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





**CERTIFICATION
      BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**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 GenVec, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form
      10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Douglas J. Swirsky, as Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
      Corporate Secretary of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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
                Registrant for the dates and periods covered by the
                Report.





This
      certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used
      by
      any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by
      law.





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





March
                17, 2008/s/
                Douglas J. SwirskyDouglas
                J. SwirskyChief
                Financial Officer, Treasurer
              &
                Corporate Secretary
#### Eva Lou GRAY v. JOHN JOVINO COMPANY, INC.

No. CIV-2-78-172.

United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division.

June 1, 1979.

Edward R. Sempkowski, Charles R. Terry & Associates, Morristown, Tenn., for plaintiff.

John F. Dugger, Bacon, Dugger & Jessee, Morristown, Tenn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NEESE, District Judge.

The parties tendered to the Court a proposed agreed order setting-aside the entry of the defendant’s default herein of April 6, 1979. Good cause for setting-aside such default not having been shown, the Court declines to enter said order.

This Court is authorized to set aside the entry of a default “ * * * [f]or *47good cause shown * * Rule 55(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While this Court construes Rule 55(c), *supra,*liberally to provide relief from the onerous consequences of a default, *Johnson v. Harper,*D.C.Tenn. (1975), 66 F.R.D. 103, 104, there must be a sufficient showing of good cause before a default will be set aside, see *Kennedy v. ARO, Inc.,*D.C.Tenn. (1977), 447 F.Supp. 1083, 1086-1089.

Although the parties may stipulate as to certain factual matters relating to the issue of good cause, the Court is not aware of any authority it has to set-aside a default merely by agreement of the parties. Even where a default has not been formally entered by the clerk, a defaulting defendant is required to apply to the court for relief on a showing of good cause before it is permitted to file an answer. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.) 55-231, ¶55.10[1]; 10 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 297-298, § 2692.

The setting-aside of a default is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. *Smith v. Kincaid,*C.A. 6th (1957), 249 F.2d 243, 245[3]. In exercising this discretion, it is necessary for the Court to balance what are at times conflicting policy-goals: the need for prompt and efficient handling of litigation in the federal courts by sound application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the attainment of a just resolution of the particular dispute before the court. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, *supra,*at 55-251-2, ¶ 55.10[4].

 Where a default is sought to be set aside, the party in default “ * * * should make a formal motion * * *Ibid.,*at 55-232, ¶ 55.10[1]. And, as was stated by a panel, upon which sat the late Judge Learned Hand, even where it is the plaintiff who seeks to set aside the defendant’s default, “ * * * whoever makes the motion must show an adequate basis for it. * * * ” *Ferraro v. Arthur M. Rosenberg Co.,*C.C.A.2d (1946), 156 F.2d 212, 214[2].
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1596 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1596

  Condemning al Shabaab for its practice of child conscription in the 
                            Horn of Africa.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2010

Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California (for himself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. 
Wolf, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey) submitted the following resolution; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Condemning al Shabaab for its practice of child conscription in the 
                            Horn of Africa.

Whereas according to the United States State Department Trafficking in Persons 
        Report in June 2010, the recruitment and use of children in militias and 
        other fighting forces is a longstanding practice by al Shabaab which has 
        continued through this year;
Whereas a January 2010 United Nations report indicated that the number of child 
        soldiers in Somalia had increased over the last 3 years, with widespread 
        recruitment from schools, madrasas, and among street children;
Whereas during the reporting period of the United Nations report, al Shabaab 
        used force and deception to exploit orphaned and street children for use 
        in armed conflict, carrying out assassinations, planting bombs, 
        portering, and domestic servitude;
Whereas al Shabaab systematically and forcibly conscripted children, sometimes 
        as young as 8 years of age, from southern Somalia and Puntland;
Whereas the group also forcibly recruited girls who were then ``married off'' to 
        its militia leaders and used for logistical support and intelligence 
        gathering;
Whereas al Shababb recently extended its terror internationally to Uganda where 
        it slaughtered 76 civilians including 1 United States citizen during a 
        bombing; and
Whereas al Shabaab has openly affiliated itself with the al Qaeda terrorist 
        network and has recruited from the United States proving it is a 
        legitimate threat to the national security of the United States: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives condemns al Shabaab for 
its practice of child conscription in the Horn of Africa.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.2


 


Richard Pyontek


16 Alden Circle


West Caldwell, NJ 07006


 


June 24, 2011


 


Dear Rick:


 


We are pleased to confirm our offer and your acceptance of the
Director of Accounting position with SYMS. In this capacity you will report directly to Sissy Geiger, VP, Controller. Please review
the following employment arrangements:


 


	Start date:	July 18, 2011
	 	 
	Base Compensation:	An annualized salary of $160,000, paid through bi-weekly payroll periods.  
	 	 
