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

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

**(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,**

**CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of UNOVA, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended July 3, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael E. Keane, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Michael E. Keane      |     |
|---------------------------|----------|
| Michael E. Keane          |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer* | * * |
| August 11, 2005      |     |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**List of Subsidiaries of Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc.**

 

Iowa Telecom Communications, Inc., an Iowacorporation 

d/b/a Iowa Telecom 

 

Iowa Telecom Technologies, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company 

 

Iowa Telecom Data Services, L.C., an Iowa limited liability company 

 

IT Communications, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company 

d/b/a Iowa Telecom 

 

IWA Holdings, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company 

 

IWAServices, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company 

 

BakerCommunications, Inc., an Iowa corporation 

 

Montezuma MutualTelephone Company, an Iowa corporation 

 

Bishop CommunicationsCorporation, a Minnesota corporation 

 

Communications Sales andLeasing, Inc., a Minnesota corporation 

 

Lakedale TelephoneCompany, a Minnesota corporation 

 

Lakedale Communications, LLC, aMinnesota limited liability company 

 

Lakedale Link, Inc., aMinnesota corporation 

 

Lakedale Link, LLC, a Minnesota limitedliability company 

 

Heart of the Lakes Cable Systems, Inc., aMinnesota corporation 

 

EN-TEL Communications, LLC, a Minnesotalimited liability company 

 

IWA MN Holdings, LLC, a Minnesotalimited liability company 

 

SHAL, LLC, a Minnesota limitedliability company 

 

SHAL Networks, Inc., a Minnesota corporation

 

Direct Communications, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Stratus      Services Group, Inc.**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18      U.S.C. Section 1350)**

| 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| Dated:                February 17, 2006 |                                                 |
|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    | By:                /s/ Joseph J. Raymond             |
|                                    | Joseph                J. Raymond                     |
|                                    | Chairman                of the Board of Directors,   |
|                                    | President                and Chief Executive Officer |
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

SECTION 906CERTIFICATION

 

CERTIFICATION

 

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008of Hydrogenics Corporation (the “Company”) as filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”)and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Daryl Wilson, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, that:

 

(1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:                                          | /s/ Daryl Wilson |   |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------|--------|
|                                         |             |
| Name: Daryl Wilson                           |             |
|                                         |             |
| Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |             |

 

Date: June 30, 2009

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Hydrogenics Corporation and will beretained by Hydrogenics Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 6-04

IN RE: COMMITTEE ON ADMISSION AND PRACTICE

Before IVERS, Chief Judge, and STEINBERG, GREENE,

KASOLD, and HAGEL, Judges.

O R D E R

It is ORDERED that David T. Landers, Esq., is reappointed as a member of the Committee

on Admission and Practice for a term expiring November 18, 2007. His designation as Chair of the

Committee is continued.

DATED: November 18, 2004 BY THE COURT:

DONALD L. IVERS

Chief Judge
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Saul Santiago Acuna v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00533-CR

Trial court case number: 1445281

Trial court: 174th District Court of Harris County

On December 29, 2016, this Court granted appellant’s motion to abate, abated and 

remanded this case to the trial court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of 

law regarding the denial of appellant’s pre-trial motion to suppress his statements as 

involuntary. On January 31, 2017, a compliant supplemental clerk’s record with the trial 

court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, signed on January 13, 2017, was filed in 

this Court.

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte directs the Clerk of this Court to REINSTATE

this case on the Court’s active docket.

Appellant is ORDERED to file his appellate brief no later than 30 days from the 

date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 38.6(a)(1), (d).

The State’s appellate brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days

from the filing of appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 7, 2017
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 26, 2018

NO. 03-17-00771-CV

Texas Jewelers Association, Rex Solomon, and Brad Koen, Appellants

v.

