alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Wilsons The LeatherExperts Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for thefiscal year ended January 29, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Peter G. Michielutti, Executive VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Operating Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and     2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.     /s/ Peter G. Michielutti       **Peter G. Michielutti** **Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,** **Chief Operating Officer**Date: April 14, 2005
Kathryn Tassinari 

Mark Manning 

kathrynt50@comcast.net 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C. 

474 Willamette, Suite 200 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

RICHARD W. BYRD, ) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

vs. ) 

) 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ) 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

Case No. 6: 15-cv-02359-SB 

ORDER APPROVING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §406(b) 

After considering Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees, and counsel for Defendant having 

no objection, Order is hereby granted in the sum of $11,867.35 for attorney fees pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. §406(b), payable to HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C., 474 Willamette, 

Suite 200, Eugene, OR 97401. The Commissioner shall deduct from this amount an 

administrative assessment under 42 U.S.C. §406(d) and pay Plaintiffs counsel the balance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this /t/(day of ;i;,;t,..,Jv-- , 2018. 

ssff,;~ - PRESENTED BY: United States Magistrate Judge 

Kathryn Tassinari 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ORDER APPROVING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES UNDER TO 42 U.S.C.§406(b) - 1
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Wind Erosion and Water Conservation Research: Lubbock, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






BSP_htmlheadline bar BSP_rain


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Yale-New Haven Hospital *v.*William Matthews et al.

*Bruce A. Morrison,*in support of the petition.

*Jeremy G. Zimmermann,*in opposition.

Submitted July 17

decided July 21, 1975

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas is denied.
Annual Reporting Meeting 

Discussion

April 23, 2018
Purpose

1 GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process, October 19, 2016

• TWG to “review progress on funded monitoring and research projects 

for the previous year”1

• Emphasis on “results/findings/scientific advances”1

• TWG to use the Annual Reporting Meeting “to give direction to the 

BAHG in the development or review of annual budget 

recommendations”1
Questions to Spark Dialogue

• Which results/findings/scientific advances stood out as impactful?

• Were there major omissions or projects lacking suitable progress?

• Which monitoring and research activities are most promising for 

future attention?

• What direction would you give the BAHG?
<PAGE>



                                                                    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 of CD&L, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Russell J. Reardon, 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) of
           the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
           Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated results of
           operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: August 16, 2004


                                                        \s\ Russell J. Reardon
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Russell J. Reardon
                                                        Chief Financial Officer


     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
     906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section
     1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, united States Code) and is not being filed as
     part of Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure statement.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 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.


                                       23
EXHIBIT
32.1





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





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 of Integrated BioPharma,
Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
E. Gerald Kay, the Chief Executive Officer of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 (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. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A
signed original of this written statement 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.





Date:September
28, 2007



By:/s/
E. Gerald Kay

Name:
E. Gerald Kay

Title:
Chief Executive Officer
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000226 15-JUN-2018 08:15 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PATHOGENESIS CORPORATION FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,913,903
<SECURITIES>                                49,230,967
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,926,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                 12,418,093
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,894,971
<PP&E>                                      28,362,461
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,529,687
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,668,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,442,609
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,391
<OTHER-SE>                                  89,383,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,668,037
<SALES>                                     10,056,135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,260,398
<CGS>                                        2,202,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,580,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             218,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,737,663)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,737,663)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,737,663)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
<FN>
<F1>THE AMOUNT OF RECEIVABLES REPORTED IS NET OF $1,623,711 OF ALLOWANCES.
<F2>THE TOTAL COSTS INCLUDE LOSS PROVISION OF $27,587.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Laurie Shertz LLC, OSB 96477 

121 SW Salmon, 11th Floor 

Portland, OR 97204 

tel: 503/406-2136 

fax: 503/406-2136 

e: Laurie@LShertzlaw.com

Attorney for Darryl Thorn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

I, Laurie Shertz, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States 

of America pursuant to 28 USC §1746 that the following is true and correct: 

1. Mr. Thorn was found to be indigent and I was appointed to assist him effective 

February 12, 2016 by the Honorable Judge John V. Acosta.