	Vacation:	One week (August 22 – 26) for the remainder of calendar year 2011; three weeks annually effective January 1, 2012.
	 	 
	Benefits:	Your benefits will include those normally accorded exempt salaried co-workers of SYMS Corp.  A benefits package will be sent to you under separate cover; we will review your benefits plan in detail upon your start date.  However, if you have questions prior please feel free to contact me at (201) 902-9600, ext 166.
	 	 
	Severance:	You will be entitled to severance equal to three months salary should your employment be terminated without cause due to a sale of the company.


 


This offer in no way changes your status as an at-will employee
as set forth in our Co-worker Handbook. Please fax the signed acceptance to (201) 902-0758. If I can answer any questions please
feel free to call me.


 


	Sincerely,	 
	/s/ Ann M. Keefe	 
	Ann M. Keefe	 
	Senior Vice President, Human Resources


 


	Accepted:	/s/ Richard Pyontek	Date:	    6/28/11    
	 	  Richard Pyontek
| **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 84--055 | **NYME        Amendments, New York Harbor Leaded Regular Gasoline        Futures** |
|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| FR        DATE: | 12/13/84 |
|------------------|----------|

| **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 85--001 | **Trade        Time-Sequencing Standards and Exchange Audit Trail Systems,** |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | **Regulation 1.35** |
|--|---------------------|

| FR        DATE: | 12/27/84 |
|------------------|----------|

| **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
Previous
Next
Last
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DAVID LAIKEN 

CITATION: 23 Agric. Dec. 1203 

DOCKET NUMBER: 113 

DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1964 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER 

NOTE: ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT WAS NOT REPORTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL 

DECISIONS IS AVAILABLE IN THIS DATABASE 

(No. 9374) 

In re DAVID LAIKEN. CEA Docket No. 113. Order issued October 19, 1964, by 

Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
#### David TAMPAKE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74534.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008 *.

Filed Sept. 8, 2008.

*584Kaaren L. Barr, Esquire, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kristina Ren-cic Sracic, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent. '

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David Tampake, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *Ordonez v. INS,*345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003). We review due process claims de novo. *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Tampake filed his motion out of time and did not fall within the time limit exception of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h) because he did not establish changed circumstances in Indonesia sufficient to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. The motion to reopen did not establish that Tampake had a sufficient level of individualized risk. *Cf Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cm. 2004) (finding sufficient individualized risk of future persecution where native Indonesians threatened applicant directly, vandalized her ear often with sexist and racist remarks, and stoned her boarding house whhe shouting her name and racist threats); *Lolong v. Gonzales,*484 F.3d 1173, 1181 n. 5 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (requiring some evidence of unique risk of *585persecution distinct from mere membership in disfavored group).

Tampake also claims the BIA violated his due process right to a fair hearing because it did not allow him to present evidence of changed circumstances in an evidentiary hearing. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, denial of an evidentiary hearing did not violate due process. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (stating that motion to reopen shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material); *see also Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Federal Register: September 22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 50557]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22se98-52]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 2, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-25433 Filed 9-18-98; 1:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15040]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-39,209]


Mayfair Mills, Arcadia, SC; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on May 7, 2001 in response to a worker petition which was 
filed on May 7, 2001 on behalf of workers at Mayfair Mills, Arcadia, 
South Carolina.
    An existing investigation is underway for this worker group (TA-W-
38940). Eligibility will be determined by the results of that 
investigation. Consequently, further investigation in this case would 
serve no purpose, and this investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 25th day of May, 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-15040 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
No. 461.

#### West *v.*Miller et al.

October 28, 1935.

*Mr. Alvin E. Stein*for petitioner.

*Messrs. Harry P. Weber*and *Henry F. Tenney*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.6


 


Second
AMENDED AND RESTATED

SECURED REVOLVING NOTE


	$50,000,000	 
	 	Maturity Date:  May 6, 2019


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, ACME UNITED CORPORATION, a Connecticut corporation (“Borrower”) hereby promises to pay to the order
of HSBC Bank, National Association or the holder (the “Lender”) of this Secured Revolving Note (this “Revolving
Note”) at 452 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York or such other place of payment as the holder of this Revolving Note may specify
from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal amount of Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000)
or such other principal amount as Lender has advanced to Borrower, together with interest at a rate as specified in the Loan Agreement
(defined hereafter). 


