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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fulton BancsharesCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, David W. Cathell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date: August 10, 2005 | By:                       | /s/David W. Cathell |   |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                  | David W. Cathell ,        |
|                  | Senior Vice President and |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

----
Adrian Deon HUNTER, petitioner, v. Warren L. MONTGOMERY, Warden.

No. 16-6149.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
David COX, petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

No. 16-6001.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
Marcus Darnell EBRON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-5758.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
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 Cost-U-Less, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin P. Moore, 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)
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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:  November 13, 2007


| | /s/ Martin P. Moore
        Martin P. Moore
        Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
**Fidelity**®**Global Commodity Stock Fund**

**Class**/Ticker

**Fidelity Global Commodity Stock Fund**/FFGCX

In this prospectus, the term "shares" (as it relates to the fund) means the class of shares offered through this prospectus.

**Summary Prospectus**

**December 29, 2012**
Derrick Lamont EVANS, aka Shank, aka Dechee Dan, aka Big Head, aka Debo, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6091.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2278** 

In re: GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. (No. 3:11

- cv - 00125

- HEH)

Submitted : February 26, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gary Buterra Williams p etitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to act on his petition for removal of a state prosecution
. Since Williams filed his petition, however, the district court entered an order remanding the prose cution to state court. See Buterra v. Circuit Court for City of Suffolk , No. 3:11

- cv - 00125

- HEH (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2012). We therefore deny Williams’ petition as
moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately p resented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

PETITION DENIED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jose Liberado VARGAS-CASTANEDA, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 07-50421.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 4, 2008.

*542USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

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 **

Jose Liberado Vargas-Castañeda appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Vargas-Castaneda’s motion to file his untimely reply brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief received on April 9, 2008.

Vargas-Castaneda contends that his underlying deportation proceeding was invalid because the immigration judge failed to advise him that he was eligible to apply for waiver of deportation, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). We conclude that Vargas-Castaneda was not prejudiced by any defect in his deportation proceeding. Vargas-Castaneda has not shown a plausible ground for relief from deportation because the evidence of extreme hardship to his United States citizen children is insufficient. *See United States v. Muro-Inclan,*249 F.3d 1180, 1185-86 (9th Cir.2001).

We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the reference in the judgment to “8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b).” *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
INDUSTRIAL REAL PROPERTY LEASE
 Second
Amendment BENNING STREET, LLC, Landlord NATIONAL
WAREHOUSE INVESTMENT COMPANY Original
Landlord THERMAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION Tenant
 W
I T N E S S E T H:
 Lease
      Landlord Party.




---



##### 



Notice Addresses.
 Landlord:
    
    Benning Street, LLCc/o First American Realty, Inc.100 Central Street, P.O. Box 646Worcester, MA 01613-0646[Phone:(508) 798-8844][Fax: (508) 756-4080]Tenant:
    
    Thermal Dynamics Corporationc/o Thermadyne Holdings CorporationAttn: General Counsel16052 Swingley Ridge Road, Suite 300St. Louis, MO 63017[Phone:(636)728-3133][Fax: 636-728-3010]
 Exercise of Second Extension Period.
 Amendment of Certain Lease Provisions.
  CPI
Adjustment Date.
   Time Period
    
    Monthly Rent AmountJuly 1, 2008  June 30, 2009
    
    $
    104,000.00July 1,2009
 June 30, 2010
    
    $
    91,000.00July 1,2010
 June 30, 2011
    
    $
    78,000.00
  2




---



##### 



First
Extension Period Second Extension Period Third Extension Period Fourth Extension
Period) Extension Period
     3




---



##### 



Capital Improvement.
 Guarantors Consent and Affirmation.
 Authority of Parties.
 Capitalized Terms.
 Entire Agreement.
 [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
 4




---



##### 



BENNING STREET, LLC,a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    
    First American Realty, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation, its ManagerBy:
    
    /s/ Philip O. Shwachman,

Philip O. Shwachman,President and TreasurerTHERMAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION,a Delaware corporationBy:
    
    /s/ Paul D. Melnuk

Paul D. MelnukChief Executive OfficerTHERMADYNE HOLDINGS
CORPORATION,a Delaware corporationBy:
    
    /s/ Paul D. MelnukPaul D. MelnukChairman and Chief Executive Officer
 5
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Q & A – Final Rulemaking on Agricultural Swaps 

What is the purpose of the rulemaking? 