2. Mr. Thorn remains in custody and to the best of my knowledge, his financial 

situation has not improved. 

3. I believe the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated between Mr. Thorn and 

myself to the point that I can no longer effectively represent him. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Darryl Thorn, 

 Defendant.

No. 3:16 CR 00051-22 BR 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND FOR 

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

United States v. Thorn 

USDC Oregon 3:16 CR 00051-22 BR 

Page 1 - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND FOR 

 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

LAURIE SHERTZ LLC, OSB #96477 

121 SW SALMON STREET, 11TH FLOOR  PORTLAND, OR 97204 

503-406-2136   e: Laurie@LShertzlaw.com

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 411 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 2
 4. During a jail visit with Mr. Thorn on April 13, 2016, he informed me I was 

“Fired.” 

5. I request the opportunity to address the court in camera on this issue in order to 

preserve Mr. Thorn’s confidences. 

6. I have consulted with the CJA Panel Office. They do not take a position on this 

motion but stand prepared to appoint new counsel if ordered to do so by the Court. 

Therefore, I request the Court immediately appoint new counsel to represent Mr. Thorn 

pursuant to 18 USC §3006A.

7. I will be out of the District between Monday, April 18 until Sunday, April 24, so I 

request a hearing on this matter be scheduled for April 15, or the 24th.

7. This case is presently scheduled for trial in September, 2016, but I have only had 

the case one month, during most of which discovery was not available, so I do not believe 

replacement counsel would be particularly disadvantaged by this late start. 

Respectfully submitted this 14 of April, 2016. 

 /s/ Laurie Shertz 

LAURIE SHERTZ, OSB # 96477 

 503/406-2136 

Attorney for Darryl Thorn

United States v. Thorn 

USDC Oregon 3:16 CR 00051-22 BR 

Page 2 - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND FOR 

 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

LAURIE SHERTZ LLC, OSB #96477 

121 SW SALMON STREET, 11TH FLOOR  PORTLAND, OR 97204 

503-406-2136   e: Laurie@LShertzlaw.com

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 411 Filed 04/14/16 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Lawrence S. Barker, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal
executive officer) of Visual networks, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to
the best of my knowledge, based upon review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

         (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 Registrant.

    /s/ Lawrence S. Barker
------------------------------------
Name:    Lawrence S. Barker
Date:    November 14, 2003

                                       52
Suggested Priority Reading List

Braun, D.P., 2017, GCDAMP FY 2017 Knowledge Assessment--final report from the executive coordinator for the 

Science Advisors Program: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), Science 

Advisors Program, Technical Work Group (TWG): 36 p., 

http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/2/26/GCDAMP_FY_2017_Knowledge_AssessmentScience_Advisor_Program_Final_Report_2017-04-30.pdf

Gloss, S.P., Mayer, L.M., and Kidd, D.E., 1980, Advective control of nutrient dynamics in the epilimnion of a large 

reservoir: The American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, v. 25, no. 2, p. 219-28.

US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial Budget and Work Plan –

Fiscal Years 2018-2020, accessed on September 15, 2017 at URL 

https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/17sep20/TWP.pdf

Vernieu, W.S., Hueftle, S.J., and Gloss, S.P., 2005, Water quality in Lake Powell and the Colorado River, in Gloss, 

S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S. eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1282, 69-85 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1282/

Vernieu, W.S., 2015, Historical physical and chemical data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen Canyon Dam 

releases, Utah-Arizona, 1964-2013: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 471, 23 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds471

Williams, N.T., 2007, Modeling dissolved oxygen in Lake Powell using CE-QUAL-W2: Provo, Utah, Brigham Young 

University, M.S. in Science, 120 p. p., https://deercreek.groups.et.byu.net/Papers/Models/W2-

MODEL/DO_ModelingPowell_WilliamsThesis.pdf

Expanded Reading List

Hueftle, S.J., and Stevens, L.E., 2001, Experimental flood effects on the limnology of Lake Powell reservoir, 

southwestern USA: Ecological Applications, v. 11, no. 3, p. 644-656, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3061107.pdf

Johnson, N.M., and Page, F.W., 1981, Oxygen depleted waters: origin and distribution in Lake Powell, Utah-Arizona: 

Proceedings of teh Symposium on Surface Water Impoundments, p. 1631-1637.

