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

PHARMACOPEIA, INC.

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Pharmacopeia, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, BrianM. Posner, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (PrincipalFinancial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 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 all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| By:    | /s/ Brian M. Posner                                         |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Brian M. Posner                                             |
|   | Executive Vice President,                                   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                       |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer and Chief Accounting  Officer) |
|   | May 10, 2007                                                |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, John M. Sharpe, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the
Board of Directors and Treasurer of INNER SYSTEMS, INC. (the “Company”), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 13th
day of May, 2010.


/s/ John M. Sharpe,
      Jr.John
      M. Sharpe, Jr.Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
INNER SYSTEMS, INC. and will be retained by INNER SYSTEMS, INC. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE of North Carolina v. Matthew James ROGERS.

No. 52P01-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 4, 2004.

Matthew James Rogers, Pro Se.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 13th day of February 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of March 2004."
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 8, 2021

NO. 03-21-00477-CV

Chris Paladino and 4013 Clawson Road, LLC, Appellants

v.

City of Austin, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICE TRIANA, AND JUSTICE KELLY

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 7, 2021. Appellants have

filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court 

agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses

the appeal. The appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of K-Fed Bancorp (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kay M. Hoveland, Chief
Executive 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 and in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q that:

        1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections
                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 company's financial condition and results
                of operations.


Date: November 7, 2005                            /s/ Kay M. Hoveland
      ----------------                            --------------------------
                                                  Kay M. Hoveland
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6121
TERRY SHIPMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MICHAEL W. MOORE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; OFFICER QUICK; OFFICER DUPREE, Defendants - Appellees, and TWO UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, Evans Transportation Unit, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA96-285-4-18BE) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Terry Shipmon, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Foster McLeod, GRIGGS, SPRUILL & HARRIS, Cheraw, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Shipmon v. South Carolina Dep't of Corr. , No. CA-96-285-4-18BE (D.S.C. Jan. 9, 1997). 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
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Michel Mayer, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2004 (the Quarterly Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of
Section 906.



Dated: August 11, 2004



/s/ Michel MayerMichel Mayer Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
## **Exhibit 31.2**

## CERTIFICATION

I, Joseph J. Jaeger, certify that:

1.               Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Physicians FormulaHoldings, Inc.;

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.              evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c.               disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.               all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b.              any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 20, 2006
| By:    | /s/ Joseph J. Jaeger    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Joseph J. Jaeger        |   |
| Title: | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Walter Clark ERWIN v. Lena Lowdermilk TWEED.

No. 499A03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 4, 2004.

William F. Lipscomb, Wilkesboro, for N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins.

Bryce Thomas, Jr., Hickory, for W.C. Erwin.

Prior report: 159 N.CApp. 579, 583 S.E.2d 717.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by unnamed Defendant (N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company) on the 9th day of September 2003 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of March 2004."

Defendant shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Defendant's new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more that 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1287 KA 10-00522
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PAUL VERBITSKY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOHN H. CRANDALL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HERKIMER (JACQUELYN M. ASNOE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Herkimer County Court (Patrick L. Kirk, J.), rendered August 4, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced term of incarceration based on postplea acts committed by defendant. “[T]o satisfy due process, a sentencing court must, prior to imposing the prison alternative pursuant to a plea agreement, conduct an inquiry sufficient to conclude that a violation of the plea agreement occurred” ( People v Valencia , 3 NY3d 714, 715; see People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702, 713), and the court made the requisite inquiry here ( see Valencia , 3 NY3d at 715; People v McGrath , 67 AD3d 1475, 1476, lv denied 14 NY3d 803). We reject defendant’s further contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the sentence imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment ( see People v Rogers , 63 AD3d 1631, lv denied 13 NY3d 745, 749; People v Clark , 61 AD3d 1426, 1427, lv denied 12 NY3d 913) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit ( see People v Holmquist , 5 AD3d 1041, lv denied 2 NY3d 800).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<Page>

                                                               Exhibit 10.21(b)

                            MILLENNIUM CHEMICALS INC.