 


This
Revolving Note is the Revolving Note referred to in, and is executed and delivered in connection with, that certain Loan and Security
Agreement dated April 5, 2012, by and between Borrower and Lender (as the same may from time to time be amended, modified or supplemented
in accordance with its terms, the “Loan Agreement”), and is entitled to the benefit and security of the Loan Agreement
and the other Loan Documents (as defined in the Loan Agreement), to which reference is made for a statement of all of the terms
and conditions thereof. All payments shall be made in accordance with the Loan Agreement. All terms defined in the Loan Agreement
shall have the same definitions when used herein, unless otherwise defined herein. An Event of Default under the Loan Agreement
shall constitute a default under this Revolving Note. 


 


Borrower
waives presentment and demand for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest under the UCC or any applicable law.
Borrower agrees to make all payments under this Revolving Note without setoff, recoupment or deduction and regardless of any counterclaim
or defense. This Revolving Note has been negotiated and delivered to Lender and is payable in the State of New York. This Revolving
Note shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, excluding any conflicts
of law rules or principles that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.


 


This Revolving Note amends
and restates in its entirety and is given in substitution for (but not in satisfaction of) that certain Amended and Restated Secured
Revolving Note dated April 22, 2013 executed by Borrower in favor of Lender in the original principal amount of $40,000,000.


 


[Remainder
of Page Intentionally Left Blank]


 












    	 	1	 



     

    

 











	BORROWER FOR ITSELF	ACME
UNITED CORPORATION
	 	 	
	 	By:	 
	 	Signature
	 	Title:



 






 











	2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2713EA

_____________

Fred DuVall, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Mike Bridges, in his individual capacity *

and as Sheriff of Van Buren County, *

Arkansas; Stephen E. James, in his *

individual capacity and as Deputy * Appeal from the United States

Prosecuting Attorney for Van Buren * District Court for the Eastern

County, Arkansas; County of Van * District of Arkansas.

Buren, Arkansas; *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendants-Appellees, *

*

Larry E. Kuykendall, doing business as *

Kuykendall Cement Co.; *

*

Defendant, *

*

State of Arkansas, *

*

Defendant-Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: December 7, 1998

Filed: December 10, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
-2-

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Fred DuVall appeals the district court's dismissal of DuVall's 42 U.S.C. § 1983

lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Having carefully reviewed the record

and the parties' submissions, we conclude the district court properly dismissed DuVall's

action. We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1520/2004

of 26 August 2004         

fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds referred to in Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 on products exported in the natural state shall be as set out in the Annex.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 27 August 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 August 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 20, 27.1.1999, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1948/2003 (OJ L 287, 5.11.2003, p. 13).

(3)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

(4)OJ L 91, 1.4.1984, p. 71. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 222/88 (OJ L 28, 1.2.1988, p. 1).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 26 August 2004 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. AN ARTICLE OF FOOD CONSISTING OF the FOLLOWING: 60 CASES, MORE OR LESS, EACH CONTAINING 12/50 TABLET BOTTLES . . . all labeled in part: . . . (bottle) “Aangamik 15 Calcium Pangamate, etc., Defendant. Foodscience Laboratories Incorporated, Claimant.

Nos. 77 C 662, 77 C 3314, 77 C 1647, 77 C 1526, 77 C 4219 and 77 C 3210.

United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

July 9, 1979.

James T. Hynes, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Robert Ullman, Bass, Ullman & Lustigman, New York City, John F. Sembower, Robert C. Smith, Jr., Russell, Bridewell, Sembower & Cook, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

ORDER

ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.

This cause comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

This case involves a complaint for forfeiture involving shipments by the claimant of defendant articles of food which were allegedly adulterated and misbranded. Plaintiff has asked for leave to file an amended complaint which would grant injunctive relief against claimant if the allegations of the original complaint are proven true. In *Fresh Grown Preserve Corp. v. United States,*143 F.2d 191, 195 (6th Cir. 1944), in a case involving adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the court noted:

> a court having jurisdiction of the principal cause, possesses jurisdiction over all its incidents, and may by motion, attachment, or execution enforce its decrees against all who become parties to the proceedings.

*230Consistent with this opinion is the case of *United States v. 184 Barrels Dried Whole Eggs,*53 F.Supp. 652 (E.D.Wis.1943). That case involved a situation nearly identical to the instant case. The court there held that in a proceeding in rem for condemnation of allegedly adulterated dried whole eggs, amendment of the pleadings to include a prayer for injunctive relief against the claimant was allowed because the prayer for condemnation and the prayer for an injunction both grew out of the same transaction and the basic issues were identical. The court finds that case indistinguishable from the instant action.

Accordingly, in order to further the ends of justice, eliminate multiplicity of actions and save expense to the parties, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted. Defendant is given twenty (20) days to answer or otherwise plead after said amendment. This cause is set for status hearing on September 12, 1979 at 9:30 A.M.