v. Marine Transp. Lines, Inc., 372 So. 2d 

81, 84 (Fla. 1979) (“[T]he good faith demand of the plaintiff at the time of 

instituting suit determines the ability of the particular court to entertain 

the action.”).

If the circuit court later determined it lacked jurisdiction because the 

plaintiff’s claimed damages were less than the monetary threshold for 

circuit court jurisdiction, it could have transferred the action to the 

county court. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(a) (“If it should appear at any 

time that an action is pending in the wrong court of any county, it may 

be transferred to the proper court within said county ....”); Bejarano v. 

City of Hollywood, 279 So. 3d 183, 185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Courts 

applying ... rule [1.060(a)] have held that the preferable approach is to 

transfer a case to county court following a determination that a circuit 

court lacks jurisdiction because a plaintiff’s claim is less than the 

monetary threshold for circuit court jurisdiction.”).

Because we reverse the circuit court’s orders based on the plaintiff’s 

first argument on appeal, the plaintiff’s second and third arguments on 

appeal are moot.

Reversed.

KLINGENSMITH, J., and NUTT, JAMES, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2009268EN.01001801.xml

| 10.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 268/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268/18

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5519 — E.ON/Electrabel Acquired Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 268/04

On 13 October 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5519. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5519. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# L_2009094EN.01011201.xml

| 8.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 94/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/112

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2009 of 2 April 2009 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase as a feed additive for weaned piglets, chickens for fattening, laying hens, turkeys for fattening and ducks for fattening (holder of the authorisation BASF SE)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 91 of 3 April 2009
  )

On page 6, in the Annex, column 7 ‘Minimum content’, the unit ‘TXT’ should be ‘TXU’.

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2227

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Milton Lewis Poole, III

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls

____________

 Submitted: January 30, 2017

Filed: February 8, 2017 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance, Milton

Poole appeals the district court’s below-Guidelines sentence. His counsel has moved 1

The Honorable Karen Schreier, United States District Judge for the District 1

of South Dakota.
to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. 

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it imposed the

below-Guidelines sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,

specifically mentioning Mr. Poole’s history of violating probation, his musical

aspirations, and the effect of his crimes on the community. See United States v.

Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (under substantive-reasonableness test,

district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor,

gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of

judgment in weighing factors); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir.

2009) (per curiam) (“[W]here a district court has sentenced a defendant below the

advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its

discretion in not varying downward still further.”). Having independently reviewed

the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous

issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
EXHIBIT 32.2


                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Landauer, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jonathon M. Singer, 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 to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

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

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

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




                               /s/ Jonathon M. Singer
                               Jonathon M. Singer
                               Chief Financial Officer



December 13, 2010
1 – ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CODY LAWRENCE DUPONT, No. 1:16-cv-00159-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

FRANK SKRAH; JEANETTE DAVIDSON;

CHUCK COLLINS; and LEVI JUSTMAN,

Defendants. 

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation [31] on 

January 30, 2017, in which she recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ unopposed motion 

for summary judgment.

Because neither party timely filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. 

Case 1:16-cv-00159-SB Document 35 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 2
2 – ORDER 

Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of 

Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal 

principles de novo, I find no error. 

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings & Recommendation [31].

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment [19].

This case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2017.

____________________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 1:16-cv-00159-SB Document 35 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 2
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0048 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0048

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3181/78 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1736/79 in the area of Monetary Policy (COM(2005)0611 - C6-0010/2006 - 2005/0233(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 290 E , 29/11/2006 P. 0072 - 0072 *

P6_TA(2006)0048

Repeal of two monetary policy regulations *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3181/78 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1736/79 in the area of Monetary Policy (COM(2005)0611 — C6-0010/2006 — 2005/0233(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2005)0611) [1],

- having regard to Article 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0010/2006),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0010/2006),

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Calls for the initiation of the conciliation procedure under the Joint Declaration of 4 March 1975 if the Council intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
                      As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
                         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, E. Gerald Kay, the Chief Executive Officer of Integrated BioPharma,  Inc.
(the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the annual period
         ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:   September 28, 2005