Jones, J., Kennedy, R.H., Nestler, J., Robertson, D., Ruane, R.J., and Schladow, S.G., 2001, Final report of the 

Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Integrated Water 

Quality Program (IWQP): Flagstaff, Ariz., 39 p. plus appendices, available at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/09mar16/Attach_11.pdf.

Vernieu, W., 2015, Biological data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen Canyon Dam Releases, Utah and Arizona, 

1990-2009, U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 959: 12 p. p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds959

Walters, D.M., Rosi-Marshall, E., Kennedy, T.A., Cross, W.F., and Baxter, C.V., 2015, Mercury and selenium 

accumulation in the Colorado River food web, Grand Canyon, USA: Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, v. 34, no. 10, doi: 10.1002/etc.3077, p. 2385-2394, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.3077

Wildman, R.A., Jr., and Hering, J.G., 2011, Potential for release of sediment phosphorus to Lake Powell (Utah and 

Arizona) due to sediment resuspension during low water level: Lake and Reservoir Management, v. 27, no. 

4, p. 365-375.
#### ELLIOT, Respondent, v. ROCHESTER RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Sarah M. Elliot against the Rochester Railway Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A LI CI A A G U I LA R, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73058 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 709- 341 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , O ’S C A N N L A I N , an dF I S H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A l i c i aA gui l ar , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the 

# FI LED JU N 29 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73058 2 d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 40 0 F . 3d 78 5, 79 1 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) , an dw e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . I n he rope ni ng br i e f

, A gui l arf

a i l s t o a ddr e s s , a nd the r e f or e ha s w a i ve d a ny c h a lle n g e to , th e B I A ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n w a s u n tim e ly . See M a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( i ss ues thatar e n o t s p e c if

ic a llyr a is e da n da r g u e din ap arty ’s o p e n in g b r ie f a r e w a iv e d ) ; s e e al

s o 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 43( e ) ( 1) - ( 2) ( m ot i ons t o r e ope n t o appl yf orr e l i e f unde rthe N i c ar a guan A dj us tm e nta nd C e ntr a l A m e r i c an R e l i e f A c t , P ub. L . N o. 105- 100, 1 1 1 S ta t. 2 1 6 0 , 2 1 9 3 ( 1 9 9 7 ) , m u s t b e f ile db yS e p te m b e r1 1 , 1 9 9 8 ) . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We have issued our report dated March 30, 2000, accompanying the financial
statements included in the Annual Report of Amplidyne, Inc on Form 10K-SB for
the year-ended December 31, 1999. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Amplidyne, Inc. on
Forms S-3 (File No. 333-92919 effective December 16, 1999 as amended by File No.
333-11015 effective date January 3, 2000 and File No. 333-96361 effective
February 8, 2000) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-92915 effective date December 16,
1999).



GRANT THORNTON LLP


Edison, New Jersey
March 30, 1999
(December 11, 1986)

#### Alan Gallant, Respondent, v Joan Gallant, Appellant.

—Resettled judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce McM. Wright, J.), entered October 18, 1985, which, *inter alia,*awarded defendant exclusive possession of the marital apartment; directed its sale when the youngest child of the parties becomes 21; apportioned the proceeds; awarded both parties equal use of a Long Island property; directed its sale when the youngest child attains the age of 21; and apportioned the proceeds, is modified, on the law and facts, to the extent of remanding to the Supreme Court for a hearing and award for child support, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the findings made by Trial Term as to the equitable distribution of the marital property. However, Trial Term misapprehended the scope of our remand *(see, Alan G. v Joan G.,*104 AD2d 147, 155) to require only findings with respect to the equitable distribution. Although not explicit, our reversal of the grant of custody of the infant children to the plaintiff father and award of custody to the defendant mother necessitated a finding as to the amount the father should be required to contribute to the support of the children, and we remand for such hearing. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Fein and Wallach, JJ.
#### HAZAZER v. ROSENFELD.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

January 31, 1896.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.