The final rulemaking adopts rules to repeal and replace Part 35 of the Commission’s regulations and which will 

explicitly permit swaps in an agricultural commodity. The rules were originally proposed on February 3, 2011 (See 

Commodity Options and Agricultural Swaps, 76 FR 6095). The rules contained in new Part 35 will provide that 

swaps in an agricultural commodity are permitted to transact subject to the same provisions of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (CEA) – and any rule, regulation, or order thereunder – applicable to all other swaps. 

What is the scope of the final rulemaking? 

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on February 3, 2011 included (1) proposed rules for swaps in an 

agricultural commodity and (2) proposed rules for commodity options, including agricultural options. At this time, 

the Commission is only finalizing the agricultural swaps piece of the proposed rules (repealing and replacing Part 

35), and is continuing to review and consider the comments received on the proposed commodity options rules. 

Any final rules addressing commodity options will be issued at a later date. 

What are the revisions to Part 35? 

The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits swaps in an agricultural commodity unless conducted pursuant to a rule or order 

adopted pursuant to the Commission’s authority in CEA section 4(c). Accordingly, the rules replacing existing Part 

35 are being adopted pursuant to CEA section 4(c) (and also pursuant to CEA section 4c(b)) and will explicitly 

permit the transaction of swaps in an agricultural commodity subject to the same provisions of the CEA – and any 

rule, regulation, or order thereunder – applicable to all other swaps. New Part 35 will also explicitly provide that 

swaps in an agricultural commodity may transact on a swap execution facility (SEF) and/or designated contract 

market (DCM) to the same extent that any other swap may transact on a SEF and/or DCM. 

What will be the effective date of the final rules? 

Absent further Commission action, the repeal of existing Part 35 and the addition of new Part 35 (the new 

agricultural swaps rules) will both have an effective date of December 31, 2011. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARCIANO DORT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3500

[May 21, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

312010CF000646A.

Marciano Dort, Indiantown, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Remarks of
Edward J. Rosen
CFTC Technology Advisory Committee
April 28, 2004

FIA Perspectives
. on the

Emerging Significance of Patent Claims

1. OVERVIEW

a

A spate of recent patent related litigations have caught the attention of the
futures and securities industries.

i. “Wagner” patent.
ii. eSpeed “Workup” patent.

iii. Trading Technologies “static ladder”/’single action” execution
patents.

Industry reaction reminiscent of the reaction to the issuance of the first
business method patents for financial products in the early ‘90’s.

i. Widespread consternation.

ii. Strongly held views that the relevant claims were either not novel or
were obvious.

Some threshold observations.
i. Patent law is generally not well understood within the futures industry.

ii. Industry observers are quickly becoming aware of the enormous power
of patents.

iii. The trend toward patent prosecution will likely accelerate for reasons
that are both:

1. Strategic; and

2. Defensive.



d. Related observations.
i. Patent defense is extraordinarily expensive.

ii. Patent issuance conveys enormous economic leverage.

iii. Issuance of patents can profoundly impact both:
1. Cost of access to markets; and
2. Competition.

iv. The stakes can be profound.

v. We have seen only the tip of the iceberg.

2. FIA PERSPECTIVES

a. Because of the potentially enormous power and transformative effect of
patents, and the direct cost and competitive implications:

i. Itis vital the PTO and the courts get it right.

ii. The industry should explore how it can play a role in promoting that
result.

b. The FIA Board has formed a committee of the board to formulate specific
recommendations as to specific initiatives in which the FIA can Participate to
promote prudent and informed decisions by the industry, the PTO and the
courts.

3. SPECIFIC INITIATIVES

a. Sponsoring continuing education for futures industry participants regarding
patent law.

b. Participating in systematic archiving of relevant “prior art” and
“contemporary art”.