Ann Glynn, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART --

OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on October 27, 2017. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible 

error in the court’s interlocutory order. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s 

interlocutory order to the extent that it denied appellants’ motion to dismiss Ann Glynn’s 

defamation claim as to Brad Koen and her tortious-interference claim as to all three appellants, 

and renders judgment dismissing those claims. We affirm the trial court’s interlocutory order in 

all other respects. The parties each shall bear one-half the costs relating to this appeal, both in 

this Court and in the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             262
<SECURITIES>                                        12
<RECEIVABLES>                                      421
<ALLOWANCES>                                         5
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,088
<PP&E>                                             726
<DEPRECIATION>                                     481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              661
<BONDS>                                             11
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,430
<SALES>                                            779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   779
<CGS>                                              736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    43
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     20
<INCOME-TAX>                                         8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 12
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        12
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.34
        

</TABLE>
ex10_5.htm














SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

















This Sixteenth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2010 by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Brud Drachman ("Executive").












Recitals








	
A)  

	
On January 11, 2000 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.













	
B)  

	
Said Employment Agreement has been amended on fifteen prior occasions;













	
C)  

	
Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:












Agreement








	
1.  

	
Section 2.1 of the Agreement which, as amended, provides:












2.1           Salary.  For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $197,600 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.







is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2010, to provide as follows:







2.1           Salary.  For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $201,552 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.










	
2.  

	
All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.

















Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.






















EXECUTIVE                                                                                                EMPLOYER


PRICESMART, INC.







Brud Drachman                                                                           By:           







______________________                                                   Name:      Jose Luis Laparte 


                          Its:           President
#### John Lee MORRIS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The People of the UNITED STATES; Judges; Attorneys; Clerks; Robert J. Favrot; William J. Dziwura; NC Attorney General Roy Cooper; Robert Montgomery; Sarah Parker; Mark D. Martion; Robert H. Edmunds, Jr.; Edward T. Brandy; Patricia Timmons Goodson; Paul M. Newby; Robin E. Hudson; Justice Niemeyer; Justice Traxler; Justice Gregory; William K. Suter; Jeffrey Atkins; Ruth Jones; Pamela K. Stump; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-1061.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2011.

Decided: May 3, 2011.

John Lee Morris, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, Sr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*230Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Lee Morris, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Morris’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Moms v. People of the United States,*No. l:10-cv-00130-JAB-PTS, 2011 WL 124510 (M.D.N.C. filed Jan. 14, 2011; entered Jan. 19, 2011). We further deny Morris’ motion for sanction or money demand. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Cite as 2015 Ark. 452

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-15-916

MICHAEL TODD

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered December 3, 2015

MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL

MOTION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

Appellant Michael Todd, by and through his attorney, Anthony S. Biddle, has filed a

motion for belated appeal. On June 26, 2014, the Hempstead County Circuit Court revoked

Appellant Michael Todd’s suspended imposition of sentences. On July 22, 2014, Todd filed

his notice of appeal. On June 3, 2015, the Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed Todd’s

appeal, holding that despite Todd’s notice of appeal being timely filed, his notice of appeal

was ineffective to confer appellate jurisdiction. See Todd v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 356, 465

S.W.3d 435. Specifically, the court of appeals held that the language of Todd’s notice of

appeal did not fairly and accurately inform the court of the order(s) being appealed from as

required by Rule 2(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Criminal, the appellate

court to which Todd was appealing, or whether the order(s) resulted from a bench hearing

rather than a jury trial. Id. at 5, 465 S.W.3d at 438.

In the present motion for belated appeal, Mr. Biddle admits that it was his obligation

to file an appropriate notice appeal. We have clarified our treatment of motions for rule on
Cite as 2015 Ark. 452

clerk and motions for belated appeals in McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883

(2004). There, we stated that there are only two possible reasons for an appeal not being

timely perfected: either the party or the attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is “good

reason.” Id. at 115, 146 S.W.3d at 891. We explained:

Where an appeal is not timely perfected, either the party or attorney filing the appeal

is at fault, or there is good reason that the appeal was not timely perfected. The party

or attorney filing the appeal is therefore faced with two options. First, where the party

or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, fault should be admitted by affidavit filed with

the motion or in the motion itself. There is no advantage in declining to admit fault

where fault exists. Second, where the party or attorney believes that there is good

reason the appeal was not perfected, the case for good reason can be made in the

motion, and this court will decide if good reason is present.