                                  By: /s/ E. Gerald Kay
                                  ---------------------
                                  E. Gerald Kay
                                  Chief Executive Officer
# C_2006017EN.01000901.xml

| 24.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/9

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises

(2006/C 17/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Aid number: XS 121/02

Member State: France

Region: France

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual award: ADEME aid scheme to promote municipal and commercial waste management

Legal basis: Délibérations du Conseil d'administration de l'ADEME du 12 mai 1999 et suivantes

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: EUR 10 million

Maximum aid intensity: 7.5 or 15 % (excluding regional bonuses of 5 percentage points in PAT Industrie areas and of 10 percentage points in the overseas departments)

Date of implementation:

Duration of scheme or individual aid award:

Purpose of the aid: To promote investment by SMEs in waste prevention, management and recovery

Economic sector(s) concerned: All except fisheries and aquaculture

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie (ADEME) |
| --- |
| 27, rue Louis Vicat |
| F-75737 Paris cedex 15 |

Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie (ADEME)

27, rue Louis Vicat

F-75737 Paris cedex 15

---
Page 1 - DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO AMENDED FEE PETITION

Joshua M. Sasaki, P.C., OSB No. 964182

josh.sasaki@millernash.com

MILLER NASH LLP

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW Fifth Ave, Ste 3400

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: 503.224.5858

Facsimile: 503.224.0155

Lisa M. Burnett (Admitted pro hac vice)

lburnett@sacrowalker.com

SACRO & WALKER LLP

700 North Brand Blvd., Ste. 610

Glendale, CA 91203

Telephone: 726.201.3555

Facsimile: 818.721.9670

Attorneys for Defendant

Visalus, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LORI WAKEFIELD, on behalf of herself 

and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISALUS, INC.,

Defendant.

CV No. 3:15-cv-01857

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO AMENDED 

FEE PETITION

Plaintiff’s amended fee petition (ECF 471) repeats verbatim large swathes of the original 

fee petition (ECF 388). ViSalus’s objections (ECF 412) to the original petition similarly remain 

unchanged. In particular, while ViSalus appreciates that Plaintiff’s counsel have lowered their 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 475 Filed 08/02/24 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 - DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO AMENDED FEE PETITION

request to 25% of the claimed amount, even at a response rate of 10% that works out to slightly

over $23 million for a three-day jury trial, one principal brief on appeal, and assorted post-trial 

motion practice. Not only is that still an outlandishly large amount, it is nearly six times 

Plaintiff’s claimed lodestar figure, which itself admittedly uses hourly rates that are far beyond

what is typical for the area. Additionally, ViSalus questions the assertion that Plaintiff’s counsel 

have performed over half a million dollars of additional work since the parties’ originally 

briefing on attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a principal answering brief and a 

citation to supplemental authorities in the Ninth Circuit and appeared at an oral argument lasting 

less than an hour. Plaintiff subsequently waived her right to file a formal response to ViSalus’s 

petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

CONCLUSION

The amended fee petition, though a step in the right direction, still seeks an award that is 

wildly disproportionate to the amount and value of the work performed, regardless of how 

“excellent” Plaintiff believes it to have been. For those reasons, ViSalus reiterates its objections. 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 475 Filed 08/02/24 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 - DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO AMENDED FEE PETITION

DATED this 2

nd day of August, 2024.

SACRO & WALKER LLP

s/ Lisa M. Burnett

Lisa M. Burnett (Admitted pro hac vice)

lburnett@sacrowalker.com

700 North Brand Blvd., Ste. 610

Glendale, CA 91203

Telephone: 726.201.3555

Facsimile: 818.721.9670

Joshua M. Sasaki, P.C., OSB No. 964182

josh.sasaki@millernash.com

MILLER NASH LLP 

Telephone: 503.224.5858

Facsimile: 503.224.0155

Attorneys for Defendant ViSalus, Inc.

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 475 Filed 08/02/24 Page 3 of 3