Challenges:
i. Sponsorship/ownership/funding;
ii. Facilities: dedicated hardware and data storage;

iii. Database design and taxonomy;



iv. Data collection (initial and ongoing);
v. Maintenance and support;
vi. Access.

c. Exploring avenues for contributing to the education of PTO examiners
regarding the futures industry and related technology.

d. Monitoring of:
i. PTO issuances, denials and application publications;
ii. Judicial actions and decisions.
Challenges:
i, Developing a mechanism to reliably identify and track developments;

ii. Balancing the desire for information against concerns regarding “notice”
of patent claims.

e. Monitoring legislative and judicial developments that may present a need or
opportunity for FIA support or intervention.

f. Reaching out to and coordinating with other associations, organizations and
agencies in pursuit of these initiatives.
First Department,

March, 2009

(March 3, 2009)

#### Regiany Mauro et al., Respondents, v Rosedale Enterprises et al., Appellants.

[873 NYS2d 627]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 5, 2008, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

On an October evening in 2005, plaintiff Regiany Mauro sustained injuries in a Burger King parking lot. She was in the process of removing her son from the rear seat of the family vehicle when she stepped backward over a concrete curb, onto a grassy area she believed to be higher than it was. She lost her balance and fell, fracturing her foot.

Defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary relief by demonstrating that the condition of the curb and of the adjacent grassy area was readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses *(Capozzi v Huhne,*14 AD3d 474 [2005]; *see also Tushaj v City of New York,*258 AD2d 283 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 818 [1999]). Plaintiffs in turn failed to demonstrate the existence of an actionable defect.

We need not determine whether the affidavit of plaintiffs’ expert engineer should not have been considered in light of plaintiffs’ failure to identify this expert during pretrial disclosure, despite repeated court orders to do so *(compare Construction by Singletree, Inc. v Lowe,*55 AD3d 861 [2d Dept 2008], *and DeLeon v State of New York,*22 AD3d 786, 787 [2d Dept 2005], *lv denied*7 NY3d 701 [2006], *with Kozlowski v Alcan Aluminum Corp.,*209 AD2d 930 [4th Dept 1994]; *see*Connors, *Case Law on CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i], Expert Disclosure,*
      *402
      *is in Shambles,*NYLJ, Jan. 20, 2009, at 3, col 1). The expert affidavit, even if considered, fails to raise a triable issue of fact, instead citing various broad or inapt engineering rules, regulations and standards *(see Amaya v Denihan Ownership Co., LLC,*30 AD3d 327 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, McGuire, Moskowitz and Freedman, JJ.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1878/2004

of 28 October 2004         

derogating from Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2261/84 as regards the fixing of the olive yields and oil yields in Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 41 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 2004/05 marketing year, Article 5(7) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC and Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 2261/84 shall not apply to Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 October 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 208, 3.8.1984, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/1998 (OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 38).

(2)OJ 172, 30.9.1966, p. 3025/66. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2004 (OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 97).

----
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 PLX Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arthur O. Whipple, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:
  1.
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
  2.
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods indicated.
  This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
  Date: May
6, 2010
  By: /s/ Arthur O.
Whipple


Arthur O.
Whipple
 Chief Financial
Officer
  38
EXHIBIT
      32.2








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


ADOPTED
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana
      corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2007,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, John Fisbeck, acting Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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





2.
      The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  July
                16, 2007
            By:
                /s/ John FisbeckJohn
                Fisbeck,Principal
                Financial Officer (acting)
Edwin R. MELHORN, petitioner, v. BALTIMORE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, et al.

No. 16-245.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1600/2004

of 13 September 2004         

prohibiting fishing for anglerfish by vessels flying the flag of France

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Catches of anglerfish in the waters of ICES division VIIIc, sub-areas IX and X and CECAF 34.1.1 (EC waters) by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France are hereby deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to France for 2004.

Fishing for anglerfish in the waters of ICES division VIIIc, sub-areas IX and X and CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France is hereby prohibited, as are the retention on board, transhipment and landing of this stock caught by the above vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 17 July 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 13 September 2004.

For the Commission

Jörgen HOLMQUIST            

Director-General for Fisheries

----

(1)OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 344, 31.12.2003, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 867/2004 (OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 144).

----