Id., 146 S.W.3d at 891 (footnote omitted). While this court no longer requires an affidavit

admitting fault before we will consider the motion, an attorney should candidly admit fault

where he has erred and is responsible for the failure to perfect the appeal. See id.

In accordance with McDonald, Mr. Biddle has candidly admitted fault. Therefore, the

motion is granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on

Professional Conduct. 

Motion granted. 

2
# Green Card Through Registry

Registry is a section of immigration law that enables certain individuals who have been present in the United States since Jan. 1, 1972, the ability to apply for a Green Card (permanent residence), even if they are currently in the United States unlawfully.

## Eligibility Criteria

You may be eligible to receive a Green Card (permanent residence) under the registry provisions if you meet all of the following conditions:
                - You entered the United States prior to Jan. 1, 1972
                - You have resided in the United States continuously since you entered
                - You are a person of good moral character
                - You are not ineligible for naturalization (citizenship)
                - You are not removable (deportable) under Section 237(a)(4)(B) the  Immigration and Nationality Act  (INA). You are not inadmissible under Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the INA or as a criminal, procurer, other immoral person, subversive, violator of the narcotics laws or noncitizen smuggler

## Application Process

To apply for a Green Card under the registry provisions, you need to file Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.

### Supporting Evidence for Form I-485

You should submit the following evidence with your Form I-485:
                - Two passport-style photos
                - Copy of government issued photo identification
                - Copy of birth certificate
                - Copy of passport page with nonimmigrant visa (if applicable)
                - Copy of passport page with admission (entry) stamp (if applicable)
                - Form I-94, Arrival/ Departure Record (if applicable)
                - Evidence that you entered the United States prior to Jan. 1, 1972
                - Evidence to establish continuous residence since entry

**Note**: An individual applying under the registry provisions is not required to undergo a medical exam.

## Work & Travel Authorization

When you have a pending Form I-485, it is possible for you to apply for authorization to work in the United States and to seek advance parole (advance permission to travel and be admitted to the United States upon your return). For further information, see our Work Authorization and Travel Documents pages. 

11/27/2017

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-377-000]


Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

April 20, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 17, 2001, Northern Border Pipeline 
Company (Northern Border) tendered for filing to become part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed 
on the filing, to become effective May 17, 2001.
    Northern Border states that the purpose of this filing is to revise 
Northern Border's currently effective Rate Schedules to offer 
negotiated rates.
    Copies of this filing have been sent to all of Northern Border's 
contracted shippers and interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Secs. 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance 
with Sec. 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considerd by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10324 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 12-2444

LAWRENCE J. PALMATIER, APPELLANT,

V.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before HAGEL, Chief Judge, and LANCE and GREENBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

On February 11, 2014, the Court affirmed a July 16, 2012, decision of the Board of Veterans'

Appeals (Board) that assigned an effective date of June 11, 2002, for a 40% disability rating for a

low back condition, but declined to address a request for a total disability rating based on individual

unemployability. 

On February 28, 2014, the appellant filed a timely motion for reconsideration and, in the

alternative, for a panel decision. The Court denied Mr. Palmatier's motion for reconsideration,

granted his motion for panel, and retained the single judge decision as the decision of the Court. 

Thereafter, Mr. Palmatier appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(Federal Circuit), which vacated the Court's decision and ordered the Court to remand the matter to

the Board to "determine Mr. Palmatier's proper extraschedular rating from June 2002 to December

2009." Palmatier v. McDonald, No. 2014-7097, slip op. at 8, 2015 WL 5559595, at 4* (Fed. Cir.

Sept. 22, 2015). 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, that the July 16, 2012, Board decision is VACATED, and the matter is

REMANDED for readjudication consistent with this order and the Federal Circuit's remand order. 

DATED: December 10, 2015 PER CURIAM.

Copies to:

Mary Anne Royle, Esq.

VA General Counsel (027)