                            Amendment Number 1 to the

                            MILLENNIUM CHEMICALS INC.
                            LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN,
                 as amended and restated as of January 26, 2001
                                  (the "Plan")

The Plan shall be, and it hereby is, amended effective June 1, 2002 as follows:

Subparagraph "(d)" of the definition of "Change in Control" in Section 2.9 of
the Plan shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

     (d)  the stockholders of the Company approve a plan of complete liquidation
          of the Company or the closing of the sale or disposition by the
          Company of all or substantially all of the Company's assets other than
          the sale or disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of
          the Company to one or more Subsidiaries (as defined below) of the
          Company or to a person or persons who beneficially own, directly or
          indirectly, at least fifty percent (50%) or more of the combined
          voting power of the outstanding voting securities of the Company at
          the time of the sale or disposition provided, however, (y) the sale or
          disposition of all or any part of the Company's interests in Equistar
          Chemicals, LP ("Equistar") (and all subsequent sales and dispositions
          of any securities or assets received as proceeds thereof, or as
          proceeds of proceeds) shall not be deemed to constitute a Change in
          Control, and (z) if the Company sells or disposes of all or any part
          of the Company's interests in Equistar indirectly (either through the
          sale or other disposition of any entity that owns, directly or
          indirectly, all or any part of the Company's interests in Equistar, or
          otherwise), then the sale or disposition of the Company's interests in
          Equistar (and all subsequent sales and dispositions of any securities
          or assets received as proceeds thereof, or as proceeds of proceeds)
          shall be ignored and disregarded in determining whether any such
          Change in Control has occurred. By way of illustration, if an indirect
          subsidiary of the Company that owns the Company's interests in
          Equistar together with certain other assets is sold, then, in
          determining whether a Change in Control has occurred, all relevant
          determinations shall be made pursuant to the assumption that (y) such
          subsidiary owns only such other assets, and (z) neither such
          subsidiary nor the Company owns, either directly or indirectly, the
          interests in Equistar. Only one (1) Change in Control may take place
          under this Plan.
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each  of the  undersigned  officers  of  Veridium
Corporation (the "Company"), certifies that:

     1.   The  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB of the  Company  for the three
          months  ended June 30, 2004 (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.




Veridium Corporation


               /S/      KEVIN E. KREISLER
               --------------------------
By:                     KEVIN E. KREISLER
                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Date:                   August 13, 2004


               /S/      JIM GREEN
               ------------------
By:                     JIM GREEN
                        President, Chief Operational Officer and
                          Acting Chief Financial Officer
Date:                   August 13, 2004


This  certification  is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF FAYETTEVILLE NORTH CAROLINA, INC., James Edward Graves, Jim Graves & Associates, Inc., John McNatt Gillis, Gillis Development Corporation, Inc., Charles A. Gore, Gore Built Homes, Inc., Edgar Clay Bullard, Regal Industries, Inc., Watson G. Caviness, Caviness & Cates Building and Development Company, Ralph D. Huff, III, H & H Constructors, Inc., George Armstrong, CRA Home Builders, Inc., Harold Kidd, Kidd Construction Co., Inc., Lawrence Wayne Hardin, Hardin Builders, Inc., Jackie Hairr, HCC Investments, LLC, Mike Howard, Howard Builders LLC, Ronald W. Smith, R.W.S. General Builders, LLC, Thomas L. Bradford, Elmwood Partners, LLC., Tami Schaller, v. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE.

No. 343P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2004.

Robert E. Hornick, Jr., for Kegley, et al.

Karen M. McDonald, City Attorney, Anthony Fox, Charlotte, C. Wes Hodges, II, Wilmington, for City of Fayetteville.

***ORDER***

This Court allowed a temporary stay in this case on 12 July 2004. As to the other motions filed in the cause, the Court orders as follows:

Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Supersedeas is allowed. The portion of Judge Locklear's Order of 28 June 2004 that provides *861that "neither [petitioners'] Petition or Amended Petition, nor any other aspect of this proceeding, shall modify the June 30, 2004 effective date of the City's Annexation Ordinance" is stayed pending appeal.

Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' Order entered 7 July 2004 dissolving the temporary stay of the Annexation Ordinance and denying petitioners' Petition for Writ of Supersedeas to the Court of Appeals is denied.

Petitioners' Petition for Discretionary Review (prior to determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals) to consider petitioners' appeal from the Cumberland County Superior Court Order dismissing their underlying petition is denied.

Petitioners' application for an order staying the portions of Judge Locklear's Order to the effect that respondent's Annexation Ordinance is effectively amended to make the effective date of the ordinance the last day of the next full calendar month following the date of the final judgment in connection with petitioners' appeal to the appellate division, is allowed.

Respondent's Urgent Motion to Dissolve Temporary Stay or, Alternatively, to Expedite Review, is denied.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 13th day of July, 2004.